FS50132656: 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" |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50132656 | |dn_ref=FS50132656 | ||
|dn_date=13 | |dn_date=13 September 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=London Borough of Redbridge | |dn_pa=London Borough of Redbridge | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested from the London Borough of Redbridge ( | |dn_summary=The complainant requested from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) confirmation of the dates of ingoing and outgoing correspondence taken directly from what he referred to as “the Leisure Department Correspondence Database” (“the database”). The complainant’s belief in the existence of the database was based on telephone conversations between himself and officers in the Leisure Department which the complainant recorded. Although the Council dealt with the request as a general enquiry, it did communicate to the complainant that the database did not exist and therefore satisfied its obligations under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Council maintained this position during the course of the investigation and, despite the complainant’s recordings of telephone conversations, the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) is satisfied that the database does not exist and therefore the information requested is not held. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50132656.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50132656.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
|1=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 23:29, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50132656
- Date: 13 September 2007
- Public Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
- Summary: The complainant requested from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) confirmation of the dates of ingoing and outgoing correspondence taken directly from what he referred to as “the Leisure Department Correspondence Database” (“the database”). The complainant’s belief in the existence of the database was based on telephone conversations between himself and officers in the Leisure Department which the complainant recorded. Although the Council dealt with the request as a general enquiry, it did communicate to the complainant that the database did not exist and therefore satisfied its obligations under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Council maintained this position during the course of the investigation and, despite the complainant’s recordings of telephone conversations, the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) is satisfied that the database does not exist and therefore the information requested is not held.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions