Is the LA you deal with registered with the ICO?

tbs624

Letting Agent fined for failing to register with the ICO

In only the third prosecution, John Merfyn Pugh of Merfyn Pugh Estate Agents pleaded guilty at Caernarfon magistrates’ court to the offence of failing to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office that his business processes personal data.

Like the two earlier cases, he escaped the maximum sentence of a £5,000 fine. Instead, he was given a conditional discharge of six months and ordered to pay £614 towards prosecution costs.

Shame that the LA wasn't fined. Is there no end to the number of laws that LAs will seek to ignore? The report continues:

In March, a prosecution was brought against another Welsh agent, John Newbound, of Newbank Estate and Letting Agents.

Mr Newbound, whose firm has two offices in Blaenau Gwent, was ordered to pay a £100 fine, £250 towards prosecution costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge by Cwmbran magistrates.

The first agent to be fined under the ICO’s crackdown was Merseyside firm PDQ Property Sales on March 11, which received a fine of £250 and was ordered to pay £265 in court costs, plus a £15 victims’ surcharge.

http://www.rman.co.uk/article_letting-agents-reminded-over-data-protection-act-5093.html

G_M

Ok but there are many far more pressing issues and inequities, on both sides of the landlord/tenant interaction than information management.

jjlandlord

ICO registration is compulsory by Law, yes. But what does failure to comply change for landlords and tenants? Nothing.
These cases show that courts understand that.

DVardysShadow

G_M wrote: »

Ok but there are many far more pressing issues and inequities, on both sides of the landlord/tenant interaction than information management.

jjlandlord wrote: »

ICO registration is compulsory by Law, yes. But what does failure to comply change for landlords and tenants? Nothing.
These cases show that courts understand that.

Given the recent thread on someone being threatened with black listing by an agent for disputing deposit retentions [https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/49159175#Comment_49159175, it is no bad thing for this issue to be pressed.

At least the law is in place on this. It strikes me that it makes achieving compliance with new legislation a steeper hill to climb if you don't bother enforcing existing legislation.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Given the recent thread on someone being threatened with black listing by an agent for disputing deposit retentions [https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/49159175#Comment_49159175, it is no bad thing for this issue to be pressed.

Except that this does not make any difference.

Current legislation is just that agents must notify ICO that they are handling personal data and pay a small fee. After that they can go on as usual.

To quote ICO's website:

Notification is a statutory requirement and every organisation that processes personal information must notify the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), unless they are exempt. Failure to notify is a criminal offence.
Notification is the process by which a data controller gives the ICO details about their processing of personal information. The ICO publishes certain details in the register of data controllers, which is available to the public for inspection.
The main purpose of the public register is transparency and openness. The register includes the name and address of data controllers and a description of the kind of processing they do.

To me this means: the main purpose of notification is for ICO to collect their tax and pay their own salaries...

tbs624

I would suggest that the many LAs who apparently have failed to date to register with the ICO are indicating the following:

(1) an ignorance of the fact that they are required by law to register, or
(2)knowledge of the law on registration but effectively sticking two fingers up to it

As we all know, anyone can set up as an LA - no training, no expertise, no qualifications required.

Many Ts and ( client LLs) are only too aware of the inability of many LAs to keep up with the many pieces of legislation which apply to their line of business and/or the LAs views that they will pick and choose which laws/regs with which to comply ( and compound that by making up their own version of the law)

If these LAs are failing to register as required, what else are they failing to do with regard to keeping their client LLs' and their Ts' data secure?

Ts are required to give huge amounts of personal information to LAs in order to secure a rental - they have the right to expect that the LAs will comply with *all* requirements relating to the processing of that information, and to expect the ICO and the courts to make sure that they do.

G_M

tbs624 wrote: »

As we all know, anyone can set up as an LA - no training, no expertise, no qualifications required.

That is of far more concern. Both to tenants AND landlords.

Registration of agents and/or compulsory training would be of far more use. As would a proper complaints process with teeth.

tbs624

G_M wrote: »

That is of far more concern. Both to tenants AND landlords.

Registration of agents and/or compulsory training would be of far more use. As would a proper complaints process with teeth.

The issue are related IMO - how can they not be?

What registration set up would be effective if an LA could be permitted to register without being made to comply with all relevant legislation?

And tbh, unless failure to register resulted in fines which were viewed as a strong deterrent ( and/or meant the loss of their business) , the LAs who ignore tenancy deposit regs, DPA related regs etc would probably similarly ignore the requirement to register.

SouthCoast

and compound that by making up their own version of the law

A common theme from greedy, lazy, incompetent letting agents.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Except that this does not make any difference.

To quote ICO's website:

Notification is a statutory requirement and every organisation that processes personal information must notify the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), unless they are exempt. Failure to notify is a criminal offence.
Notification is the process by which a data controller gives the ICO details about their processing of personal information. The ICO publishes certain details in the register of data controllers, which is available to the public for inspection.
The main purpose of the public register is transparency and openness. The register includes the name and address of data controllers and a description of the kind of processing they do.

So do you think that it will not make a difference if they realise that they cannot maintain a blacklist?