FS50148767: 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" |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50148767.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50148767.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 44 | |dnd_section=FOI 44 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 23:30, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50148767
- Date: 1 April 2008
- Public Authority: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
- Summary: The complainant requested from HM Revenue & Customs the files of a group of companies, a pension fund and a trust of which he was once a director and trustee. This information has been withheld under section 44 of the Act (prohibitions on disclosure). The public authority has said that the relevant statutory prohibition is section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue & Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and is satisfied that any information that the public authority holds, which falls within the scope of the request, is covered by the statutory prohibition and that the section 44 exemption applies. However the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and also breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to adequately explain to the complainant why his request was being refused.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions