Another agent has been fined by a court for failing to register under the Data Protection Act after a crackdown on the industry was announced last year.
It is unclear how many agents are still flouting the law.
In only the third prosecution, John Merfyn Pugh of Merfyn Pugh Estate Agents pleaded guilty at Caernarfon magistrates’ court to the offence of failing to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office that his business processes personal data.
Like the two earlier cases, he escaped the maximum sentence of a £5,000 fine. Instead, he was given a conditional discharge of six months and ordered to pay £614 towards prosecution costs.
The magistrates told him they were sorry to see him in court and that had he dealt with it earlier it would only have cost him £35. The court took into account the fact that Mr Pugh had complied with the law by the time the court heard his case.
Anne Jones, Assistant Commissioner for Wales, said: “Registering as a data controller is a basic legal requirement of the Data Protection Act.
“The fee for most businesses is £35 a year. Merfyn Pugh Estate Agents’ failure to register – even after being prompted to do so by the ICO – has cost them much more today. The message behind today’s prosecution is clear: ignore warnings and you too could end up in court.”
In March, a prosecution was brought against another Welsh agent, John Newbound, of Newbank Estate and Letting Agents.
Mr Newbound, whose firm has two offices in Blaenau Gwent, was ordered to pay a £100 fine, £250 towards prosecution costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge by Cwmbran magistrates.
The first agent to be fined under the ICO’s crackdown was Merseyside firm PDQ Property Sales on March 11, which received a fine of £250 and was ordered to pay £265 in court costs, plus a £15 victims’ surcharge.
All businesses that handle personal data – and effectively, that is every estate agent and letting agent that keeps records – must by law register with the ICO.
It announced a targeted crackdown on agents last year because compliance was so low, but it is clear that a number of agents have still not registered.
In June, the ICO announced that 4,336 estate agents and 1,764 letting agents had registered, an uplift in numbers of 719 and 402 respectively since the campaign launched a year earlier.
Agents may only have to register once, regardless of how many branches they have. However, if some of their offices form a separate legal entity, they would have to register more than once.
%20(002).png)
Comments
The largest abusers of personal data are the government, look at the current attempt to sell off our most intimate personal details [medical records].
Plus the multiple losses of data, the sale of DVLA details to all & sundry, the largest DNA database on the planet [illegal of course], and the mass collection of data held by councils and traded with whosoever they deem fit.
So substitute, random nasty government for nasty random business and AC might have a point!
Anyone who believes this is anything else than revenue collection better don a fleece and run about in a field with the rest of the sheep.
It is an ACT.
I believe it is criminal to make just about every business in the UK pay £35 a year to prove they are aware of the act and will comply with it.
They could end up charging Estate Agents £35 a year to 'sign up' for the Estate Agents ACT, gather that money in, then charge £35 to 'sign up' for the Property Misdiscriptions ACT... and so on.
They could trawl every industry and every ACT.... couldn't they?
The mind boggles. IT IS AN ACT... WE KNOW IT IS THERE
“If there was no Data Protection Act then any random nasty company could walk off with your information and do as they please.”
A nasty company? Grow up, this is not the Disney version of some left wing conspiracy with corporate bosses sat around waxing their moustache planning to enslave you. What are these companies going to do with this data? Send you some targeted mailing on a product that you might actually want to buy is about the size of it. you really think we need a massively bloated government Which tramples on your privacy to a far greater degree than any ‘nasty company’ ever would?
If you really believe that you need a massive state to tax you and suppress your liberties at every turn in order to protect you from imaginary ‘nasty companies’ than you deserve all the punitive taxation and bullying the state dishes out. I sure as hell don’t deserve it though. And I find the states useful idiots such as yourself who consent to a state that is too large and does too much at too high a cost, abhorrent.
