Peter Wilson wrote
"Sounds to me as if neither of these requests have been official SAR's under the Act(i.e. Made in writing & Paid fee) If that's the case informing tenant of procedure would be my first step. You usually find if request is for a frivolous reason thats the last you hear. If not, and procedure is put in effect, I would say comply. It might save hassle in the future."
The data controller does not have to comply unless the request is in writing but presumably can choose to respond to a request made by any other means. If the applicant's requirement has been met once, I would treat this further application as frivolous.
Leif
>>> Paul Simpkins <[log in to unmask]> 09/14 11:41 am >>>
One of my Council's tenants was given access to her house file (material
relating to her tenancy mostly on paper) four months ago and took some
photocopies. She has just written back and asked for a photocopy of the
whole file. She has also asked to inspect it again before/whilst it is being
done.
Is this a reasonable request? Has a reasonable period of time elapsed since
her last access? Is this mischievous, vexatious or frivolous? There have
been no significant additions to the file since the last access except for
letters she has written to us. Should we allow this access which will take
up considerable officer time and resources or can we turn her down. This
tenant has made a significant number of complaints to many council
departments on a broad range of issues.
Data Protection Compliance Officer
City of Bradford MDC
01274-753500
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|