In message <[log in to unmask]>, at 11:28:13 on
Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jackie Leesons <[log in to unmask]>
writes
>I have had a request from Jobcentre Plus (part of DWP) asking for names,
>addresses, DOB, NINO of all the people in the area issued with a street
>traders licence over the last nineteen months. They are quoting S.109A of
>the Social Services Admin Act 1992 which gives them additional powers to
>obtain information,
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga_19920005_en_6.htm#mdiv109
That doesn't look very promising, but in fact it turns out that 109(A, B
etc) are actually a replacement for s110.
The Social Security Fraud Act 2001 adds "additional powers to obtain
information" (but not from councils) as s109B of the "Administration
Act".
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/10011--a.htm#1
With the safeguards:
"the powers conferred by this section on an authorised officer
to require information from any person by virtue of his falling
within subsection (2A) above shall be exercisable for the
purpose only of obtaining information relating to a particular
person identified (by name or description) by the officer."
and
"An authorised officer shall not, in exercise of those powers,
require any information from any person by virtue of his falling
within subsection (2A) above unless it appears to that officer
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
identified person to whom it relates is (a) a person who has
committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit
offence..."
So somewhere there will be an Act that amends the 1992 Admin Act to add
109(A).
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00019--s.htm#sch6
And while there seem to be no explicit safeguards (tut, tut - or do the
safeguards above apply as a result of the 2001 amendment, I'm afraid
this spaghetti-amending has defeated me temporarily) it talks about:
"In accordance with this section, persons shall furnish to an
inspector all such information, and produce for his inspection
all such documents, as he may reasonably require for the purpose
of ascertaining—
(a) whether—
(i) any contribution under Part I of the Contributions and
Benefits Act; or
(ii) any state scheme premium; or
(iii) any compensation payment or relevant payment, is or
has been payable, or has been duly paid, by or in
respect of any person; or
(b) whether benefit is or was payable to or in respect of any
person.
Which suggests to me (but only very weakly) that the inspector has to
name the person under investigation, not just turn up and ask for a list
of potential suspects.
The DWP professional Standards Unit have, in the past, said they would
welcome enquiries from those who think that they've been asked to do
something outside of an Inspector's actual remit.
>but is the disclosure lawful given the amount of information they are
>asking for?
If this was a DPA question, then the request would be a fishing
expedition, and rather different from them asking "have you issued a
street trading licence to Mr Perry, who is claiming benefits, and we
suspect has an undeclared income from street trading".
Under the SS Acts, perhaps other have direct experience of the
situation?
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
