Pensions Ombudsman (Central government) [2022] UKICO 159593 (11 October 2022)
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]
Pensions Ombudsman
The complainant has requested information relating to the Pensions Ombudsman’s ‘cost’ criterion for investigative decisions, the number of cases delayed, Parliamentary Ombudsman interventions regarding delays (by year), NAVIGO case activity with dates for mitigation of delays, why enquiries may not be responded to under FOIA or GDPR legislation, ‘NAVIGO’ GDPR logic adopted to process ‘data’ and information relating to ‘automated’ decision making. The Pensions Ombudsman provided information in response to the request or explained why it would not hold information relevant to the request under section 1(1) FOIA. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Commissioner as he was dissatisfied with the Pensions Ombudsman’s response regarding the ‘cost’ element of the request. The Commissioner therefore focussed his investigation to determine whether the Pensions Ombudsman had complied with the ‘cost’ element of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Pensions Ombudsman does not hold a specific cost criterion under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Pensions Ombudsman to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1:
Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: 159593
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2022/159593.html