You see. They get away with because morons, like some posting on here, lap it up. They (lierally) buy into the hype. They pay their eco taxes, they welcome form filling, they even keep a copy of a vendor's passport on file in case they turn out to be Al Capone. Where there are mugs, there will be government, because mugs need to be governed. It gives them security. You could introduce a register of muppets and they couldn't get their £35 in quickly enough.
Also consider that you dont want your information sold off and this is at least a mechanism which shows the company has agreed to the terms of the ICO enabling them to register.
If the register, they have no defence if the breach the ICO rules.
Too many people dont read about the ICO then moan.
@rebecca
Yes. Its so a member of the public can see what a companies responsibilities are and who is accountable for data handling in the event of a request. The main purpose of the public register is transparency and openness. The register includes the name and address of data controllers and a description of the kind of processing they do.
Oh, and its the Law so you cant opt out.
AC - I don't think a "nasty company could walk off with your information and do as they please" if they weren't on this register. Not any more so than if they were on the register.
It is red tape.
Rebecca,
No is the answer.
It would be similar to the government saying everyone who has a mobile phone should pay £35 because they store other peoples data on it. They would then need to set up offices and detection systems at the cost of squillions to ensure they got everyone to pay.
Then they catch a few poor souls who forget, make 'bloody good' examples of them, make sure it is reported in the press, thus scare everyone into coughing up the £35.
You are simply paying £35 a year to be on a list.
Nothing else.
The concept is valid.
If there was no Data Protection Act then any random nasty company could walk off with your information and do as they please.
£35 would just about cover the admin cost of running it.
And you have to remember that us estate agents (especially those big nasty corporates) hold a HUGE amount of very personal data.
Pain in the arse? Definitely.
Additional cost I don't want? Certainly.
Worth it in the end? Probably.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
The sooner the people of this country wake up and realise that government is a cancer that need to be cut out of this country the better. Governments are suppose to ensure property rights, personal safety, law & order and national defence.
AND NOTHING ELSE.
FFS what a joke talk about money for old rope.
'I hereby swear not to leave all my staff files by the back door of the office; e-mail my clients each others' personal details; and tell the lads down the boozer the junior neg's bank account details'.
There's my 35 quid ta very much, now I feel better.
Does anyone know what the actual point of being registered with the data protection people is? Does it, for example, have any more point that registering for anti money laundering? I am genuinely puzzled.
What a bunch of wasters some EA's are. Think they can do the job when clearly they are unable to. Serves them right. As for Dave E's comment this beggars belief.
These are the dimwits that should be stopped from trading. Initially for say one month they have to close the doors and turn off the phones. That will sort the men from the boys and focus their attention to detail!
The AML Register is another hidden tax designed to fleece all businesses!
The world has gone mad. Jimmy and Michael hit the nail on the head....the country is littered with red tape.
Red Tape
They are watching you ! Who are they ?
...and don't even get me started on the "victims surcharge".
Like all of these schemes, they will wait until everyone has registered, then anounce that the fee will be going up to £1500 per year. Try unregistering then.
I very reluctatntly registered from the outset, objecting strongly. It must cost almost as much in bureaucratic costs as they make in revenue, so fees will doubtless go up.
To receive a letter saying that I was an estate agent so had better register, in order for them to know I am subject to the DP Act is such a truism it is utterly pointless. Its like the DVLA writing to car owners to ask them to pay a fee to confirm that they own a car.
Surely EVERY business makes a note of a customers name, address & phone number at some point or another, so surely EVERY business has to register ?
Rant over, time for a cuppa. Plenty of time sadly, or would be except I'm wading through the guff to register with ARLA having just waded through the guff to become registered as a LICENSED member of NAEA. Love paperwork.
How do you check? We have registered for so many things, its hard to keep track
Yet another rip off con. You pay to be on a register. Then what. You are on a register. What does that do? Absolutely nothing. You have been added to a list. How is that any different from that spam going around that you have been specially selected to be in the business directory of the year for £500. They must have got an email from some Nigerian gentlemen and thought "we can do that".