BRITISH GAS BLAMES DATA PROTECTION ACT AS COUPLE DIE AFTER GAS IS CUT OFF

The BBC reports on the sad case of an elderly couple who died after their gas was cut off, leaving them with no central heating. The couple had fallen into arrears on their bill and owed British Gas £140.62. British Gas claims that it could not alert the social services to their plight because, under the Data Protection Act, it is not allowed to reveal details to peoples’ debts to third parties without the permission of the debtors. The coroner in the case, Dr Paul Knapman, has said that he will write to the Information Commission, informing him of the circumstances of the couple’s death and inviting him to take such action as he feels fit. British Gas has called for a review of the law and Help the Aged has expressed concern about the current system.

The IPKat, while acknowledging the importance of privacy, is unhappy about the prospect of the requirements of the Data Protection Act preventing bodies from communicating potentially life-saving information to other interested bodies. He wonders if an exception where there is a risk to the life or well-being of the data subject or third parties can be incorporated into the act. He notes the similar ongoing controversy concerning the failure of the police force to disclose details of the previous allegations against the convicted child murderer Ian Huntley on Data Protection Act grounds (BBC report here).



BRITISH GAS BLAMES DATA PROTECTION ACT AS COUPLE DIE AFTER GAS IS CUT OFF BRITISH GAS BLAMES DATA PROTECTION ACT AS COUPLE DIE AFTER GAS IS CUT OFF Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, December 22, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.