FS50103691: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
 
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50103691
|dn_ref=FS50103691
|dn_date=17/09/2007
|dn_date=17 September 2007
|dn_pa=Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
|dn_pa=Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
|dn_summary=The complainant requested details of a Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (�VOSA�) examiner�s maintenance report and findings. VOSA refused this request under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the �Act�). During the course of the investigation, VOSA also submitted that the information was exempt under section 32 of the Act. Having considered VOSA�s submissions the Commissioner has decided that the exemptions cited by VOSA were not applicable. However he has decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the Act because it constituted personal data of the subject of the report and the disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (�DPA�). In addition, he has decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act as it failed to adequately explain in its refusal notice which part of section 31 it was relying on and why it applied.
|dn_summary=The complainant requested details of a Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (“VOSA”) examiner’s maintenance report and findings. VOSA refused this request under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). During the course of the investigation, VOSA also submitted that the information was exempt under section 32 of the Act. Having considered VOSA’s submissions the Commissioner has decided that the exemptions cited by VOSA were not applicable. However he has decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the Act because it constituted personal data of the subject of the report and the disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). In addition, he has decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act as it failed to adequately explain in its refusal notice which part of section 31 it was relying on and why it applied.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50103691.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50103691.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|2=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 32
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:26, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50103691
  • Date: 17 September 2007
  • Public Authority: Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
  • Summary: The complainant requested details of a Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (“VOSA”) examiner’s maintenance report and findings. VOSA refused this request under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). During the course of the investigation, VOSA also submitted that the information was exempt under section 32 of the Act. Having considered VOSA’s submissions the Commissioner has decided that the exemptions cited by VOSA were not applicable. However he has decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the Act because it constituted personal data of the subject of the report and the disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). In addition, he has decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act as it failed to adequately explain in its refusal notice which part of section 31 it was relying on and why it applied.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=FS50103691&oldid=16230"