Sefton trial case – Landlords Alliance

Sefton trial case – Landlords Alliance

9:21 AM, 14th February 2019, About 2 years ago 17

Text Size

As a matter of urgency, we ask all members and Property118 readers to email the information commissioner:

The basis of our complaint is that, as landlords we cannot sign up to Sefton’s new licensing scheme because it is not GDPR compliant. They ask for details of landlords properties outside of their area. This is excessive and not necessary, and is therefore, a breach. They may ask us for details which outline where we may have licences, in order to verify that we are fit and proper. However, the Council asking for a list of your property addresses, cannot be justified and it is not up to landlords to ensure Council is compliant.

Secondly, the council cannot possibly maintain this data as current and up to date as landlords may sell or acquire property at any given time, and they are not obliged by law, to inform the council unless it is specifically a property licensed by Sefton.

I appreciate that you may not be interested in Sefton, but this is a trial case. If we knock Sefton, it opens the door to attacking other councils. Plus, it opens the door for landlords to sue councils for data breaches.

Please everybody, even if you have emailed the ICO before, do so again. We must keep the pressure on.

A meeting has been arranged on the 1st of March to hand over a file on this issue  to Damien Moore MP. Please can everyone remember that the power is in our numbers.

Once again, the address is:
Also if you could CC in their chief executive:

Thank you all for your valued assistance.

Best wishes,



by John Frith

13:33 PM, 14th February 2019, About 2 years ago

Larry, could you point out the relevant GDPR text that requires Data Controllers to keep their information up-to-date. I'm aware that the subjects have the "Right to rectification", but that's a different issue.
Basically I don't believe that GDPR "requires" data controllers to keep their information up-to-date (that would impose an incredible burden on ALL data controllers, including landlords) - but merely to keep it updated if informed. I'm happy to be corrected on this point if I'm wrong.

by Larry Sweeney

15:03 PM, 14th February 2019, About 2 years ago

Hi John.
Article 5 of GDPR sets out 7 principles.
Article 5(1)B. Purpose limitation. Organisations should not use personal data other than for the purpose the data was supplied.
This raises the first question. What possible reason could councils have for wanting details of properties licensed in other areas. If they wanted to ensure that a rogue landlord banned elsewhere did not obtain a licence all they need is the name of the LA where the landlord had other properties. So Sefton fail on this point.
Article 5(1) c . Data minimisation. They should only seek information that is adequate and relevant. Again what is the relevance of the landlords properties elsewhere.
Finally. Accuracy. Article 5(d)1 .The data must be accurate and where necessary kept up to date. Inaccurate information must be erased. So a landlord fills out Sefton' application and for fear of prosecution caves in and supplies details of his properties in Cornwall and London. 5 weeks later he sells in cornwall and london and buys in birmingham. Unless the landlord decides to involve Sefton in his entire business affairs and there is no legal obligation on him to do so, then Sefton have information which they cannot possibly keep up to date and which is not erased for reasons of inaccuracy. Sefton need the landlord to keep informing them of his business dealings outside of Sefton for them to remain GDPR compliant, otherwise the excessive data collated by them could be dated and inaccurate within weeks even days. Madness.

by AnthonyP

16:02 PM, 14th February 2019, About 2 years ago


by Joel Davis

21:46 PM, 14th February 2019, About 2 years ago

All the Council need to do is record a date with the record. E.g. If the record shows that on 14/2/2019 Mr Landlord owned properties in Corwall and London then so long as that was true on 14/2/2019, such a record is and will remain accurate. If Mr Landlord sells in Corwall and London on 5/3/2019 and buys in Birmingham of 4/7/2020 the historical record from 14/2/2019 will still accurately reflect his ownership on 14/2/2019.
It is only a matter of time before all councils share data with each other automatically. Deposit schemes already do.
The GDPR doesn't really provide as much "data protection" as people think.
Any power to process data in other legislation overrides GDPR not the other way round.
The main right you have under the GDPR is to be informed about the purposes of the data.
Have Sefton council told you the purposes why they want information outside their boundary?
They are entitled to insist on the data but you are entitled to be told why? There must be something they intend to do with it otherwise why collect it in the first place? If they fail to give a reason, they might be in breach of GDPR.

by John Frith

14:28 PM, 15th February 2019, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Larry Sweeney at 14/02/2019 - 15:03
According to:

1. Personal data shall be:
(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay ('accuracy');
So firstly it says "where necessary", and secondly it says " having regard to the purposes for which they are processed", so ample wriggle room for Councils (and Landlords) to argue that if the information they hold is not up-to-date, that there is no material detriment for the data subject, and they / we are therefore still complying.
I can't see this as anything but a red herring.

by Highland Lass McG

18:28 PM, 15th February 2019, About 2 years ago


by Mick Roberts

8:09 AM, 16th February 2019, About 2 years ago

Done, we have to hope. As the councils are just waving their hammer as they have the power to it seems do whatever they like.

The losers have been the good tenants in the good houses all to get at a minority 21% (The councils statistics) bad houses, so 79% suffer. It's not on.

There hopefully will be some winners, the tenants in the poor houses, but many of us, my tenants included, are saying it's not worth A LOT OF US suffering where there wasn't a problem before in order for the council to use OUR MONEY to go after the minority bad Landlords. They should be made to pay for their own punishment. Not take funds from our rents and our house improvements.

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?