Data Protection Act

[Stillo]

Re: Data Protection Act

Hello Plan B

Yes it is and it is for more than £400,it is for more like £1500 im sorry may be a typo on my part,DLC and OSC are Damage liability cover and optional service cover. you have to take out the company's damage liability cover if you do not have your own home contents insurance cover, i have my own contents cover and the company involved have said in their defense that i never provided them with a copy of it until Jan 2011, i can prove that i in fact used that same cover in 2009 which they accepted, optional service cover i believe is exactly that optional, i was never given the option of that cover it was just added to my account without my knowledge, my concern is that this company have quite clearly lied in the defense that they have submitted which i can prove on two important parts of my claim and i do not know how to make the courts aware of this.

I also have a disability that to be honest is not visible, i have central areolar choriodal dystrophy which in layman's terms is partial sight a referance to me not looking disabled by their counter staff has been made in their defense and i am extremely annoyed about this. thanks for reading

Cheers
Stillo

[ploddertom]

Re: Data Protection Act

Ah the good old Brighthouse or similar. It should just be a case following a similar pattern of reclaiming PPI. Have to be honest & say I don't know much about this.

[Stillo]

Re: Data Protection Act

Thank you Labman

Yes i have seen that and i have read many posts with regards to Brighhouse but i cannot seem to track any down with regards to the blatant lying that i seem to have experienced with them so far.it would seem that Brighthouse have paid back many claims for option service cover therefore are they admitting that their methods are questionable, i have received from them a very derisory offer that they insist if i accept i must keep it confidential,i would never in a million years consider their offer unless it is at least ten times more,thank you for your assistance it's very much appreciated and thanks also to every one else involved

Regards
Stillo

[golfillini]

Re: Data Protection Act

I have made a subject access request from my work data protection controller with regards an email a work colleague sent to my senior manager complaining about me. My request has been declined even though they confirm I am mentioned twice in this email. The reason they have declined my request is because they state I am not mentioned in a personal or biographical way. I cannot believe that I am mentioned in an email and am declined access to a copy

any advice on how I get a copy

[golfillini]

Re: Data Protection Act

Hello

I am unable to access your link. Access has been denied

[labman]

Re: Data Protection Act

I have made a subject access request from my work data protection controller with regards an email a work colleague sent to my senior manager complaining about me. My request has been declined even though they confirm I am mentioned twice in this email. The reason they have declined my request is because they state I am not mentioned in a personal or biographical way. I cannot believe that I am mentioned in an email and am declined access to a copy

any advice on how I get a copy

It is quite possible they don't have to. Here is the relevant extract from the Data Protection Act:

(4) Where a data controller cannot comply with the request without disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from that information, he is not obliged to comply with the request unless—

(a) the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the request, or

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual.

(5) In subsection (4) the reference to information relating to another individual includes a reference to information identifying that individual as the source of the information sought by the request; and that subsection is not to be construed as excusing a data controller from communicating so much of the information sought by the request as can be communicated without disclosing the identity of the other individual concerned, whether by the omission of names or other identifying particulars or otherwise.

(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual concerned, regard shall be had, in particular, to—

(a) any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual,

(b) any steps taken by the data controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual,

(c) whether the other individual is capable of giving consent, and

(d) any express refusal of consent by the other individual.


As you can see, in the context outlined above, it may well be possible your employer has the right not to supply the informatino under a subject access request.

[charitynjw]

Re: Data Protection Act

Hello

I am unable to access your link. Access has been denied

Sorry, golfillini

This is the relevant bit

37 In cases where there is a deliberate void of evidence, such negativity can be used as a weapon in adversarial litigation to fill the evidential gap and so establish a positive case. In British Railways Board v. Herrington [1972] 1 AER 786, Lord Diplock stated:
"The appellants, who are a public corporation, elected to call no witnesses, thus depriving the court of any positive evidence as to whether the condition of the fence and the adjacent terrain had been noticed by any particular servant of theirs or as to what he or any other of their servants either thought or did about it. This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold.
A court may take judicial notice that railway lines are regularly patrolled by linesman and gangers. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is entitled to infer that one or more of them in the course of several weeks noticed what was plain for all to see. Anyone of common sense would realise the danger that the state of the fence so close to the live rail created for little children coming to the meadow to play. As the appellants elected to call none of the persons who patrolled the line there is nothing to rebut the inference that they did not lack the common sense to realise the danger. A court is accordingly entitled to infer from the inaction of the appellants that one or more of their employees decided to allow the risk to continue of some child crossing the boundary and being injured or killed by the live rail rather than to incur the trivial trouble and expense of repairing the gap in the fence".

[golfillini]

Re: Data Protection Act

Thank you Labman for this information

In your reply Section 5, I am aware of the identity of the individual who sent this email to my Senior Manager. I have been given a redacted copy of this email. This particular email is the core part of my complaint about this individual that I have lodged with my company. My complaint consists mainly of emails sent to my Management team from this individual about alleged minor infringements of our policies by me.

I have been informed by my Data Controller that I have been mentioned a number of times in this redacted email and I can only surmise that the content portrays me in a negative manner.

I do beleive I have a right to see the parts of the email that I am mentioned in and was hoping there was a way to force the Data Controller to release these parts

[labman]

Re: Data Protection Act

I've looked a little further into this and found a superb booklet produced by the ICO. I don't think you'll like what it says in terms of a DSAR (page 29 onwards is the relevant bit for you, especially page 31). I have a feeling disclosure can be forced through the courts if you're prepared to go this far, but I would need to look into that further to be sure.

I hope this helps:

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisati...f-practice.PDF

[labman]

Re: Data Protection Act

Court is NOT my area at all, but have a read of this from the CPR's. I know how I interpret it, but I'll leave you to make your own interpretation as it really is not my field:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...l/rules/part31

[oaktree]

Re: Data Protection Act

I made a request through the court. Unbelievably it took 5 years due to time wasting by the other party, at the final hearing they produced an affidavit to say they no longer have it so the case was just dismissed. Complete waste of time.

Oaktree

[Zwerling]

Re: Data Protection Act

The Data Protection Act 1998 is an act of parliament in the UK, which defines UK Law on the processing of data on a living human being.
The Act only applies to data which is stored or intended to be stored on a computer or filed in a filing system. This information needs to be kept safe and secure. Passwords should be applied to all sensitive information which is on a computer and a key should be used to store any hard copy information stored in a filing systems. The people who have access to the passwords and keys should be very limited.
The Act creates rights for those who have data stored and also creates responsibilities for the business who store it. Customers have the right to have access to information that is held about them and have the powers to make sure this information is amended or destroyed if incorrect. The customer has the right to claim compensation for the misuse of information. The personal data used should only be used for the purpose provided.