In a message dated 30/10/2000 14:42:55 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Condition 5(b) of Sch 2 does not necessarily make the processing lawful if
it is not consistent with the purposes for which the data was obtained, but
S55 (2) (d) would seem to provide a defence in the context of public safety.
I would have given the same advice as you. >>
-------------------
I too would have given that advice if the building was falling down in a
public place, or the public had access to the unsafe building. That way CT
could justify the disclosure on public interest or even vital interests
grounds.
Otherwise, say if the building was on private land, or the defect was not
likely to cause serious harm to the public, I would seek the consent of the
data subject.
Obviously, CT should receive the request in writing, stating the DPA
exemption Building Control are relying upon, and they should make an
assessment (as to whether they want to disclose) on a case-by-case basis.
CT might also want to check that they are not acting ultra vires.
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|