FS50131779: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50131779 | |dn_ref=FS50131779 | ||
|dn_date=13 | |dn_date=13 February 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Council of the University of Southampton | |dn_pa=Council of the University of Southampton | ||
|dn_summary=The University received a request for information concerning all of the data, reports, correspondence and memoranda it holds in relation to two Assessment Reports. The University determined that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore issued a Refusal Notice citing section 12 of the Act. The complainant responded to the refusal by limiting the scope of his request to the material relating to a single Assessment Report. The University again refused to comply with the request in reliance of section 12. Furthermore, when it concluded its Internal Review of this case, the University determined that the request additionally failed on the ground that it had been made by a corporate entity and not an individual. The Commissioner has investigated the extent to which the University holds relevant information. He is satisfied that the appropriate limit would be exceeded in complying with the revised request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the University failed in its duty to provide the complainant with advice and assistance and therefore it breached section 16 of the Act. | |dn_summary=The University received a request for information concerning all of the data, reports, correspondence and memoranda it holds in relation to two Assessment Reports. The University determined that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore issued a Refusal Notice citing section 12 of the Act. The complainant responded to the refusal by limiting the scope of his request to the material relating to a single Assessment Report. The University again refused to comply with the request in reliance of section 12. Furthermore, when it concluded its Internal Review of this case, the University determined that the request additionally failed on the ground that it had been made by a corporate entity and not an individual. The Commissioner has investigated the extent to which the University holds relevant information. He is satisfied that the appropriate limit would be exceeded in complying with the revised request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the University failed in its duty to provide the complainant with advice and assistance and therefore it breached section 16 of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50131779.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50131779.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 1 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 16 | |dnd_section=FOI 16 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:26, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50131779
- Date: 13 February 2008
- Public Authority: Council of the University of Southampton
- Summary: The University received a request for information concerning all of the data, reports, correspondence and memoranda it holds in relation to two Assessment Reports. The University determined that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore issued a Refusal Notice citing section 12 of the Act. The complainant responded to the refusal by limiting the scope of his request to the material relating to a single Assessment Report. The University again refused to comply with the request in reliance of section 12. Furthermore, when it concluded its Internal Review of this case, the University determined that the request additionally failed on the ground that it had been made by a corporate entity and not an individual. The Commissioner has investigated the extent to which the University holds relevant information. He is satisfied that the appropriate limit would be exceeded in complying with the revised request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the University failed in its duty to provide the complainant with advice and assistance and therefore it breached section 16 of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
