FS50160381: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Text replace - "DNDecision4" to "DNDecision")
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50160381.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50160381.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 16
|dnd_section=FOI 16
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision3
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld

Latest revision as of 23:32, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50160381
  • Date: 18 May 2009
  • Public Authority: Buckinghamshire County Council
  • Summary: The complainants requested data and studies/reports/analyses about the operation of the 11+ system in Buckinghamshire schools. The Council provided some information but refused to provide raw data on the grounds that it was third party personal information, the release of which would contravene the Data Protection Act (section 40(2)). It also provided some reports/analyses, but failed to confirm or deny whether or not it held any other similar information. The Commissioner decided that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested data, where there were more than 5 pupils taking the 11+ test at the school. He also found that the Council did not hold any other studies/reports/analyses which fell within the terms of the information request. However, he found that the Council had committed a number of procedural errors, and was in breach of sections 1(1)(a), and 10(1), of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0046 dismissed.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]