Others have made the valid point that it can be a range of bodies that fall short in the validity of their 'Section 29' or 'Section 35' requests and it's always been a bugbear of mine.
I'm actually in the middle of refusing a request from a national regulatory agency that cites Section 29 without giving the slightest clue as to whether it applies, as well as quoting some powers to inspect, sample and seize that are totally irrelevant to the information that's being requested.
This is not the first inadequate request I've had from the agency concerned and, I have no doubt, will it be the last. Sadly, the same can be said for a fair few of our statutory bodies...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|