Privacy policy/data protection act

[Uara]

Revenge of the dragons den font syndrome

 

[Ch3tan]

I see you chose to ignore our advice and market the system as you originally envisioned. A silly move.

 

[Embattle]

No one should have to put up with excessive levels of noise over a long period of time, we don't go home to escape the outside world only to have it follow us in the front door.

 

[gunner440]

i have to email him with my complaint and he will email me back with his reason why he thinks its not a breach.

He'll probably laugh even more when he reads your email and thinks that your child wrote it.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

got this back....


Dear Richard,
As promised, I have set out below the reasons why I have concluded the council was not in breach of the data protection rules when it passed on the contact details to the fairground operator. I note that ************ in the events team has written to you apologising for this and recognising that an error was made, and I have not yet been able to establish in what respect *** felt the team had fallen short on this occasion. Nevertheless, from other information provided to me by the events team, it is not apparent that they departed from their usual practice and procedure in these circumstances and it seems that wherever possible the team encourage the operator to deal with complaints themselves, and that correspondence and contact details are passed by the events team to the operator for these purposes.

In relation to the data protection rules, the council is of course under a duty to process data fairly and lawfully and in accordance with at least one or more of the fair processing conditions set out in the legislation. In relation to this type of data, those conditions include where processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the council or by the third party to whom the data are disclosed, except where this is unwarranted by reason of prejudice to the person to whom the data relate. It seems clear to me that giving these details to the operator for the purposes of resolving your complaint was both legitimate and necessary, in the sense that this was by far the quickest and most effective method of resolving this matter. In addition, the fair has been operating at the Elland Road site since 2000, and the events team clearly trust the operators to provide speedy and practical solutions to any issues and complaints which residents might raise, and which have not already been resolved at the regular Beeston Forum meetings. As I understand it, the outcome of the action taken was that the complaint about noise from the fair was resolved speedily.

In relation to prejudice to the interests of yourself or your partner, I understand from the events team that having made contact to resolve this matter the operator then removed the contact details from his mobile phone, and although you suggested in our telephone conversation earlier this week that there might be some kind of repercussions, there is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the operators have ever behaved inappropriately in relation to other complainants, and of course if they did so that might jeopardise their contract with the council. I note that your e-mail suggests this has been distressful for your partner, although no reasons are given for this, and my conclusion is there is no evidence suggesting that the events team were wrong to pass on these details in your particular case.

As requested in your e-mail of 24 February, I will confirm this by letter to the address you specified, and at the same time I will try and clarify with the events team why they considered an error had been made in this case. However, my conclusion in relation to the data protection rules is that the council processed this data fairly and lawfully.

If you disagree with what I have said about this, in addition to taking your own legal advice on this matter, it is also open to you to refer this matter to the regulatory body for data protection matters the Information Commissioner's Office, at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,


he says alot but says nothing at the same time, any ideas wht i should do next?

 

[Jupitus]

any ideas wht i should do next?

Yes - stop cutting and pasting totally illegible font-ness dribble in your posts!

Edited for clarity.

 

[inactionman]

He talks bollox. Looking at the inquiry form on the website I can't see any expressions of consent, so they are working with implied consent, and that would give no grounds to share with another organisation. The wiggle room to share information (to the fairground operator) without consent is very limited (you have to justify it with the limited exceptions in the DPA & the HRA, and apply the principle of proportionality), and doesn't apply in this case. You can't just share information because it's useful (yet).

Follow the suggestions I gave you, FOI their compliants procedures, and request all information they hold on you, once you have these then escalate your complaint through their formal complaints procedures.

What's this guys job title btw?

 

[Sar]

They just did that because they couldn't be arsed helping you sort it themselves, and fobbed your details off to the carnie.

As I said before, their Environmental Health officers should have dealt with this under Noise Abatement laws, and investigated it as a complaint in a proper manner.

Isn't there some law about details when they're passed on have to be passed on to someone who has a data control licence? Otherwise the data controller (here the Council) have to keep the information confidential.

I doubt the Carnie would fall into the above category tbh.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

his job title is


Head of Property, Finance & Technology
Legal, Licensing and Registration Services
Leeds City Council

 

[inactionman]

Head of Property, Finance & Technology
Legal, Licensing and Registration Services
Leeds City Council

Ehrm, that's a bit of an odd title, rather broad. Looks fairly senior from what I can see, but obviously clueless.

 

[Santa's little helper]

The gf complained to our local council about the noise from the yearly valentines funfair which is situated on council land. She did this by filling in a webform on the council website.

She gets a phone call from the man who runs the fair and he asks what the problem is, thing is the bloke who runs the fair does not work for the council, he says someone from the council gave him her name address and phone number.

this seems a bit off to me, surely no one from the council should give out details entered on the complaints webform to an external person, is this breaking the data protection act or the councils privacy policy Privacy statement)

Whats the best i can hope for, outside of an apology, as it just seems they dont give a fuck about peoples data.

Mjellow! In Denmark our "constitutional law" declare that you may NEVER sell/rent/borrow/whatever others information, which you are storing (facebook comes to mind) - tho it's perfectly legal in the US.

(Facebook is illegal to run in Denmark, due to them selling their users information).

 

[Dreamor]

You could always phone/email there boss, that sort of thing always stops people laughing or joking around with private data.

Hope you get it sorted, the noise that is, not the idiots at the Council.

 

[Scouse]

No one should have to put up with excessive levels of noise over a long period of time, we don't go home to escape the outside world only to have it follow us in the front door.

It was just a once-a-year carnival tho