FS50128269: 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/2007/decision_notice_fs50128269.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50128269.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld

Latest revision as of 23:29, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50128269
  • Date: 5 February 2007
  • Public Authority: Royal Surrey County Hospital
  • Summary: The complainant made three requests to the public authority for copies of two x-rays taken during the course of the medical care given to her late husband. The complainant alleged that the public authority failed to respond to the first of these requests within 20 working days. The complainant also complained that the information provided in response to these requests was inadequate because of the poor quality of the first x-ray and the fact that the second x-ray did not fulfil her request. Having investigated the matter, the Commissioner has decided that the information provided did fulfil the complainant’s requests although the public authority did not respond to the first request within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the information was exempt under section 21 of the Act because it was accessible to the applicant under the Access to Health Records Act. The Commissioner has established that the public authority failed to provide the complainant with a refusal notice citing section 21.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]