|
<Home page < >Back< |
13 October 2004 Mrs M E Manwaring Compliance ManagerThe Information Commissioner Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Your ref: RFA0029621 Dear Sir Re:
Data Protection Act All past correspondence I have received from your office gives the distinct impression that no contact by the IC or his office, regarding my complaint, has been made to any other body outside of IC's office? I last wrote to you on 7 September and stated if I was not satisfied I would contact the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Nine days later, on the 16 September, the 'lawsociety.org.uk' and also 'parliament.uk' logged onto my web site 'www.solicitorsfromhell.com' and accessed in excess of 150 pages and you replied to my letter eight days later on the 24 September and as I said putting forward the Parliamentary Ombudsman's contact 'phone number. If I was a 'Bookie' I would say that it was 'odds on' that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has been 'knobbled' which would, outside of the Law Society, instigate a Steward's enquiry, coincidence?? I don't think so. Back to your letter dated 24 September you state "Firstly, …I have been unable to identify an instance where you requested information from Mr Gray and it was not given".
You
further state "Thirdly…. I have read
the document relating to the telephone conversation between Thos Boyd
Whyte and the OSS. There is no evidence that personal data about you was
disclosed during that conversation". Please tell me where
I said "personal data" was
"disclosed during that conversation"
and why would I say the OSS "disclosed personal
data" to TBW when TBW already had all my "personal
data"? What I did say concerned the misuse of information
collected from my file in violation of the Law Society's Data Protection
Notice and passed, again to a third party to be used for an 'unrelated
purpose' to my complaint, I was not told nor was my permission given.
Let me once again quote the Law Society rule concerning complainants'
complaint files:- As I see it Richard Thomas should apply the rules how they are written and only a court ruling can interpret the meaning, as was the rule ("…not of sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar…") applied to stop me collecting information that I should have previously been informed of and my permission granted before 'unrelated' information was given out. The rules are clear on the procedures for the collection of data/information and nowhere in the rules does it say this can be done by 'unsecured' means (over the telephone) and it clearly states the 'purpose' for the use of such data must be given. Oh yes, Richard Thomas is deliberately ignoring is own rules "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose…you should be told about it and given a choice". Further more, Richard Thomas states that the 'Data Controller' is any or all members of the Law Society Board (100 plus?). First nowhere in the rule book can I find that it states that a 'Data Controller' can use information from files for their own personal use, as Richard Hegarty did, and the information in a complainant's file can only be used in relation to that complainant's complaint. Back to the Law Society's '100 plus Data Controllers' in charge of the CCS's complaints filing system, I'm sure your English grammar is far better than mine but the rules all state, when referring to data held, 'the Data Controller' clearly 'singular' so how can Richard Thomas replace the 'singular' with the 'plural' by saying the Law Society have 100 plus Data Controllers based all round the UK in charge of the CCS's complaints filing system that is kept at Leamington Spa, Warwickshire? Richard Thomas must be aware of a precedence he is creating for all firms and businesses in this country, for instance everyone within a firm/business could be the Data Controller with the freedom to use personal information and pass/collect it to/from others, by unsecured means (over the telephone), to use for any purpose they like. From now on an individual's private and personal information within multi national companies can be verbally passed around associated companies and used by anyone for personal gain of these companies or other individuals just as Richard Thomas states the Law Society are being allowed to do. Richard Thomas has stated the reason Richard Hegarty collected my personal details was so he could 'phone me at home during the evening to discuss with me an 'issue' which I had 'raised'? Richard Thomas knows what this 'issue' is that he and Aman Virk say was "Law Society business", so if he could as I did previously ask say what this 'issue' was may be it might justify Richard Hegarty's illegal collection of my personal details. You state regarding Richard Hegarty's collection of my personal data that without evidence you cannot make an assessment. This is at present with the LSO when I get the necessary information I will come back to you. I
have enclosed part copy of a letter I received from the DCA and as you
can see it states the 'data controller' "is
a "person…"" clearly 'singular' so tell
me how can the IC state the OSS have a 100 plus Data Controllers keeping
complaint files in a "secure" environment? As you must know
the Data Controllers' must comply "with
an enforceable set of good information handling rules known as the eight
data protection principles" which, as I understand, is
the Information Commissioner's job to 'enforce'. Let me now quote:- …data
controller" means, subject to subsection (4), a person who
(either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the
purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are
to be, processed;
<Top< |