FS50163207: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50163207 | |dn_ref=FS50163207 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=9 March 2010 | ||
|dn_pa=British Council | |dn_pa=British Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the British Council relating to the | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the British Council relating to the Council’s sponsorship of students on English language courses in Libya. The Council refused the request under sections 12 and 14 of the Act. The Commissioner found that the Council had acted correctly in refusing the request under section 12 as the appropriate cost limit would have been exceeded. The Council was not correct to apply section 14 to the request. The Commissioner also found that the Council had breached sections 17(5) and 17(7) of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50163207.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50163207.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:33, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50163207
- Date: 9 March 2010
- Public Authority: British Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the British Council relating to the Council’s sponsorship of students on English language courses in Libya. The Council refused the request under sections 12 and 14 of the Act. The Commissioner found that the Council had acted correctly in refusing the request under section 12 as the appropriate cost limit would have been exceeded. The Council was not correct to apply section 14 to the request. The Commissioner also found that the Council had breached sections 17(5) and 17(7) of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
