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 >> Surrey County Council (Local government (County council)) [2017] UKICO FER0659853 (11 October 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2017/FER0659853.html Cite as: [2017] UKICO FER659853, [2017] UKICO FER0659853 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
11 October 2017, Local government (County council)
The complainant requested information relating to the monitoring and inspection of highways from Surrey County Council (the Council). The Council refused the complainant’s request as manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Council also found that the balance of the public interest test favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to respond to two of the complainant’s requests within 20 working days, and that the Council breached regulation 11(4) as it did not issue its internal review to the complainant’s requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to provide a response to the complainant’s requests which is not a refusal under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
EIR 12(4)(a): Upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld
