Data Protection act gurus

[appropriatelyemployed]

OK here is a question.

LGO refuse to release information, I appeal, they disclose it .

It is alot of emails but the addresses are all redacted - it is all internal LA stuff.

They say they have redacted it because these email addresses constitute personal data..

Yet when you apply for disclosure from the LA, they don't redact the details of their staff's corprorate email addresses.

Anyone know if this is appropriate?

Hi appropriatelyemployed I advise on a lot of DPA and ICO issues in my com[pany (I am a solicitor but more a public law one) and we do redact third party email addresses but not those which are from our company. Technically you would need the consent of the person to disclose the email address which contains personal data. If you dont consider it appropiate in your cirs you could complain to the ICO (if you have not already done so).
Regards
Richmond

Thanks Richmond.

This relates to emails within the possession of the LGO but they are not internal LGO emails. Rather they are emails circulated within the local authority to bolster their case for a vexatious ban against me.

They were then disclosed to the LGO and the LGO refused to disclose them to me but then did so but redacted the emails.

I had a look at the caselaw and saw a case called Durant which seemed to suggest that disclosure of this sort was subject to a reasonableness test but I have to admit I am no expert. The emails make allegations about my conduct which were not discussed with me but were circulated to a number of people within the LA - the emails are addressed to 'dear all' (addresses redacted).

Interestingly, the LA did not disclose some of these emails to my solicitor when she asked for disclosure of all the documentation last year but sent these emails on to the LGO behind my back. I think that probably merits a complaint to the ICO.

But these email addresses are NOT personal. They are public.

Fair enough if it was a home/private address but [email protected] is hardly personal. They are public servants ffs.

I bet if you put half of them into google they'd be published on the Internet either directly or through documents that have been put up.

The LGO is covering up the details of 'who' the emails were sent to.

Perhaps you can find out just the names if not email addresses. Or at least the agency each of the name represents.

I can't say the law woukd be upheld in this respect but I cannot believe you don't have a legal entitlement to this information.

Well, that's why I think the reasonableness test should swing in my favour.

These are public servants making allegations behind my back about my conduct and the LGO redacts their corporate email addresses to protect them.

Shame on the LGO again.

This has gone all the way to a Deputy Ombudsman too whose shitty, high-handed response is just 'it's personal data' end of.

You really cannot fight with everyone about everything can you? But, seriously, how much do you think he is on to do that job? 110-120 k?

I guess this is something else to include in the LGO fight.

At the house of commons thingy I mentioned that money is being wasted on both sides on legal teams BECAUSE of the ambiguity and lack of accountability.

I think it is also because certain organisations deliberately and consistently try and sidestep the law even when it is clear, so you end up in the loony land world of SEN where even the law which is clear doesn't really mean what is says.