Home Page


26 April 2004

Mr Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager
113 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1PL
Your Ref. sa/bs/251

Dear Sir

Re; Application for information

Thank you for your letter dated 20 April '04.

First let me quote;
Right of Subject Access
This is the right to find out what information about you is held on computer and in some paper records.

Now let me quote a statement from your letter, "In the Durant case the Court of Appeal took the view that the act intended to cover manual files 'only if they are of sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar ready accessibility as a computerised filing system'".

From the information I have given you it shows that on the 7 June 2000 and again in November 2003 my file was "…of sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar ready accessibility as a computerised filing system'" to allow Thos Boyd Whyte and Hegarty & Co to collect data from my file illegally, but 5 months later, April 2004, it is not "…of sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar…" data to be given legally to the person who is the subject of that file, who you should have informed at the time this data was 'collected' by Thos Boyd Whyte and Hegarty & Co. Please explain why my file is "of sufficient sophistication" to supply data to 'unsecured' sources yet not "sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar" data to the data subject?

When I submitted my complaint to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors the Law Society's Data Protection Notice clearly laid out the rules on the use and the protection of the data/information I supplied to them and from a file that had not been opened also again after it had been closed you violated about every rule in the book. You are now applying a Court ruling concerning the illegal collection of data from my file by members of the Law Society by saying the data in my file is: - "ready accessibility as a computerised filing system" so you can "leaf" through my files so as to provide information to them. In my case, the subject of that data, you state "none of the information you have requested forms part of a "relevant filing system" under the Data Protection acts 1998" (is not "ready accessibility"). You have this Protection Racket 'sewn up' tighter than a 'Duck's Arse' and like your Protection Racket, that is 'water tight'.

Let me quote you once more "Any manual filing system 'which, for example, requires the searcher to leaf through files…" Please explain to me the difference in 'leafing' through a file to provide, illegally, data to Thos Boyd Whyte and Hegarty & Co and 'leafing' through the same file to legally supply "the same or similar" data to a Complainant who you should have informed at the time the data was collected by them? Remember that saying 'Fat for the Goose is fat for the Gander.

I have on several occasions quoted a statement by Lord Falconer that appears to me to be a point members of the Law Society rely on; "a Complainant is somebody who doesn't quite understand the rules, and therefore must be wrong". Obviously I don't understand the rules so if you could send me or direct me to the 'new rules' so I can study the rule that states the Data Controller can now 'Blather Mouth' information from complainants' paper files to 'unsecured' sources without the Complainant being informed or the "set of enforceable rules" being applied, I would appreciate it.

Let us move on to a rule from the Data Protection Acts and that is, what should an individual do if they are not satisfied that their information has not been processed as stated by the Law Society rulebook:
"If you believe that the data controller is not processing in accordance with your rights you should ensure that you have made every effort to resolve this direct with the individual or organization concerned"
Let me run through the points that evidence shows you have not 'processed in accordance with my rights';
1. You never had or asked for my permission to access my unopened and/or closed complaints file for the collection of data to be used for 'unrelated' purposes to my complaint.
2. The correct method of requesting or for the collection of data from complainants' files was not used by the third party(s).
3. You never informed me data was or had been asked for, the purpose, or whether it was or had been collected.
4. The correct method of supplying or considering the refusal of data to a third party by the Data Controller was ignored.
5. The data was passed over the 'phone to 'unsecured' sources which I believe is a serious offence.
The rules state that I should expect a 'reasonable reply' may be you believe that hiding behind a Court ruling to avoid supplying data that you illegally gave to third parties protects you when you illegally use complainants files for the benefit of solicitors. Zahida Manzoor the LSO states in her rule book that the OSS "should carry out a detailed, unbiased investigation". How can that be "unbiased" if you are conspiring with the solicitors to the detriment of the complainants?

Remember what I stated above that I should make "…every effort to resolve this direct with the individual or organization concerned". The 'misuse' of my file has happened three times so 'in all probability' this has happened in the past to thousands of other complainants files and is probably still going on. Complainants need to know that their files are being 'processed in accordance with their rights' and are held in a 'safe and secure environment'. I need to know who sanctioned the 'misuse' of my file, I know why it was done, to assist my solicitors with the complaint I had made against them and also to give Richard Hegarty the means to try and intimidate me. I believe you should look in the Collin's English Dictionary and try to understand the meaning of the word 'unbiased'.

May be you can get out of supplying the data I have asked for, but you cannot get out of responding to my justified allegations of 'misuse' of my file which you must respond to.

Yours sincerely

X X Xxxx

cc Lord Falconer the Lord Chancellor. Mr Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner.

PS I will send a file to Mrs Susan Samuel at The Department of Constitutional Affairs who I understand is heading a review of the regulations of Legal Services. A final question I would like to ask is, if the 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' is complying with the 'rule book' and also let me state what was said in 1996;
  The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) replaces the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. The Office's declared aim is 'excellence and fairness in enforcing standards'. Peter Ross is appointed as the first Director. No new powers, but the Law Society promise a 'complete restructuring of the old Solicitors Complaints Bureau', 'a new emphasis on conciliation' and 'major initiatives in client care'.
Please tell me, if you operate 'standards of excellence and fairness' and 'major initiatives in client care', why does your office need a 'review of the regulations'? Now you have read this letter please look closely at the words 'fairness' and 'client care' and don't just consider 'self interest' which seems to be the 'name of the game'.

PPS I will also put this information on my website so other Complainants' can get an insight into 'your' rules.