FS50112042: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision4" to "DNDecision") |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:51, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50112042
- Date: 10 October 2007
- Public Authority: Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police
- Summary: The public authority initially refused the information request as vexatious. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority altered its stance and refused the information request under section 12, on the grounds that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of £450. The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act initially in that it inappropriately refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority has complied with the Act in that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost limit, but further finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act in that it did not cite the cost limit when initially refusing the request and that it failed to provide advice and assistance. Although the public authority has breached the Act, the nature of these breaches means that remedial action is not necessary.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
