FS50153179: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50153179.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50153179.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision3
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:31, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50153179
  • Date: 27 November 2007
  • Public Authority: Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Summary: The complainant asked Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for information about the course of action it followed after it was notified of a GP’s concerns about injuries sustained by her deceased mother, who was in the care of a third party. The Council interpreted this as a general request to view the deceased’s social services records and refused to disclose the information, stating that it was confidential. The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) asked the Council to reconsider its response in light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and it subsequently claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 40, 41 and 44. The Commissioner considered that the exemptions under sections 40 and 41 applied in respect of the requested information. However he also considered that by taking more than 20 working days to supply a refusal notice, and by not providing sufficient information about exemptions and appeal rights in the notice, the Council breached section 17.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]