Search

How can we help?

Icon

“Systematic Failings” on Data Protection leads to a £15,000 fine

Following on from the case reported last month on data protection (”Failing to anonymise – the cost”), a nursing home in Northern Ireland has received a fine of £15,000 from the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), following the burglary of the home of one of its staff members.

During the burglary, an unencrypted work laptop was stolen. The laptop contained sensitive personal data, including medical information, on the nursing home’s 29 residents (including “do not resuscitate” orders) and personal data on the 46 members of staff.

The ICO’s subsequent investigation found the nursing home had no policies in place regarding the use of encryption, working from home and the storage of mobile devices. Data security training was also found to be lacking. In issuing the fine, the ICO said there had been “systematic failings” at the nursing home.

The fine was issued despite the nursing home referring themselves to the ICO, no complaints being made by any of the staff or residents’ families and no confirmation that the information had been further disseminated. In determining the level of the fine, the nursing home received some credit for having self-reported its breach to the ICO.

The ICO’s subsequent investigation found the nursing home had no policies in place regarding the use of encryption, working from home and the storage of mobile devices.

The amount of the fine reflected the size of the business, with the ICO stating that a bigger organisation experiencing a similarly serious breach should expect to receive a much larger fine. The case therefore acts as a timely reminder that all businesses must take their legal duties to look after personal data seriously and should ensure adequate policies, procedures and equipment are in place.  Simply having a work laptop password protected will not fulfil this duty.

For useful data protection factsheets, checklists and templates, please visit employmentbuddy.com 

For further advice on how to protect your business against data protection and privacy claims, please contact our employment lawyers on employment@clarkslegal.com 

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 22 July 2020
  • Employment

Unconscious Bias in the Workplace

Earlier this month, after being criticised for comments he made about the Black Lives Matter movement, Labour party leader Sir Keir Starmer made a promise during his LBC radio show that he would undertake unconscious bias training.

art
  • 22 July 2020
  • Employment

Employment contracts can be split between multiple transferees

UK Case law has established that TUPE can still apply to business transfers where the undertaking is transferred to multiple transferees provided the undertaking does not lose its identity. Further, TUPE can apply to service provision changes in the same circumstances provided it is possible to identity to which contractor the individuals transfer.

art
  • 20 July 2020
  • Commercial Real Estate

Is the retail sector about to turnover a new lease?

This week, it was reported that the Crown Estate has written to some of its tenants, offering them the option of paying a turnover rent.

art
  • 20 July 2020
  • Commercial Real Estate

What are the challenges of the traditional office post COVID-19?

The challenges of lockdown over the previous five months have been felt equally by both Landlords and Tenants; especially in relation to rental income.

art
  • 17 July 2020
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Privacy Shield Declared Invalid by CJEU

The CJEU yesterday handed down its long awaited decision on questions put to it regarding Data Protection .It found that the transfer mechanism used to permit data transfers to the US under the EU-US Privacy Shield is invalid.

art
  • 16 July 2020
  • Employment

Discrimination arising from a disability is not a ‘but for’ test

In Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions, the Claimant brought a claim for discrimination arising from a disability relating to the way the DWP handled her disability.