FS50250552: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision")
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50250552.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50250552.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld

Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50250552
  • Date: 24 September 2009
  • Public Authority: Department for Transport
  • Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Department for Transport (DfT) for information relating to the exact salaries and latest bonuses of each Chief Executive of an agency of the DfT and for the Permanent Secretary. The DfT explained that some of the information requested was publicly available. It explained that the 2007-2008 annual reports of the DfT and the relevant agencies contain salary information relating to the individuals concerned within a £5,000 band. The complainant was directed to this information. The exact salaries for 2007-2008 were refused under the exemption contained at section 40(2) of the Act along with the exact salary information for 2008-2009 and bonus information. The Commissioner considers that the DfT correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption to withhold the information relating to the exact salaries and bonuses of the individuals concerned. However the Commissioner considers that the DfT did not explicitly confirm whether or not it held the bonus information within the statutory time for compliance and therefore breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act. As the DfT did not comply with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the Act within the statutory time for compliance it also breached section 10(1) of the Act. Finally in relation to the bonus information, as the DfT did not explain why and under which exemption this information could not be disclosed prior to the Commissioner’s investigation, it breached section 17(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Act.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]