FS50163685: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(XML import)
(CSV import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50163685
|dn_ref=FS50163685
|dn_date=09/11/2009
|dn_date=9 November 2009
|dn_pa=Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
|dn_pa=Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
|dn_summary=The complainant asked the DVLA for information relating to vehicle licensing penalties. The Commissioner found that the DVLA acted correctly in refusing part of the request by virtue of section 31(1)(d) of the Act, and in refusing of the remainder of the request under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the DVLA had breached section 1(1)(a) and 17(5) of the Act.
|dn_summary=The complainant asked the DVLA for information relating to vehicle licensing penalties. The Commissioner found that the DVLA acted correctly in refusing part of the request by virtue of section 31(1)(d) of the Act, and in refusing of the remainder of the request under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the DVLA had breached section 1(1)(a) and 17(5) of the Act.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50163685.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50163685.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision1
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision2
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision3
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision4
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 22:29, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50163685
  • Date: 9 November 2009
  • Public Authority: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  • Summary: The complainant asked the DVLA for information relating to vehicle licensing penalties. The Commissioner found that the DVLA acted correctly in refusing part of the request by virtue of section 31(1)(d) of the Act, and in refusing of the remainder of the request under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the DVLA had breached section 1(1)(a) and 17(5) of the Act.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4