It was only in September 2016 when F realised that amendment to his 10th May 2010 ‘Information Sharing Agreement‘ was in fact a ‘NOTICE‘ in line with paragraph 10 of the Data Protection Act.
It can be seen from comments made in the below statements, that the ICO and his DPA do NOT provide any remedy to the complainant/victim of any breaches of the DPA, irrespective what distress/concern he may have suffered as a consequence. Simply, the ICO/DPA could NOT care less about the victim.
The ICO can ONLY issue ‘retribution’ to the data controller, the victim has to rely on paragraph 13 of the DPA and proceed through the Courts to received compensation, or even an apology.
The victim of the breach must apply to a Courts to obtain any compensation. ICO is powerless to provide for this.
F found ICO’s ‘Data Protection Act 1998 – Section 10 – Guidance to staff.’
On 12th September 2016 he contacted the ICO for clarification.
,On 16th September 2016, ICO replied to F
On 27th September 2016, F responded to ICO’s comment.
On 27th September 2016, ICO responded to F’s comments.
