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 >> Greater London Authority (Local government (District council)) [2015] UKICO FER0555755 (10 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FER0555755.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FER0555755, [2015] UKICO FER555755 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
10 March 2015, Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested the GLA to disclose a full copy of the original Development Agreement dated 19 April 2011 and a full certified copy of the Deed of Variation dated 10 December 2013 including appendices relating to the Blackwall Reach Compulsory Purchase Order. The GLA disclosed some information but informed the complainant that it did not hold the version of the Development Agreement it required. For this element of the request the GLA applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation it came to light that the version of the Development Agreement the complainant required was still held by the GLA’s predecessor the HCA. It was therefore accepted that the HCA in fact holds the requested information on behalf of the GLA. At the time of writing this notice, the GLA had obtained the requested information from the HCA but had not issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner therefore requires the HCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with this legislation: the GLA should issue a fresh response in relation to the copy of the Development Agreement obtained from the HCA, that does not cite regulation 12(4)(a). In terms of how the request was handled, the Commissioner has found that the GLA was in breach of 11 of the EIR in this case.
EIR 12(4)(a): Upheld
