Is the ICO fit for purpose?

I agree Larry, If there is a genuine reseason for requiring the information to carry out their duties then it must be accurate.

Or they need to prove the information is only relevant for the date of the application and why and landlords can ask for that information to then be deleted from their records as no longer required.

My own, albeit limited experience of the ICO complaints system, suggests that commercial interests - and presumably government interests - override any desire to protect the personal information of UK citizen. GDPR is a box-ticking exercise, muich the same way as cookie 'approval' is on websites. There is no privacy in the UK if you have money or hold a position of power. Discuss!

Salford City Council are a major culprit in repeatedly failing to answer Subject Access Requests under the former/pre-GDPR Data Protection Act requirements and ignoring the ICO.
They also ask for ludicrous things that breach civil rights to privacy with their landlord l.icensing scheme. Underlying all this though is the UK's antiquated laughing stock constitutional arrangements... no written constitution setting out our rights as citizens, no proper one person one equal vote electoral system so we can vote out these dismal establishment politicians and so on.

We've had dealings with the ICO over a long period of time with a complex complaint involving a number of public bodies. These dealings led us to an expensive and fruitless attempt to secure a Judicial Review against the ICO. The use by the ICO of Section 50(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, by which a complainant can have their case binned without explanation and without any right of appeal or recourse, tells you a great deal about the ICO - and it's not pretty. It's not until you plumb the depths at considerable cost that you realise there is actually nothing you can do and nowhere you can go. Apologies for the bleakness of this message. All good wishes to Property118 members for the year ahead. You're doing a great job - thank you.

I had a very solid case with the ICO (against North East Lincolnshire Council) and they were initially on my side...because it was clear I was right. After enough time speaking with NELC, they completely flip-reversed and basically shut me down.

I’m sure they work together.

I know we moan about councils/government a lot, but they really are utterly, utterly incompetent and don’t think the rules apply to them (probably because they get a bit too used to playing the role as 'the only sheriff in town’) and simply cannot function if they’re a brought to account by a snivelling member of the peasantry.

The reality is that the Alliance is in posession now of a file relating to data breaches by certain councils. We have the evidence. How can Sefton keep data on properties purchased or disposed of by landlords, when those properties are not in Sefton, unless landlords tell Sefton everytime they complete a property transaction. The ICO and Sefton together by promoting GDPR breaches are denying landlords their licences. Landlords could not proceed as they would be colluding with Sefton to breach GDPR regulations. We do not under any circumstances condone law breaking ,that includes schemes to contravene GDPR regulations. Bad Enough Sefton ,but now the Information Comissioner covering for Sefton is beyond the pale. Ms Denham needs to step in and resolve this or Step down. The latter looks a better option at this stage ,as one of our complainaints is an Alliance member and publically elected official. The Alliance is compiling a file on several local authorities but we want to see this Sefton issue addressed as it would be inappropiate to disclose our evidence at this point, where the current management are either grossly inept or worse. This story will run.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 07/01/2019 - 14:37
I agree with you about incompetence Luke, but it is more disturbing than that. The deeper you go the more you realise that all these bodies back each other up against complainants i.e. the individual citizen. Until you've been there you don't understand what is going on, whether complaints involve the NHS, Government Departments, Ombudsmen or other public bodies. The dark side of this country I'm afraid. My husband, who went through the nightmare, which involved the most senior of individuals, lost all confidence in the institutions of this country. He felt it had all the appearances of corruption -that's how bad it felt to him, rightly or wrongly.

I can appreciate that it's hard to grasp the content of the GDPR without reading it, but there seems to be no case here.

From GDPR Article 6:
1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
...
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
...
4. Where the processing for a purpose other than that for which the personal data have been collected is not based
on the data subject's consent or on a Union or Member State law which constitutes a necessary and proportionate
measure in a democratic society to safeguard the objectives referred to in Article 23(1), the controller shall, in order to
ascertain whether processing for another purpose is compatible with the purpose for which the personal data are
initially collected, take into account, inter alia:
...

To try and argue that this wasn't an exercise of official authority would be madness, and the council can use the information for anything related (if it meets 6.4's tests). The ICO was right to throw this out.

Re comment by Mrmr93. Incorrect. GDPR regs are clear. Data collected must not be excessive. A local authority asking for addresses of properties outside of their borough is indeed excessive. Re the second point, How can the council maintain this data as accurate and up to date. The landlord fills out the initial application providing this info ,but 6 months later sells or disposes of a property in another borough. There is no law mandating that he should inform every council in the country of his aquisitions/disposals therefore the data held will not be current leaving the council in clear breach.
Most Tellingly neither Sefton nor their ICO pals could tell the Alliance when tasked ,how the Council could keep the data current and up to date. The public deserve an answer. Why have Sefton and the ICO failed to explain to the Alliance and both landlords how this data will be maintained current as per GDPR legislation. Their silence is very strange indeed.

I can see this going the same way as your anti Shelter campaign:(
It would be helpful to see some evidence. When people ask on Twitter (erm, you do know that blocking people doesn't stop them from reading and commenting?) the response is always along the lines of 'we will provide an update later'
This one is particularly troubling. If true, can you post a link?
"#MondayMotivation Huge thank you to the concerned member of the public who informed us of the #Employmenttribunal ruling against #Shelter the housing charity who house nobody. Guilty of harassement and unfair dismissal of a vunerable employee. Lovely #Charity indeed."
And how many is a flood?
"Information flooding in to the Alliance from all over the country about the #Informationcomissioner and their failure to investigate #Data breaches by #Localauthorities. Email us any cases. We want a #publicenquiry into the handling by the #ICO of the Sefton case. @ICOnews."
The ICO certainly does get things wrong. Can you post the reply you've had from them?