FS50188245: 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/2009/fs_50188245.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50188245.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 1 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:36, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50188245
- Date: 28 July 2009
- Public Authority: Brighton and Hove City Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information about the Penalty Charge Notices issued by the Council in respect of parking infringements. The request was framed in such a way as to level allegations at the Council. The Council responded significantly outside the statutory time limits, and concentrated on rebutting the allegations rather than providing a comprehensive response to the request. It eventually provided the requested information following the Information Commissioner’s intervention. As the information was provided the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken, however he found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and (b) and section 10(1) in the way the Council handled the request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
