FS50093255: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50093255 | |dn_ref=FS50093255 | ||
|dn_date=02/07/2007 | |dn_date=02/07/2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust | |dn_pa=Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary= this information would be in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After investigating the complaint and considering the withheld information, the Commissioner was satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the information in question formed part of the personal data of the complainant and his wife, and he therefore decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act. Additionally the Commissioner found that section 36 was not engaged as the public authority had not sought the reasonable opinion of the qualified person. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50093255.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50093255.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 22:04, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50093255
- Date: 02/07/2007
- Public Authority: Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Summary: this information would be in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After investigating the complaint and considering the withheld information, the Commissioner was satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the information in question formed part of the personal data of the complainant and his wife, and he therefore decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act. Additionally the Commissioner found that section 36 was not engaged as the public authority had not sought the reasonable opinion of the qualified person. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions