Councils - Is the supply of your details to bailiffs an offence under the Data Protection Act

[Fair-Parking]

This is to set you all thinking. You supply your private details to a local authority for the purposes of being assessed for council tax. As a result the council becomes a data controller under Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998, whilst Section 4 demands that the data controller is charged with the protection of those details under what the Act describes as the data protection principles.

 

Given that the fundamental principle of the data protection act is protect ordinary citizens from having their private details exposed to others and in particular exposed to other private citizens without their knowledge or consent, would you consider that the passing on of those private details by a council without the knowledge or consent of the 'data subject' (i.e. you), to a another private citizen to be a breach of the Act?

 

Is the Act further breached given that the purpose of passing on this information by a council is likely to cause you harm or distress?

 

Given that councils pass on people's private details to private bailiffs every day for this very purpose, do you think that the use of private bailiffs by councils is illegal under the Act?

 

Your points of view are awaited.

[palomino]

That's stretching things a bit in my view.

 

However on second thoughts you might have a point. It would be useful to find out if all these bailiff companies have data controllers as required by the DPA.

 

But what about individual bailiffs? There must be some inherited right for them to have your details.

[Fair-Parking]

I'm not so sure that anybody has an inherited right to be given somebody's private details by a council - unlike some government departments who can operate within the confines of the Data Protection Act when sharing info with third parties.

 

As you say Palamino, it is all very interesting and we should debate this on the forum. It could point us in the right direction if share a fairly common opinion.

 

The bottom line might just be all private bailiffs are indeed acting illegally in relation to council tax, parking contraventions and other matters. Radical maybe, but not impossible with so much legislation being thrown around nowadays. Sooner or later two laws had to conflict each other.

 

Reminds of how the unions worked to rule in the '60's and '70's in order to bring chaos to an industry.

[FairPlay77]

This is to set you all thinking. You supply your private details to a local authority for the purposes of being assessed for council tax. As a result the council becomes a data controller under Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998, whilst Section 4 demands that the data controller is charged with the protection of those details under what the Act describes as the data protection principles.

 

Given that the fundamental principle of the data protection act is protect ordinary citizens from having their private details exposed to others and in particular exposed to other private citizens without their knowledge or consent, would you consider that the passing on of those private details by a council without the knowledge or consent of the 'data subject' (i.e. you), to a another private citizen to be a breach of the Act?

 

Is the Act further breached given that the purpose of passing on this information by a council is likely to cause you harm or distress?

 

Given that councils pass on people's private details to private bailiffs every day for this very purpose, do you think that the use of private bailiffs by councils is illegal under the Act?

 

Your points of view are awaited.

 

WELL most of us would take it for granted that the law is not so stupid as to contain such a loophole. But loopholes galore have been found in many laws and we should not take it as read that such a situation is impossible in this case.

 

What we need is a test case.

[MrShed]

Sorry - I am almost certainly missing something obvious here, but when do councils ever release such information to private baliffs?

[palomino]

Sorry - I am almost certainly missing something obvious here, but when do councils ever release such information to private baliffs?

 

Your name and address (amongst other things) are given to bailiffs. This information will personally identify you - that's the point of it after all. As such it is covered by the Data Protection Act.

[MrShed]

Yes but when do they give such information? Are you talking about if a private creditor (e.g. MBNA) employs a DCA to chase, and then the DCA gets the information from the council? What process is followed to get this information from the council?

[Fair-Parking]

Mr Shed - In the main we are talking about council tax where you are obliged by law to supply your private details to a council and on parking tickets where a local council buys your private details from the DVLA and then passes them on to a private bailiff for collection.

 

In both cases you are likely to receive visits at your house from unwelcome people who are not there to look after your interests.

[MrShed]

Thats what I thought you meant - was trying to drill it down.

 

If it is to enforce their OWN owed money, as opposed to supplying details to a third party creditor, then there are exemptions from the DPA with regards to legal and tax issues. Both parking tickets and council tax fall under this exemption.

[Fair-Parking]

Mr Shed - Can you be more specific?

[MrShed]

In what way? There are exemptions for legal and taxation reasons....?

[MrShed]

Crime and taxation

(1)Personal data processed for any of the following purposes—

(a)the prevention or detection of crime,

(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or

©the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,are exempt from the first data protection principle (except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3) and section 7 in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection.

(2)Personal data which—

(a)are processed for the purpose of discharging statutory functions, and

(b)consist of information obtained for such a purpose from a person who had it in his possession for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1),are exempt from the subject information provisions to the same extent as personal data processed for any of the purposes mentioned in that subsection.

(3)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which—

(a)the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and

(b)the application of those provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection.

(4)Personal data in respect of which the data controller is a relevant authority and which—

(a)consist of a classification applied to the data subject as part of a system of risk assessment which is operated by that authority for either of the following purposes—

(i)the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or any imposition of a similar nature, or

(ii)the prevention or detection of crime, or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, where the offence concerned involves any unlawful claim for any payment out of, or any unlawful application of, public funds, and

(b)are processed for either of those purposes,are exempt from section 7 to the extent to which the exemption is required in the interests of the operation of the system.

(5)In subsection (4)—

“public funds” includes funds provided by any Community institution;

“relevant authority” means—

(a)a government department,

(b)a local authority, or

©any other authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit

 

Relevant section above.

