BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> City of York Council (Local government (City council)) [2015] UKICO FS50568899 (13 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FS50568899.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FS50568899 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
13 May 2015, Local government (City council)
In a ten part request, the complainant has requested information from City of York Council (‘the Council’) about its management of requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council refused to comply with the request as to do so would exceed the cost limit provided under section 12 of the FOIA. It said that if the complainant was to clarify one part and refine another part, it would be able to respond to the request in its entirety within the cost and time limit. The complainant subsequently clarified these two parts; effectively submitting a new, refined request. The Council has not responded to this revised request. With regard to the refined request, the Commissioner’s decision is that City of York Council has breached 10 of the FOIA (time for compliance) and he requires it to comply with the refined request made on 30 October 2014 or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld