L.A. Councillors *Legally* ? Share Constituents Information

[Endleigh]

Local Councillors are displaying in their email blurb, that, 'I may share your email content within the Council and also to other agencies'. (ignore the usual clauses on criminality, self harm, etc - I get that)

Under Data Protection, what is the legal implications of this statement? By this, the constituent is opted in by default - if that's the right term - even before they have the knowledge that 'sharing data' could take place (eg, If I discover the Councilors email address on the LA website & disclose a lot things - before seeing the blurb - about XYZ: a clinician, my neighbour, or even a private employment agency.... the Councilor is already covered, it seems (?))

I didn't actually notice the statement until much later; so I stated to the Clr, 'I do not give consent...', but was informed by reply, 'it's already been passed on to....'

What legal right does the constituent have in attempting to withdraw consent anyway? Maybe I should set up a pre-content statement on my emails:
''This email is intended for the named recipient only above. I do not give consent for this email to be forwarded, shared, repeated, copied without my prior consent...'' What weight - if any - would that carry?

Post covid-19, local authorities are - sadly - working more closely with the NHS, including sharing patient information. Notes of phone calls made between the organisations are less likely to be recorded in my exp. - and therefore less likely to show up within Subject Access Request results.

Back to my main point. Privacy v Confidentiality
Can anyone with some legal understanding show me that the Councillors are on legally safe ground by sharing and acting without constituent consent?

I have been trying to find out the actual Council stance, but its extremely complex - inc. the different types/categories of confidentiality.... https://www.local.gov.uk/privacy-notice
And the ICO guidelines are not reader friendly either, in fact worse.

[PallasAthena]

There are six legal justifications for sharing information about you, only one of which involves you consenting to it. Local councillors would probably justify it under the 'Public Task' heading.

A guide to lawful basis | ICO.

There wouldn't be much point in raising an issue with your local councillor if they couldn't discuss it with anyone else. That would just mean they couldn't help you.

[atticus]

I think the number of legal justifications may in fact be 6.

[PallasAthena]

I think the number of legal justifications may in fact be 6.

Yes indeed, I spotted the typo! Now edited [Mistyped as 'sex' not 'six' for anyone wondering what I am on about...]

[Endleigh]

There are six legal justifications for sharing information about you, only one of which involves you consenting to it. Local councillors would probably justify it under the 'Public Task' heading.

A guide to lawful basis | ICO.

There wouldn't be much point in raising an issue with your local councillor if they couldn't discuss it with anyone else. That would just mean they couldn't help you.

Thanks, I would imagine individuals and agencies are all one in the scope of who a Cllr can contact in carrying out an investigation

Example: if a man is refusing to pay council tax, having been kicked out by his wife... and the husband let it known to his Cllr he is seeking a divorce and he will be claiming child custody, home ownership, etc

...and the Cllr goes back to the wife in his Cllr capacity, using his 'lawful basis' - unknown to the husband - and warns her of the husband's intentions, it would be ok?
Apart from special category data? it seems open ended in favour of the Council.... but maybe I haven't understood it

If the Cllr however had disclosed to the wife the husband had privately become a Buddhist and intended coming out as a lesbian / trans 'woman', he would be going beyond the lawful basis / it would be illegal due to sexual ID and religion being special category of data?
It sure needs a lot of research before the public shares anything with their friendly neighbourhood Cllr !

I imagine each individual case would be complex and have to be looked at by a Council tribunal, if a Cllr if issues came to light, or complaint made.

Council Tax payers may need a diploma, evening classes, to understand this stuff!

I'd guess the same powers apply to a GP, MP, police, DWP... if you give them information - they can share with anyone using 5 of the exemptions that need no consent; but that too would depend on individual circumstances and justification?

[islandgirl]

As a friendly neighbourhood councillor I fully recognize my duty of confidentiality etc in certain situations. Please do not tar us all with the same brush

[PallasAthena]

Example: if a man is refusing to pay council tax, having been kicked out by his wife... and the husband let it known to his Cllr he is seeking a divorce and he will be claiming child custody, home ownership, etc

...and the Cllr goes back to the wife in his Cllr capacity, using his 'lawful basis' - unknown to the husband - and warns her of the husband's intentions, it would be ok?
.
.
If the Cllr however had disclosed to the wife the husband had privately become a Buddhist and intended coming out as a lesbian / trans 'woman', he would be going beyond the lawful basis / it would be illegal due to sexual ID and religion being special category of data?

Have either of these things actually happened to you? If not maybe you could tell us what has happened.

Your original question was about 'Consent' to use your personal information, whether "Councillors are on legally safe ground by sharing and acting without constituent consent?" and I've answered that. Consent is not always needed because there are other lawful reasons that allow information to be shared. Such as 'Public task'. But 'Public task' doesn't authorise a councillor to do anything they want to. Read the ICO link.

• The processing must be necessary. If you could reasonably perform your tasks or exercise your powers in a less intrusive way, this lawful basis does not apply.

[islandgirl]

My phone calls as a councillor are never that juicy, sadly

[Endleigh]

Have either of these things actually happened to you? If not maybe you could tell us what has happened.

Your original question was about 'Consent' to use your personal information, whether "Councillors are on legally safe ground by sharing and acting without constituent consent?" and I've answered that. Consent is not always needed because there are other lawful reasons that allow information to be shared. Such as 'Public task'. But 'Public task' doesn't authorise a councillor to do anything they want to. Read the ICO link.

• The processing must be necessary. If you could reasonably perform your tasks or exercise your powers in a less intrusive way, this lawful basis does not apply.

thanks, I did read it all a few times but I am too thick to understand it, as it weaves along bringing in x then y, z. I wouldnt like to be councillor; i wouldn't be able to remember what hat I am wearing, and would probably end up sued

[Endleigh]

As a friendly neighbourhood councillor I fully recognize my duty of confidentiality etc in certain situations. Please do not tar us all with the same brush

Well done; my words are hypothetical; i did end by stating i wouldn't like to be in a Cllr's shoes - all the work voluntary and all, but deleted it was beginning to ramble
The Ombudsman and ICO for example asks its customers to fill out & sign a consent form so as to share information.
Things don't seem consistent