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 >> Essex County Council (Local government (County council)) [2015] UKICO FS50561162 (15 July 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FS50561162.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FS50561162 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
15 July 2015, Local government (County council)
The complainant has requested copies of Lord Hanningfield’s credit card transaction logs between certain dates. Essex County Council (the council) provided the complainant with a link to the redacted logs relying of section 21 of the FOIA to provide the link and 40(2) for the redactions of named individuals on the logs. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council released the information that identified its Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive along with some information it no longer considered to be personal data. The complainant was not satisfied with the redaction of the names, senior members/ officers in particular and also considered that the council should provide him with copies of the actual credit card logs, not a link to the online version. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant and council reached a compromise with regards to providing copies of the original transaction logs but a decision was still needed to determine whether the council could rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to redact them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to make the redactions it has. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld
