Property Co Director and Council Employee fined - illegal access to Ts details

tbs624

This report is from an ICO news release back in March this year

"A Slough letting agent and one of its directors who unlawfully obtained details about their tenants from a rogue employee at Slough Borough Council have been found guilty of committing offences under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

At Reading Magistrates today, SAI Property Investments Limited, trading as IPS Property Services and represented at today’s hearing by Director Mr Punjab Sandhu, was fined £260.00 for two offences under the Act and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £702.08 prosecution costs. Another director at the company, Sundeep Jaswal, was fined £260.00 for two offences and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £351.03 prosecution costs.

Ounkar Singh Nainu - who supplied both men with information relating to individuals in receipt of Housing and Council Tax Benefit, whilst employed at the council as a Customer Service Advisor - has been fined £690.00 for three offences and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £351.03 prosecution costs.

Source

The low level of the fines doesn't seem much of a deterrent IMO

Yorkie1

Not much, no. I think the ICO is regularly disappointed by outcomes such as this, and the maximum penalties permitted under the Act.

However, at least the 'rogue employee' will doubtless have lost his job and now has a criminal conviction.

DVardysShadow

I bet the £15 victim surcharges goes nowhere near the victims of their crimes.

jjlandlord

The first offence took place in September 2009 when Jaswal made contact with Nainu and asked him to obtain personal data about some of their tenants from housing benefit records. This information was provided without the Council’s knowledge and used by the company to chase up their tenant’s outstanding debts. An unsuccessful attempt was then made to obtain further information from the Council’s records in March 2010.

They were probably after the new addresses of some of their (ex?)tenants.
If so they could probably have got the info in a legal way...

Fines must be proportional to the offence.
Having to pay £1000 and £600 in this case is probably deterrent enough, imo.

tbs624

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I bet the £15 victim surcharges goes nowhere near the victims of their crimes.

of course not ...the money raised by these [edit surcharges] apparently funds "services for victims"

tbs624

jjlandlord wrote: »

They were probably after the new addresses of some of their (ex?)tenants.
If so they could probably have got the info in a legal way...

..but the fact is that they didn't.

jjlandlord wrote: »

Fines must be proportional to the offence.
Having to pay £1000 and £600 in this case is probably deterrent enough, imo.

..maybe for the property co directors. Given that those who actually pass on data in these situations often do so for money my view is that the fines levied ought to be of a sufficient level to warn others off from doing the same The Council worker's 690 quid for 3 offences (plus costs) seems unlikely to do that.

Let's remember it wasn't an "accidental" data breach. Ts in receipt of benefits will be some of the most vulnerable members of society so its to be hoped that the Council followed the case up with some swift disciplinary action against the Council worker.

CIS

Just because they receive benefits does NOT makes them vulnerable.

Exactly the argument I regularly have.

tbs624

business_man wrote: »

Just because they receive benefits does NOT makes them vulnerable. That is the problem of society, the benefit scrounger probably got away with their hard earned rental money and even after taking the tax payer's money which was meant to pay rent went on booze and fags, despite this they get the title "vulnerable". How sad.

Sad that your vitriolic post has such a one dimensional view of those in receipt of HB/LHA. Are you a Daily Mail reader?

Whether or not you acknowledge the fact, those who are reliant on LHA/HB benefit will , as I said, be some of the most vulnerable members of society. (This is especially the case when they are renting within the PRS)

tbs624

CIS wrote: »

Exactly the argument I regularly have.

...following on from "business-man's" misinterpretation.......?

jjlandlord

tbs624 wrote: »

..but the fact is that they didn't.

Exactly: They did something pretty stupid and it cost them quite a bit more than tracing the people they were after the legal way.
Hence why I said it was probably deterrent enough for them not to try again.

tbs624 wrote: »

The Council worker's 690 quid for 3 offences (plus costs) seems unlikely to do that.

He most likely also lost his job, which would have cost him much more than £690...

Let's not forget that the article says:

Offenders can be fined up to £5000 at Magistrates Court or an unlimited amount at Crown Court

So the legal framework is there to hit offenders. It's the court which decided on the level of fines based on the facts of the case, which we do not know.

CIS

...following on from "business-man's" misinterpretation.......?

Not fully no, which is why I chose quoted only 1 part - being in receipt of state benefits does not immediately make someone vulnerable.