Paul Ticher on 14 December 2004 at 12:40 said:-
> They reply: Sorry, we can't
> comply fully with
> this Subject Access request for less than £450, so pay up or
> get nothing.
It sounds as though they do not consider the DPA 1998 £10 maximum SAR fees
to be proper recompense for allowing you to assist them by checking if the
data they hold about you is accurate.
I hope you have advised them appropriately.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Paul Ticher
> Sent: 14 December 2004 12:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Unstructured personal data
>
>
> This interesting reply has caused me to think (and probably not very
> clearly, at that).
>
> Scenario: I apply for Subject Access to a local authority
> because I want to
> check that a particular set of computerised records about me
> is accurate. I
> am prepared to pay the £10 fee, and I am not interested in
> anything else.
> However, it happens that the local authority also has a large
> amount of
> unstructured data about me. They reply: Sorry, we can't
> comply fully with
> this Subject Access request for less than £450, so pay up or
> get nothing.
>
> That can't be right, so does it mean that, despite the FoIA
> amending the
> DPA, a DPA Subject Access request to a statutory body now has
> to be split in
> two: categories (a) to (d) for £10 regardless and category
> (e) within the
> £10 if it costs less than £450, otherwise subject to a
> separate, possibly
> substantial, fee?
>
> Paul Ticher
> 0116 273 8191
> 22 Stoughton Drive North, Leicester LE5 5UB
>
> I hereby require any recipient of this message not to use my
> personal data
> for direct marketing purposes.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynne Skipsey" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Unstructured personal data
>
>
> > Just adding to Paul's explanation - my understanding is
> that any personal
> information falling into the additional 5th category (all
> other recorded
> info held by a public body) is covered by the new Fee
> Regulations for FOI &
> DPA (see attached). This means that public bodies receiving a
> subject access
> request from now on, will have to estimate whether the
> personal data held in
> unstructured manual systems/storage would cost more or less
> than £450 to
> provide and then proceed as follows:
> > a) if it would cost less than £450 the public body has the
> right to charge
> additional costs to cover disbursements such as photocopying
> and postage in
> order to provide this information.
> > b) if the volume of relevant personal data in unstructured
> filing systems
> would cost more than £450, (take more than 2 1/2 days) we
> could refuse to
> process this part of the request but it would be better if we
> either i)
> provided a limited amount within the £450 threshold or
> ii)charged full costs
> for dealing with the request for personal data held in
> unstructured manual
> systems.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Lynne Skipsey
> > Information Manager
> > Registry - Corporate Services
> > NHSU
> > Tel 07775 508113
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ticher
> > Sent: 13 December 2004 13:04
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [data-protection] Unstructured personal data
> >
> >
> > No doubt others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I read it
> that s.68 of
> the Freedom of Information Act amends s.1(1)of the Data
> Protection Act to
> add a new fifth category of data: "recorded information held
> by a public
> authority [which] does not fall within any of paragraphs (a)
> to (d)". In
> effect, therefore, *all* recorded information held by a
> public authority is
> "data". If such data is also personal, it is therefore
> personal data and
> access would be available under the Data Protection Act, for
> a fee of up to
> £10, within 40 days and with the Data Protection Act
> restrictions - access
> would only be granted to the Data Subject and third party
> confidentiality
> would be protected, for example.
> >
> > If it is not personal - i.e, post-Durant, not *about* an
> identifiable
> living individual - it would not be personal data and
> therefore access would
> not be available under the Data Protection Act, but under the
> Freedom of
> Information Act, for free and with shorter time limits
> provided the cost was
> within the limits.
> >
> > Just thinking about how you would handle a collection which
> contains a
> mixture of personal and non-personal data makes me glad not
> to be a public
> authority DPO.
> >
> > Paul Ticher
> > 0116 273 8191
> > 22 Stoughton Drive North, Leicester LE5 5UB
> >
> > I hereby require any recipient of this message not to use
> my personal data
> for direct marketing purposes.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kirsty Gray" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:19 PM
> > Subject: Unstructured personal data
> >
> >
> > Now that the FOIA fees regs have been laid before
> Parliament - anyone any
> idea what we do about 'unstructured' personal data post 01/01/05?
> >
> > Reg 3 (the appropriate limit) "(1) This regulation has
> effect to prescribe
> the appropriate limit referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of
> the 1998 Act
> ..." then goes on to confirm FOIA fees of £600 for central
> government and
> £450 for other public authorities.
> >
> > Reg 4 (estimating the cost of complying with a request -
> general) "...a
> relevant request is any request to the extent that it is a
> request (a) for
> unstructured personal data within the meaning of section
> 9A(1) of the 1998
> Act and to which section 7(1) of that Act would, apart from
> the appropriate
> limit, to any extent apply..."
> >
> > Does this mean that Durant is definately no longer applicable to the
> public sector? Must we estimate total cost of complying with
> a request for
> unstructured personal data? And either respond (under the
> limit) or choose
> to refuse unless full cost paid (over the limit)? Can we charge
> disbursements for responding (under the limit)? Is that as well as or
> instead of £10 SAR fee?
> >
> >
> > Has anyone seen any guidance from either DCA or ICO on this
> one? My search
> attempts this AM brought up nothing. Am I the only one
> totally confused?
> >
> > Kirsty E Gray
> > Access to Information Advisor
> > Commission for Social Care Inspection
> >
> > Note: comments for discussion and debate only and do not necessarily
> reflect the corporate position of CSCI nor constitute legal advice.
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 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 message please send
> to the list
> owner
> > [log in to unmask]
> > (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 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 message please send
> to the list
> owner
> > [log in to unmask]
> > (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> > *** This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
> are intended only
> for the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient of
> this e-mail
> and have received it in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete it from your system.
> >
> > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the NHSU WebShield Virus
> Scanner, but is not guaranteed free from viruses ***
> >
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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 message please send to
> the list owner
> [log in to unmask]
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
