LA consulted a School X- named section I placement, LA witness. Apologies lots of unanswered questions .... X withheld its communication documents ...

LA consulted a School X- named section I placement, LA witness. Apologies lots of unanswered questions ....

X withheld its communication documents with LA on grounds of Legal Privilege. It refused to share its communication in SARs with LA on this basis. It refused to provide a table of what records were being held as Legal Privilege. I complained , DPO stated go to ICO. ICO state that accept that information they hold except information which is covered by the legal privilege exemption. This cannot be true because LA INHOUSE SOLICITORS UNREGISTERED WITH SRA for litigation cannot advise outside third parties with advise. But this is being misunderstood by ICO. It appears that because sch sought advise from non school solicitors in other words a "a solicitor" it is being sold to ico as legal advise. ICO have not not any due diligence to review these documents, not ordered a record of the data to be confirmed as alleged legal privilege hence no disclosure of dates of documents, parties on documents. type of documents etc needs to be disclosed. Sch DPO states exemption covers personal information involved in obtaining legal advice from LA inhouse solicitors. It doesn’t have to be connected to legal proceedings. HOw can LA give advise in SENDIST to witnesses- ICO have not even confirmed DPO dates of this correspondence. I have no other connection to school X other than it being the LA named school witness.

Allegedly the admission minutes with the LA monthly resource unit don't exist! Is this not education data, is this correct ?

Then as we were not students (for purposes of the SAR request at the time) at the LA named school witness- the DPO of school states that the education ICO date test does not apply??? Please can some one explain this position as I believe whilst not a pupil, it clearly forms education opinions at the time hence does form our personal data- how do I argue this as evidently wrong.

ICO state that draft minutes and data exchange verbal made with LA on our matter is deleted and not entitled. This is unreasonable because the DPO forced me to ICO knowing that it would take 6 months ti respond. I wrote stating I dispute their position and all data to be reserved until ico investigation. Clearly this is a stalling and tactical conduct of DPO- how can education data for admission for a named witness be deleted ? How do I address that this is not transparent and inaccurate data processing adopted to conceal and or restrict my data rights and obtaining evidence of LA interfering with sendist process by prohibiting my data rights to date.

DPO and ICO state that the school did not need my consent to forward my emails or information about you or your daughter to LA (respondent) as the legal reason (lawful basis) was Public task. How can a school be public body hence undertake public task? Please can some explain as I believe this is not appropriate understanding.

The sch has public task to comply with 15 day LA sch consultation (even though parents permission not sought and we had not transparency of whom LA was consulting as parents are allegedly not involved) but that does not allow them to continue to share data including FOIs and emails I sent when preparing for sendist appeal. Have I as a parent misunderstood the schools public task, please can someone correct me.

From a dataconfusedparent.com

Thanks to all for reading and working their way through my frustrated communication to offer support , experience and put me on the correct pathway to being able to advocate properly on this matter.