DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust's appeal of ICO's breach penalty dismissed

Posted on January 17, 2013 by Dissent

Back in May, I noted that the Information Commissioner’s Office in the U.K. had issued a fine of  £90,000 to Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust after the trust had misdirected faxes containing sensitive information on 45 occasions during the previous year. The trust immediately announced it planned to appeal.

Today, Robin Hopkins of Panopticon reports that the appeal was dismissed.

There were a number of interesting points in the decision, including the fact that self-reporting does not really mitigate. As Panopticon notes:

The fact that there was a voluntary notification cannot be given much weight when the Trust was under, in effect, an obligation to report (both to the ICO and to the NHS regionally). In any case it was reported over a month after the breach was discovered. Co-operation was the least that could be expected for such a serious breach. By the time the Trust informed the patients over three quarters were dead. There is still no absolute guarantee the sensitive information has been destroyed. The Trust’s mitigating features are therefore features to which we find the IC could not give much weight. In any case they are almost all post facto events and nothing about the wrongdoing” (paragraph 128).

A second interesting point was how the ICO determines the penalty. Until now, that has not been made public, but the decision incorporated the internal framework:

(i) Serious = £40,000 to £100,000
(ii) Very serious = more than £100,000 but less than £250,000
(iii) Most serious = more than £250,000 up to the maximum of £500,000.

The third point I found noteworthy was that the ICO is under no obligation to keep the offer of a discount for early payment alive during the pendency of any dispute. If an entity decides to challenge the penalty but doesn’t pay it promptly, they lose the 20% discount offer:

The Trust argued that, by refusing to keep the discount offer open pending the outcome of the appeal, the IC was penalising it for exercising its legal right to have its cased tested by a Tribunal. The Tribunal disagreed: “The purpose of the scheme would appear to us to encourage early payment and also to ensure there is an early resolution to the matter. There is no provision for a without prejudice payment” (paragraph 153). The IC did not err in refusing to keep the discount offer alive, and the Tribunal refused to restore that offer.

I suspect that this ruling my discourage other appeals, or at least get entities to pay early and then appeal.

h/t, Jon Baines


Related:

  • Two more entities have folded after ransomware attacks
  • Data breach feared after cyberattack on AMEOS hospitals in Germany
  • Premier Health Partners issues a press release about a breach two years ago. Why was this needed now?
  • Theft from Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital sparks probe
  • North Country Healthcare responds to Stormous's claims of a breach
  • Texas Enacts Electronic Health Record Data Localization Law
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Forensic Experts India Hacked, Credentials leaked
Harvard Hacked Again by @D35m0nd142 →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Scattered Spider Hijacks VMware ESXi to Deploy Ransomware on Critical U.S. Infrastructure
  • Hacker group “Silent Crow” claims responsibility for cyberattack on Russia’s Aeroflot
  • AIIMS ORBO Portal Vulnerability Exposing Sensitive Organ Donor Data Discovered by Researcher
  • Two Data Breaches in Three Years: McKenzie Health
  • Scattered Spider is running a VMware ESXi hacking spree
  • BreachForums — the one that went offline in April — reappears with a new founder/owner
  • Fans React After NASCAR Confirms Ransomware Breach
  • Allianz Life says ‘majority’ of customers’ personal data stolen in cyberattack (1)
  • Infinite Services notifying employees and patients of limited ransomware attack
  • The safe place for women to talk wasn’t so safe: hackers leak 13,000 user photos and IDs from the Tea app

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Congress tries to outlaw AI that jacks up prices based on what it knows about you
  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard
  • Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.