Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Northamptonshire County Council (Local government (County council)) [2014] UKICO FS50537924 (25 September 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2014/FS50537924.html
Cite as: [2014] UKICO FS50537924
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Northamptonshire County Council
25 September 2014, Local government (County council)
The complainant has requested information relating to actions it took when it handled the death of her father whilst in care. She considers that the council mishandled the estate of her father allowing fraud to take place by her sister. She has asked for details as to why the council took the actions it did, and for the names of council officers who were involved in handling the case. The council answered questions relating to the former, but claimed section 40(2) (personal data) as regards the latter. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requests (which relate to why the council took the actions it did) were not requests for recorded information and are therefore not eligible requests under the Act. He has not therefore considered these further within this decision notice. The Commissioner has also decided that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to the request for the names of officers who were involved in the case. The council also responded to a further request for the number of staff who no longer worked at the council from a list of six individuals. However it initially only provided details for five members of staff rather than six. It did rectify this after the Commissioner’s intervention however its response fell outside of the twenty working days required by section 10(1). The Commissioner's decision is that the council breached section 10(1) in that it did not initially respond providing details of the six named staff within a period of 20 working days. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2014/0264 dismissed
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld