A local council is investigating how names and details of private landlords and their properties were released by the authority both into the public domain and to an individual apparently looking to buy up rental properties.
The information, which could potentially breach data protection rules, was not leaked but apparently supplied in the belief that a Freedom of Information request had been made.
The matter was first raised on the landlord forum Property Tribes.
EYE then pursued it with Reigate & Banstead Council in Surrey.
An email request, apparently from a property buyer, read as follows:
“Dear Reigate and Banstead Borough Council,
I’m looking to get information on landlords with properties in Reigate & Banstead, we are looking to buy properties from sellers in this location, I require name/address and contact number of these landlords.
Yours faithfully,
Steven Barron”
The text of the email does not mention that it is a Freedom of Information request, but the email header seems to have contained that wording.
At any rate the request, made on May 25, was treated as a Freedom of Information request, and the information, complete with landlords’ names and their properties, subsequently released where it could be read in public on the site WhatDoTheyKnow.
The actual reply on that site has been withdrawn since EYE started pursuing the matter with Reigate & Banstead.
We asked:
- Should this have been treated as an FoI request, and if so why was it?
- Was there a mistake?
- Did answering and supplying the information amount to a breach of Data Protection law?
Yesterday afternoon, a spokesperson for the council told EYE: “We are continuing to investigate our response to this Freedom of Information request.
“We have conducted an initial review which indicates that the response should have been managed in a way to ensure that information concerning landlords who are private individuals rather than businesses, was not released.
“Part of the investigation will review the internal processes in place to minimise the potential of this happening in future.
“At our request Whatdotheyknow.com has removed the response while we investigate.”
Now that’s a direct approach that Christopher Watkins would be incredibly proud of!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Can anyone trust any local authority, the people government entrust with our valuable private information! They sell off planning information so applicants get targeted by business and ambulance chasing firms. In this case apparently a serious breach of confidentiality. Whatever happened to integrity.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Don’t RM have a chargeable service that does a similar thing?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You don’t have to be involved with RM, you can’t avoid Local Authorities.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register