ICO - FER0851659: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:32, 20 January 2020

ICO - FER0851659

Authority:	ICO (UK)
Jurisdiction:	United Kingdom
Relevant Law:	Article 4(1) GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article 10 GDPR Regulation 5(3) EIR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Rejected
Decided:	01.11.2019
Published:	n/a
Fine:	none
Parties:	Canterbury City Council
National Case Number:	FER0851659
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	n/a
Original Language:	English
Original Source:	ICO (EN)

The ICO issued a decision related to disclosure of information held by public authorities which was likely to include personal data.

English Summary

Facts

The complainant has requested the disclosure of information about third-parties´ complaints concerning his property. Canterbury City Council withheld the information as disclosure would imply the unjustified communication of such third parties. Thus, the disclosure would have breached the GDPR principles. The complainant challenged the decision before the ICO.

Dispute

Holding

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English official version

 to be completed..

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 [[Category:ICO (UK)]]
 |-
-| Jurisdiction: || [[Data Protection in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] [[Category: United Kingdom]]
+|Jurisdiction:||[[Data Protection in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
+[[Category: United Kingdom]]
 |-
 |Relevant Law:||[[Article 4 GDPR#1|Article 4(1) GDPR]]
@@ Line 50: / Line 51: @@
 ===Facts===
-The complainant has requested the disclosure of information about complaints concerning a property over a defined time period. Canterbury City Council (the Council) withheld the information because it considered that the information requested was the personal data of third parties. Thus, the disclosure would have breach the GDPR principles. The complainant challenged the decision before the ICO.
+The complainant has requested the disclosure of information about third-parties´ complaints concerning his property. Canterbury City Council withheld the information as disclosure would imply the unjustified communication of such third parties. Thus, the disclosure would have breached the GDPR principles. The complainant challenged the decision before the ICO.
 ===Dispute===
-Are the information contained in the complaints sensitive personal data? Would a disclosure to the word art large and not to the complainant only, contravene GDPR principles ?
 ===Holding===
-The ICO decided that "as the complainant and his family have either owned or occupied the land in question during the time period specified, all the information falling within the scope of the request is in fact the complainant’s own personal data". The ICO applied Regulation 5(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) which prevents disclosure to the world at large of information including personal data. Also, the ICO considered that the personal data at issue were criminal offence data about the complainant, as described by Article 10 GDPR, and not special category of personal data, as described by Article 9 GDPR.
 ==Comment==