A question regarding the UK Data Protection Act?

Question

Can someone who is fully conversant with the UK Data Protection Act tell me whether I am correct in the following belief:

That if I inform a company or organisation that holds personal data about me that the data they hold is inaccurate, provide them with the correct information and ask them to change their data, that the Data Protection Act says they must do it.

Second, that if they fail to do it, continue to act upon the incorrect data and I suffer as a result, this is a breach of the Data Protection Act and I could prosecute them for this breach.

Or have I got it completely wrong?

Answer 1

It depends on the nature of the data being referred to. Generally, in order to have data amended or removed, the onus is on the individual to provide accurate proof of the default to the company concerned. Simply telling them the data is inaccurate is not good enough.

Answer 2

Basically Yes - what you say is correct, on the basis you can prove that the data they hold about you is inaccurate.

The data may not need to be changed, they can also include a comment with the data detailing that it is inaccurate, as sometimes some data cannot simply be deleted.

I have pursued a similar issue with the ICO in which the Policy Consultant, Conduct of Business at the RBSG lied about his involvement with my complaints against NatWest - the Information Commissioners Office provided misleading and False information to my MP trying to defend his lies/actions - several member of the ICO staff involved have since left, and I have been advised that this RBSG senior manager is no longer in his position - I personally cannot trust the ICO as they operated outside of the law in my case (by supporting and corroborating lies by the RBSG)...

Answer 3

In theory you are right but I think that the prosecution us undertaken by the relevant information commissioner.

In practice I had a problem with NTL holding out of date and inaccurate records and the commissioner did nothing, like Blair and other govt depts and QUANGOs they say a great deal but achieve very, very little.

Answer 4

You exaggerate the effect of HIPAA. In certainly use, few organizations are fined, and then in basic terms in severe circumstances of gross negligence or intentional malfeasance. decrease than 9000 proceedings are received in line with annum nationwide, and of those, in basic terms decrease than 3000 proceed to an study degree. some large fines were levied, yet those are assigned to massive organizations with reference to systemic subject matters, not the moves of a unmarried worker. operating example, various large pharmacy chains were fined for not having regulations in position to guarantee that client guidance isn't thrown contained in the rubbish. i'm not attentive to someone workers ever being charged less than the Act.. you also exaggerate the guidelines themselves. There are surely many situations the position own guidance might want to be released to relations or perhaps acquaintances. the guideline surely says "If the well being care service, utilising specialist judgement and adventure, feels that it really is contained in the affected human being's suitable interest".