Not 100% sure on this one, but bear with me if I put a senario to you. The inspector attends the workplace and speaks to people, he can get all the contact details he needs through the workplace. If however, he gives you a caution, he then takes it one stage further and is cautioning you as an individual, he therefore has the right to obtain your personal details, i.e. your home address. Have experienced this through the Railway Inspectorate, which follows a very similar process. Interesting to see the comments on this one.

I would not have a problem with it so long as there was just cause if it is a reasonable request to assist the investigation. It is also part of the F2508 report form for the injured persons personal details to be added including home phone number. Steve

From experience with the Railway Inspectorate, when they caution someone it becomes the individual not the company or employer role. This is direct between the inspector and the person cautioned. The DPA does not therefore come into it as no one is publishing info about someone else. Under the DPA the company is required to register what details they are going to keep on an individual and must not disclose this to any other party without specific concent from the data subject (ie the person concerned) Therefore the company cannot give the home address of the employee without his/her consent. As stated when the inspector cautions someone it falls outside the control of the company concerned.

Under the DPA there is a right for the individual to maintain thier details private and it is an offence to publish that information without permission. In the case of the DVLA there is something within thier paperwork whereby you give permission for the personal info to be passed to others who may request it. These permissions may be hidden in the paperwork and are often missed by those who apply for a license or tax thier car. Under the DPA there is a requirement to obtain an individuals permission before any personal data is published, but not many realise this fact so it is often overlooked when signing documents.

The persons home address is provided by the person and by no one else. The company cannot do this because of the DPA, that is diffent to the person giving it. If the person is asked for and gives it it is outside the DPA all together. Anyone else cannot give it without the person concerned giving his/her permission, end of the news.

If an inspector requires details then s/he is perfectly capable of asking the witness so why ask employers to breach their duties of confidentiality. Data handlers may provide informatio to approved persons in the specified format but none of these applies to an inspector in the field. Still it is clear that many in the HSE believe they have absolute rights for anything they request. Bob

I don't dispute what you say regarding this particular query Bob(s), and of course the inspector could and should ask the person themselves, or the employer could simply get the consent. But how do I (well you) complete an F2508 without going against what you have just said i.e. "No third party should give details of any living person ", (unless you were reporting a fatality!) The fact is that the DPA does have exemptions that allow for the sharing of data.

The two Bobs So an inspector is carrying out an investigation and find he/she needs to speak to someone who has left the company - are you saying that the DPA stops the employer passing on contact details for that person? Brian

try arguing in a court that because of the DPA you did not cooperate with an inspector - any decent judge would hit U hard and I believe that such a position would damage a company so lets go back to basic common sense

Many, many thanks to you all. It makes interesting reading, quite apart from the need for an answer! I shall discuss with my colleagues.

All this waving of S20 powers does not move me one iota it is NOT a carte blanche to do anything they choose to do or see everything they want to ask for. The section is restricted to the investigatory role. As an employer I can contact people and ask them to contact the HSE and make facilities available but why should an inspector put me on the spot. Witnesses do have a habit of being either a member of the public or employed by someone at the scene of the accident - as employees they are always available at their employers workplace. As a member of the public they will have consented to providing contact details already. II think inspectors asking for home contact details are creating problems Bob

Section 20 and its subsections is categorically NOT restricted to the investigatory role. It sets out the powers of Inspectors to carry out their duties in enforcing the relevant legislation across the board. The use of the term "investigations" is the context of s.20 is synonymous with "enquiries" and applies equally to proactive inspections as reactive investigations. One thing to bear in mind is that, should an investigation result in a prosecution, one of the mitigating factors a defendant can use is full cooperation with the investigation. Playing silly burgers over an issue such as this is not going to help demonstrate full cooperation!

In other words, you're just going to ignore s.35(1) of DPA?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...n/physical-obtaining.htm Sorry!!! Bob

Just musing why many believe that the HSE etc are always right in what they do. Again I say that they cannot just fish their way through records just inn case there is something they want. All documents relevant to their investigations BUT witness personal information No! Employee witnesses are by definition available via their employer so why should an inspector create a problem? The real problem comes if one considers the rule of law and correct procedure important. Judges certainly do hence the presence of Judges Rules. As practitioners we believe in the correctness of the law and it is concommitant that it is enforced fairly in all respects. There is a serious philosophical question here. Is it right for enforcers to do anything they wish in order to enforce the law. The courts clearly say NO - there are limits. Bob

H&S practitioner should have a reasonable knowledge of other pertinent laws, and interpret them correctly! As far as blinkers go, I wonder if it hurts to shoot yourself in the foot!!

Bob, my blinkers are off and while I fully accept there are many cases where consent would be required. BUT you seem to have the impression that the DPA does not allow the passing of information in ANY circumstances without the express consent of an individual. That is patently not the case as the very simple example of completing an F2508 demonstrates. I DO NOT (and nor do you), have to get the express consent of the injured person to complete the form and pass on their details to the HSE, as it happens via a third party contractor at the ICC. There are numerous other examples where this is the case and there IS a list of exemptions within the DPA that allows for this. Please have a look at the ICO site! Perhaps remove blinkers first?

Bob, I'm not sure if it is me that is getting mixed up but I will accept your word for it and I shall bow out gracefully. But if I could just point out that you did say, and I quote "Its quite simple really there is no lawful way anyone can divulge personal information about any living person without that persons consent" That statement, is I am afraid .................................... I will let you have the last word(s)

To quote Bob - "I think we are now arriving at a point where we are all agreeing that the DPA does apply and this is one instance where there is not a lawful exemption on the protection of personal and confidential information". As far as I can see, that does not appear to be the case. Even with evidence of the exemptions in the DPA there seem to be some refusing to listen to fact! I suppose that's what makes this forum so interesting. As a former HSE inspector, this used to come up only very rarely. And yes, the exemptions apply in most cases. Generally, the personal details of any person would only be sought during an investigation of some sort (be it accident or notice breach/notice appeal) and therefore as HSE are investigating criminal offences, the exemptions in the Data Protection Act apply. The courts would take a dim view of the resulting breach of section 20 if it obstructed the inspector just because the company or individual didn't want to release personal details. Depending on the investigation, the Inspector would probably gladly allow the company to contact the person first and do it that way - although that would make me think the company was not being as helpful as they could. Human nature being what it is, that will obviously conciously or unconciously, affect the inspectors thought process during the investigation. There are times where, due to the nature of the accident or the relationship of the witness/IP to the company, that the Inspector may feel that the only way to get an unbiased statement from the person without fear of influence from the company, is to contact them at home. There may be other reasons as well of course - i.e. that person may not be a witness but a suspect as mentioned above. But then, it would appear that whatever facts are laid out on here - and they are done very eloquently in some of the posts above - there will always be people who refuse to be moved from their faith based viewpoints.

Bob Did you actually read post 23? I am not a DPA expert but it appears to me that the exemptions outlined there would indeed give the Inspector the right to ask for and receive the information the Op describes for the exactly the reasons bwm sets out two posts above.