Data Protection Act 1998

[leclerc]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Hi,

My Council do not charge for DP or FOI requests so none that way. As I say they replied to my solicitor so that is an acknowledgment.

I was curious as to what section of DP Act allows for the ICO to ensure that all requests under the DP Act have to be by registered post.

Regards
Mac

There isn't but they can hardly take any action without proof, that would be like saying you could sue me for assault based solely on your word rather than evidence of it. To be honest, I would have sent the cheque for £10 cos then when they returned it saying they didn't charge then you have proof. Why did you not email them which would have been proof?

[Mac99]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Hi,

No particular reason for not emailing. Proof, yes I have that since they have acknowldged and fulfilled one part of the SAR request. I am able to at the very least proof that they have acknowldged that request.

Regards
Mac

[leclerc]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Hi,

No particular reason for not emailing. Proof, yes I have that since they have acknowldged and fulfilled one part of the SAR request. I am able to at the very least proof that they have acknowldged that request.

Regards
Mac

Have you pointed that out to the ICO and what was their response?

[Mac99]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Sorry, I only got the letter from ICO at lunchtime today and will be replying over the weekend with all the supporting evidence. I posted as I was just very surprised at the registered post bit. This is not something an average person would know.

Regards
Mac

[Mac99]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Section 35 of DPA provides -

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

(1)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Stuart

One point about Section 35, would that apply to a witness statement by a third party?

Regards
Mac

[paulb2905]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Heres an interesting thought for you.

You have a debt for credit which the OC/DCA cant prove you signed (no copy available for whatever reason) but it seems that due to recent rulings/advice from OFT they can still report you to the CRA's.

HOWEVER, they need your signature to allow them to disclose your information to the CRA's under Data Protection...............

So where do they stand with this??

Breaking the DPA or not?

[Judge mental]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Mac:

The DPA covers your personal data, anything from a third party would surley not fall within that, also a witness statement used in a court is public anyway.

Paul:
I would suggest that if payments had been made on the account, the courts would accept that as evidence that an agreement existed, therefore the consent required would have been given under the standard terms. I think you would have great difficulty making that one stick.

Stuart

[The Debt Star]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

Heres an interesting thought for you.

You have a debt for credit which the OC/DCA cant prove you signed (no copy available for whatever reason) but it seems that due to recent rulings/advice from OFT they can still report you to the CRA's.

HOWEVER, they need your signature to allow them to disclose your information to the CRA's under Data Protection...............

So where do they stand with this??

Breaking the DPA or not?

Breaking.

But what difference does it make? They do what they like anyway.

[tex001]

Re: Data Protection Act 1998

I’m afraid I must disagree with Stuart on this as I think his interpretation of Section 35 (2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 is wrong.

Legal action or prospective legal action really relates to a litigant who is planning to or has already issued legal proceedings in a county, magistrates or high court. Section 35 is not a loophole for local authorities to pass the personal names and addresses of individuals onto private bailiffs in order for private bailiffs to load this data into ANPR equipment in pursuit of civil debts.

In ICO documentation they use the example of a Private Investigator (And a private bailiff has no more power than a private investigator)….And I quote:

1. “Obtaining the identity of someone responsible for damage to an individual’s property may be necessary for the individual to take legal action to recover damages”. In this example it is quite OK to pass on the information to a reputable 3rd party.

HOWEVER……

2. “Local authorities, estate agents, landlords and solicitors may have forwarding addresses for absconded debtors that the lender needs for the purpose of recovering their DEBTS through the courts. However, attempts to discover the financial value of assets of that individual, or their income, cannot be said to be necessary for instigating proceedings or taking legal advice although it may be a relevant factor in those proceedings. This information should NOT be disclosed”.

Therefore according to the ICO; local authorities passing on private information to private bailiffs in order for those bailiffs to load this data into ANPR equipment in pursuit of civil debts are in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and are committing criminal offences.

Furthermore both local authorities AND private bailiffs must be Registered Data Controllers to process and handle such data.

Please refer to this ICO document: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...ators_v1.0.pdf

Regards

tex001