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!
[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
London Borough of Enfield
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) relating to the redevelopment of Palace Gardens Shopping Centre. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Council later accepted the Commissioner’s view that the information is environmental and therefore relied on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a request falling within the appropriate limit. The Council 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.
EIR 9:
Complaint upheld
EIR 12(4)(b):
Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: ic-136683
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2022/ic-136683.html
