FS50143930: 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=FS50143930 | |dn_ref=FS50143930 | ||
|dn_date=25 | |dn_date=25 August 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Chief Officer of Essex Police | |dn_pa=Chief Officer of Essex Police | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant submitted several requests in a single letter for information related to the use and operation of a type of speed camera and an additional request for certain contractual information. The public authority refused to provide the information citing sections 12 and 40(1). After internal review, it provided some information caught by the scope of the requests. The Commissioner has concluded that the majority of the requests could be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the cost of compliance but that the public authority failed to justify its application of section 12(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny what it holds within the scope of the complainant’s aggregated requests, and either provide her with that information or explain why it is exempt. The Commissioner also identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the public authority handled this request, namely: sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 16(1) and 17(1). | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50143930.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50143930.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 1 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 16 | |dnd_section=FOI 16 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:27, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50143930
- Date: 25 August 2009
- Public Authority: Chief Officer of Essex Police
- Summary: The complainant submitted several requests in a single letter for information related to the use and operation of a type of speed camera and an additional request for certain contractual information. The public authority refused to provide the information citing sections 12 and 40(1). After internal review, it provided some information caught by the scope of the requests. The Commissioner has concluded that the majority of the requests could be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the cost of compliance but that the public authority failed to justify its application of section 12(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny what it holds within the scope of the complainant’s aggregated requests, and either provide her with that information or explain why it is exempt. The Commissioner also identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the public authority handled this request, namely: sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 16(1) and 17(1).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
