How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

My question specifically relates to UK's Data Protection Act

This answer was rated:

My question specifically relates to UK’s Data Protection Act 1998, Part II para 10: its application and interpretation. Please express your interest to help only if you are fully conversant with this legislation
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you.
-Could you explain your situation a little more?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Hi. I prefer to have a written record of anything and everything, to refer to in the future.
Please see the attached file
What is it you want to achieve please?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
What I WANT to achieve is irrelevant at this time. I want to find out if the individual's instructions were tantamount to the 'notice' referred to in 10-(1). If yes, than the Council failed to comply with 10-(3). Than 10 -(4) would apply. As a result, the individual may avail himself of provisions of 13(1). Attached is a copy of the instructions he issued to his Council
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
or, perhaps put in more succinctly : was the Council obliged to comply with 10 -(3). There is no evidence that it replied at all
Yes it is notice, although it should perhaps be a little clearer. Then yes S.10(4) would apply if breached.
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Thanks. at the time the 'notice' was issued in May 2010, the individual was not aware that section 10 existed. Had he been so, he would have quoted the DPA. It is interesting the ICO even chose to ignore this fact. The bot***** *****ne is that had the Council complied with the 'notice', the eventual disclosure would not have happened. Information which according to the Department of Health, the Council was not entitled to have.
As it stands at the moment, he has the option to take action against the Council for breach of Common Law Confidentiality, breach of NHS Statutory Restrictions on data handling and Article 8 of the HRA.
But taking into consideration para 10, action could be taken for breach of the 'notice' and proceed in accordance with para (4).
My question is how should he now proceed to take action re para (4). Where could he find any relevant information, please?
He can complain to the information commissioner who can investigate any complaint for free at
Can I clarify anything else?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
It was the ICO who should have realized that a 'notice' was issued and breached when the individual ( Mr F) complained to him in 2012 about the disclosure by his Council of not only of his HIV status, but also highly sensitive clinical information relating to his conditions. The ICO even failed to realize that 'confidential' information had been disclosed. Had he realized this fact and the existence of a 'notice', the sorry saga may have taken on a different sheen, as it were. So, I think he should be left out of this particular segment of the very sorry saga F had to go through so far.
As you say, para 10-(4) applies, therefore para 13 and 14 should be also taken into consideration. F suffered great degree of anxiety and distress over this matter. So much so that he had repeated bad bouts of stress related conjunctivitis, which could have activated the CMV virus; he could have ended up with retinitis and be blind. He was near a bad nervous breakdown, having suffered a serious anxiety attack which required emergency hospitalization, as it was thought that he may have had/will have one of his little strokes.
it is in all a very sad saga. The full story is on my colleague's blog at Enter 'HappyDays43' as a password ***** you wish to read the ICO's involvement in this matter.
Para 10-(4) states that ' if a court is satisfied...' I assume a 'County Court'. Are there any time limits on presentation of a case like mine, please?There is very little else that needs to be done at this time. The Council's reply to provide a copy of its request is due at the end of January 2016. Which I doubt they have, so their explanation should be interesting.
No there is no time limit to present a case. You would need to complete form N1:
And submit it to Court. The Court would then list it for a hearing and decide whether there has been a breach and if so what compensation the poor victim is entitled to.
Can I clarify anything else for you?
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Good morning on this rainy and cold day in London.
That's great news, as I have found with many other things that by the time all the proper information is to hand, the matter had 'timed out'.... how convenient to few and darn discomfort to the rest of us.One last thing: I understand that had we gone the first route and presented a case for breach of confidence and the rest, we would have 6 years to present out case from the time the breach was committed or from when it was found out. This would take us to Sept 2017, plenty of time.
What should be very interesting is what the Council provides at the end of January as their reply to my request for a copy of their response to my 'instructions'.
as you have perhaps gathered already, had the Council complied with my instructions in May 2010, NOTHING of the following would have happened...
Indeed, so you may have a claim.
Does that help?
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Great. I actually think, taking into consideration the national outcry over the disclosure of Soho HIV clinic patients' identities, the Council will think twice to go public. I guess that we will have to present a letter setting out our intent.
but that is another question, to be addressed when we have more info to hand.
In respect of compensation, I will ask the Soho Clinic if they have had any claims and for how much. That should be a starting point, considering that the patients did not suffer any physical/medical distress.
The Ministry of Justice has been very helpful regarding Article 8. 2 ladies in Finland z v Finland and Y v Finland were paid a handsome compensation.
I think that F deserves this, simply as a compensation for what he had suffered at the hands of the pompous, arrogant Council clerks who have put themselves above the law.....
Well, what is left: To rate you and to pay you, I guess - this I will do very willingly indeed right now,
Should there be any relevant questions, particularly after receipt of the response, I will get in touch.
Many thanks for your help, which we all appreciate and wish you a Merry Xmas and good fortune in the New Year
Kind regards
Karl,Boris and Frank
Happy Christmas to you and good luck
If this answers your question could I invite you rate my answer before you leave today.
If the system won’t let you please click reply.
Please bookmark my profile if you wish for future help:
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Have done so and also will read form N1 and the relevant guidelines
kind regards
Karl,Frank and Boris
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
good morning, Alex
Thanks for the follow up. There is very little to be done at the moment, but to put 'our ducks in the row', to prepare the N1 form, which does not look at all complicated. But, most importantly wait for Council's copy of its reply re 10-(3). F had also reiterated and extended the 'notice' in 2012, to which the Council also failed to respond. Let's see what happens next. Kind regards ***** ***** B
Indeed. Good luck.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
20th January 2016 is the date for reply from the Council.
thanks for the wishes of good luck. F K B
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Hi Alex
Wanted to send you update, before I ask a new question, but could not attach a file