The complainant has requested information about two named companies. One company had gone into liquidation, the second is still live.
Ref: FS50522701 PDF, 115KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.
If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email firstname.lastname@example.org. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.
The complainant has requested information about two named companies. One company had gone into liquidation, the second is still live. The Insolvency Service (IS) acknowledged it held information about the company in liquidation but withheld that information under section 40(2). It refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information in respect of the live company under section 40(5). The Commissioner’s decision is that the IS was correct to withhold information about the company in liquidation under section 40(2). However the IS was not entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information about the live company. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether it holds the information in relation to the live company ie the second company named in the request. If it does hold the requested information the IS must either communicate that information to the complainant or issue a fresh refusal notice citing the grounds it is relying on to refuse the request.