Jump to content


Former employers not registered for Data Protection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5156 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I worked as a driver for a short time with my former employers and I am in dispute with them with my final pay-no holiday pay, unauthorised deductions in wages etc.

 

I know that there are exemptions to some employers registering for Data Protection purposes if they just keep staff records.

 

However, my details were obviously given to their insurers so I could drive their vans.

Also, they monitered the mobile calls for personal use.

 

Surely they should be registered as this is beyond just personal staff records?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked as a driver for a short time with my former employers and I am in dispute with them with my final pay-no holiday pay, unauthorised deductions in wages etc.

 

I know that there are exemptions to some employers registering for Data Protection purposes if they just keep staff records.

 

However, my details were obviously given to their insurers so I could drive their vans.

Also, they monitered the mobile calls for personal use.

 

Surely they should be registered as this is beyond just personal staff records?

 

This is complicated so bear with me.

 

Staff administration has an automatic exemption from registration.

 

Other personal data is not exempt from registration if the data is held in e relevant filing system. If personal data is not held in a relevant filing system, then no registration is necessary.

 

What is a relevant filing system?

 

The definition of a relevant filing system is as follows:-

 

The files which form part of the relevant filing system are structured or referenced in such a way that information about the applicant can be easily located. Where manual files fall within the definition of a relevant filing system, the content will either be sub-divided, which allows the searcher to go straight to the correct category and retrieve the information requested without a manual search, or will be indexed to allow the searcher to go directly to a relevant page(s).
So, in short, if the data recovered from monitoring the mobile calls was filed by (for example) the mobile number as opposed to the person's name, then it wouldn't be a relevant filing system.

 

Likewise, if the insurance details were filed by van VRM rather than driver's name, then it wouldn't be a relevant filing system.

 

OTOH, they may simply be acting illegally and not registered - this is true of many small companies.

 

The downside for you is if they are not registered, the a subject access request cannot be made under the Act. If you believe that they should be registered, you should report the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pat.

 

It is complicated and even the ICO couldn't give me an answer but suggested I go on with my SAR and see what happens but they did say they appear to not be registered.

 

However, they did point out that having to give my licence details to a third party, the insurers, and providing details of my driving history, as they wanted a driver with nil points, suggests this information goes beyond just staff records as a third party has to be involved due to the very nature of it. Or something like that.

 

Put it this way, my details are held on an insurers system who I have no idea who they are.:-?

 

So, I'm certainly on an insures system, who would need to be registered with the ICO, but my employers may not be even though they provided the details!!!:-?

 

My head hurts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they not have an "any driver" insurance policy?

 

I'm not entirely sure on this but I gather that if it was 'any driver' then the insurance would be higher unless they named each employee, there were only 3 drivers, and each of us had nil points.

 

After all 3 drivers with nil points are less of a risk than 3 all on 9 points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After all 3 drivers with nil points are less of a risk than 3 all on 9 points.

 

Actually, probably not.:D

 

Three drivers, all on 9 points will be driving on eggshells to avoid another 3 points and a ban - especially if they drive for a living.:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, probably not.:D

 

Three drivers, all on 9 points will be driving on eggshells to avoid another 3 points and a ban - especially if they drive for a living.:p

 

Fuzzy logic!:-D

 

There is no denying that an indiscretion by me, with nil points, would probably not affect the insurance yet a '9 pointer' has no comfort zone at all!:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...