ICO threatens big fine – but it doesn’t happen in practice
Data protection full compliance is a big ask for small businesses but the rules are in place primarily due to the importance of businesses understanding the sensitivity of data they hold and the ramifications, in the age of technology, of failing to protect customer and other data. The rules will only be taken seriously in our view, as with anything, if enforcement is seen to have “teeth”.
Recently, there has been a well publicised case of release of highly sensitive and confidential data by, of all things, a law firm. The news this week is that, for what the ICO would defend as purely technical reasons, the London lawyer in question will apparently receive a fine of only £1,000.00 instead of the mooted £200,000.00. This much much smaller fine has apparently been imposed because the lawyer’s business has ceased trading and perhaps also because he is subject to Solicitors Disciplinary proceedings also, so perhaps the view has been taken that he will receive an overall severe punishment. However, in strict data protection terms, this does appear to be a sop.
The facts of the case are that Andrew Crossley, solicitorm allowed details of thousands of alleged filesharers to leak from his company’s website in September 2010. Mr Crossley was a sole trader and therefore he is personally liable for any debts or fines imposed on the firm and the ICO believes he would not be able to pay the much higher penalty fine they were considering imposing..
“As Mr Crossley was a sole trader it falls on the individual to pay the fine,” the commissioner said. “Were it not for the fact that ACS Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed, given the severity of the breach.”
Simon Davies, a director of campaign group Privacy International, states that regardless of the underlying situation of Mr Crossley, a fine of only £1,000.00, sends out a very bad signal. He said, “The ICO seems entirely unaware of the loophole it has just promoted. This signals to directors of all companies that they can act unlawfully under the Data Protection Act, and all they have to do is make the company dormant and escape any serious punishment.”
The ICO said Crossley “swore on oath” that he had given accurate information about his financial situation.

