Data Protection Act 1998: Inaccurate Data and Enforcement Notice

Verified

Added on  2020/01/28

|3
|478
|63
Report
AI Summary
This report analyzes a case involving the Data Protection Act 1998, focusing on a company's failure to comply with data protection principles. The report highlights inaccuracies in provided data, specifically concerning wage claims and employment records, leading to potential violations of the Act. It references relevant sections of the DPA, including the responsibilities of a data controller, the importance of accurate information, and the implications of non-compliance. The report also cites legal precedents and scholarly articles to support its findings, concluding that the company may be liable and subject to penalties under the Act, emphasizing the need for data accuracy and adherence to legal procedures. The report mentions the company's failure to adhere to the principles of section 6 and section 7, as well as the importance of providing accurate information within 30 days, as per section 40. The analysis demonstrates how the company's actions contravene the Data Protection Act, potentially resulting in legal consequences, including the need to reappoint or compensate the affected employee.
Document Page
Skeleton of argument
on inaccurate
references
1
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
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
Document Page
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
chevron_up_icon
1 out of 3
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]