Data Protection Act Enforcement Notice Analysis

This assignment analyzes an Enforcement Notice issued by the Information Commissioner to Mihomecare Ltd. The notice concerns violations of the Data Protection Act 1998, specifically related to inaccurate information provided about employee wages and dismissals. The analysis delves into the company's failures to comply with data protection principles, citing evidence from court judgments and POVA records. It concludes that the company acted unlawfully and should be held liable for re-employment or compensation of the affected employee.

Skeleton of argument
on inaccurate
references
1

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
DATE 15 Feb 2015
To: Mihomecare Ltd., 1Harlequin Office Park, Fieldfare, Bristol, England, BS16 7FN
of: Karin Suurpere, Appt 2885, Chynoweth Park, Trevissome Park, Truro, TR4 8UN
 Mihonecase Ltd is data controller which registered into “Data controller” which defined
in section 1(1) of DPA 1998.
 As per the sec 4{4} state that it is the data protection responsibility to protect data which
is related to privacy data (Toth, 2012).
 DPA schedule 1 of part 1 contain the six data protection principles (Nagaoka, Abe, and
Shimatani, 2012). Which protect the data from the illegal access.
 In this company fail to compiled the whole of the data as per the provision.
 In that case some evidence finds from permission for wages claim based on the salford
county court judgements. Thus, it is clear that information given by employer is false.
 There are finds that claimant file claim for national minimum wages on 31/12/2014.
 Therefore, the company fail to apply the section 6 state principle along with section 7.
 There is found that such dismissal was not on justified manner. It is because real name
not found in POVA record.
 Thus, all argue made by the company is declared null and not affective.
 Thus, company will be liable to reappointed or provide compensate to their employee.
 It is punishable under the data protection act (Scheer, 2012).
 Section 40 the data controller is liable to provide accurate information with in 30 days.
 Along with data controller must send data with right procedure followed as per the
section 7 and principle of section 6 must be followed (Curren and Kaye, 2010).
Dated:
Signature:
2

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Toth, M.G., 2012. Monika Nalepa, Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-
Communist Europe. CEU Political Science Journal. 7(3). pp.357-360.
Nagaoka, T., Abe, M. and Shimatani, K., 2012. Estimation of mortality profiles from non-adult
human skeletons in Edo-period Japan. Anthropological Science. 120(2). pp.115-128.
Scheer, T., 2012. Invariant syllable skeleton, complex segments and word edges. Journal of
Linguistics. 48(03). pp.685-726.
Curren, L. and Kaye, J., 2010. Revoking consent: A ‘blind spot’in data protection law?.
Computer law & Security review. 26(3). pp.273-283.
3