[MrShed]

The important part above is the exemption from Section 7, which is the section under which a user would complain about unfair processing of data - i.e., releasing to a third party.

[Fair-Parking]

Section 7 of the Data Protection Act appears to relate to the exemptions granted to a data controller in releasing information collected about an individual and then given back to that individual upon his request (S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)). I don't see where any third party entitlement comes into this.

 

The exemptions granted seem to concern reasons for not releasing information to that individual upon his request ie, The police cannot be expected to release details of information gained from a criminal investigation to the person being investigated. That principle would appear to apply to a taxation investigation.

 

Further in relation to parking, Manchester City Council, Marstons and Greater Manchester Police were in involved in a joint operation that involved motorists being stopped via police ANPR so that a bailiff could come and collect money from the person stopped over an alleged but unproven civil contravention.

 

Manchester City Council revoked this operation on July 25 when they realised that the passing on of private information most certainly did contravene the Data Protection Act.

 

One of the questions that remains is whether MCC felt that their passing of information on to Marstons was a breach of the Data Protection Act, or whether the subsequent passing of that information from Marstons to the police was the contravention.

[MrShed]

Section 7 doesnt relate to that at all - Section 7 relates to the prevention by individuals of data controllers processing data.

[MrShed]

DOH my apologies - no it doesnt.

[MrShed]

However, section 10 does:

 

Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress

(1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—

(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

 

Important section in bold above, as Schedule 2 specifically(or one of the first four paragraphs does) relates to the allowance of data processing to enforce legal obligations - i.e. taxation and fines.

 

1The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2The processing is necessary—

(a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b)for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

[Fair-Parking]

So what does anybody else think?

[MrShed]

Think? Its in black and white, in statute, that there is no breach of DPA :confused:opinions are of little importance really!

[Fair-Parking]

Mr Shed

 

I didn't open this thread to invite argument and the quick shutting down of a debate on a very important issue. I invited everybody to voice their opinion of which yours is appreciated.

[MrShed]

Sorry - I know that, not meaning to argue

 

I just dont see what "opinion" there is

 

I think a more interesting debate is whether credit firms are allowed to release information to DCA's prior to court...

[seanamarts]

lets just face it .. the local authority is god and is watching you, they dont stick to the rules anyway, and will find a loophole somewhere where they can squirm through

[Voxter]

"the prevention or detection of crime"

 

Non payment of council tax is a crime (like it or not) so passing on the details of someone commiting crime to prevent that crime is ok

 

The only time data protection is a problem is when the bailiff talks to a 3rd party ie anyone not on the liability order.

 

If it a Ltd company he may speak to anyone in employment of the said.

[seanamarts]

"the prevention or detection of crime"

 

Non payment of council tax is a crime (like it or not) so passing on the details of someone commiting crime to prevent that crime is ok

 

The only time data protection is a problem is when the bailiff talks to a 3rd party ie anyone not on the liability order.

 

If it a Ltd company he may speak to anyone in employment of the said.

 

is it a crime?? i thought it was a civil matter. its dealt with in a county court not a magistrates court. or am i mistaken here

[seanamarts]

"the prevention or detection of crime"

 

Non payment of council tax is a crime (like it or not) so passing on the details of someone commiting crime to prevent that crime is ok

 

The only time data protection is a problem is when the bailiff talks to a 3rd party ie anyone not on the liability order.

 

If it a Ltd company he may speak to anyone in employment of the said.

 

just found this

 

 

Not Paying Council Tax

 

 

What is the legal situation regarding non payment of Council Tax?

 

 

The following is by a qualified solicitor

 

 

The legal situation is that non-payment of Council Tax is not a crime, or anything illegal. It is only a civil matter, and a Liability Order is not a criminal order, not would anyone in receipt of a Liability Order have a criminal record. It does not even amount to a County Court Judgement, and it is not recorded by Registry Trust, which is the Government body responsible for recording County Court Judgements. The only two licensed credit reference agencies - Experian and Equifax - have both confirmed the above, as have Registry Trust.

 

 

The following is from the legal department of a local county council

 

 

Not paying Council Tax is certainly not a criminal offence and the issue of a liability order at the Magistrates Court does not create a criminal record, nor even does it affect your credit rating, unlike County Court judgements, which do!

 

The remedies for recovery of unpaid Council Tax are:

 

 

 

• Attachment of earnings or benefits
  
• Distraint Order (seizure of goods to the value of the debt by bailiffs)
  
• Insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy)
  
• Putting a charge on the debtor’s property
  
• Imprisonment.
  

 

 

Costs are incurred for the issue of the summons (£25.70 currently), more costs are incurred for the issue of the liability (£25.00 currently), more costs are incurred when bailiffs are involved (various), more costs are incurred if committal is sought or a charge is put onto the property or bankruptcy action is taken. These costs vary according to the action taken.

 

The question regarding contempt of court has been referred to the Council's solicitor. However I have not, yet known anyone to be prosecuted for it.

 

 

T

Available (details on request):

car stickers, envelope stickers, tee shirts. Isitfair Introductory Booklet

Isitfair receives no funding from any organisation and survives on donations, gifts of stamps and on stationers’ and printers’ generosity

he liability order is not an order to pay. It is an order which gives the holder certain recovery tools, as have already been listed. It would be up to the Council to determine which tool to use, if that proves necessary. However, be aware that some tools are only available after taking other action, for example committal can only be requested after a Distraint Order has proved unsuccessful.