- Rewards 46
Questions they have asked
Why does the NODDY GUIDE, not provide case law to reference for data restrictions relied upon by LAs especially during SENDIST? LA named Witnesses ...
LAs allege that their communication with their named witnesses is "legal and litigation privilege"-, SENDIST rules states that all witnesses have a underling duty to SENDIST to assist them and remain impartial. Furthermore, SENDIST rules and SEND Code of Practice states transparency and having all your cards on the table in the interest of settling and or preventing disputes. So, as per ICO these communications meet the ICO Education Test/ Health Test/ Social Care Test. When I complained to ICO they allowed the LA to get away with stating that these “communications were Legal and Litigation Privilege”. Surely this is not correct and how can parents argue and or point out this is not the correct position to access data in a timely manner.
FOIs made to the LA’s School/ Therapists in SENDIST
The named LA school their ought to be “independent witness” , share parental FOIs made to them for the purpose of obtaining data to prepare for cases. This is a data breach and strategic conduct by the LA to restrict data and case preparation because the LA have no remit in "advising " their named school witnesses (who’s role is to remain impartial independent and assist SENDIST). ICO allowed this to be acceptable that the LA provided legal advice to their witness school in proceedings and discounted it to be education test and hence this communication has been withheld.
Hence again as per SENDIST rules all cards on the table, was and is not met again with this conduct and position. This strategic data blocking strategy results in parents having to navigate protracted cases and any advice on the correct position would be welcomed. ICO allows this conduct to be acceptable under “public task and legal advice”.
In this case the Service Level Agreement between the LA maintained School and the LA-clearly stated FOIs are the business of the school and the school had its own DPO third party hence why they went to the LA with my FOIs and state the advice is legal advice is a staged data restriction and concealing practice.
Please can someone advice on what can be quoted to ensure accountability and prevent LA from using their power base to misrepresent the law (relying upon Public Task) as the basis to prepare and or interfere with their witnesses releasing information.
Any pointers would be welcome with the addition of a data case law section in the Noddy Guide to point out the practices adopted are not acceptable by the LA and designed for purposes other than legitimate. LAs are acting unfairly and abusing their positional power base against the parent especially those unrepresented.
Please explain public task as lawfulness for data processing in context of EHCPs that a ) LAs and b) Schools rely upon? I believe the public task ...
... of the LA is to have processes in place for dealing with EHCPs i.e. NHS commissioning agreements, assessment processes etc. But PUBLIC TASK does not mean that sensitive specific individual data can openly/ without parental or child consent be processed with whom the LA deems appropriate ie. school consultations or third parties.This would need to be agreed. PUBLIC TASK in terms of EHCP/SENDIST means that processes are in place.
LAs quote public task as lawfulness to share and obtain your individual data with third parties without your knowledge in EHCPNA and SENDIST. I don't agree and no one can explain this to me in simple SENDIST/ Education terms. Please can some one explain this as I believe LAs and schools are misquoting to obtain and share data strategically in sendist to blindsight parents
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.
Questions they have answered