The Courtauld’s Second Refusal To Provide Students’ ‘Sensitive Personal Data”
This is a copy of the letter that I have just sent the Courtauld HR Manager, Saad Anjum asking for the emails that show that Joanna Woodall was unprofessionally gossiping about me and has LIED about her lack of involvement in that email exchange with Rose Marie San Juan (my other tutor). Professor Woodall’s shocking attitude discloses both institutional autism and the flaws of a system that needs to be reformed. Have a look and let’s wait to see if I finally get the information that is lawfully mine in order to proceed with a proper formal complaint against my former tutors.
For a summary on this case click HERE
Dear Saad Anjum,
A month ago I sent you a request for all personal data concerning me with particular focus on the communications that ended up in Rose Marie San Juan’s email to Joanna Woodall dated March 2013. Joanna Woodall’s rejection of this email as addressed to her makes that evidence more relevant for the prosecution of my case. Your sustained refusal to provide that information and to articulate the means to get Rose Marie San Juan’s emails make the situation even more serious. I did not enroll in UCL for my PhD but at the Courtauld Institute which, after Joanna Woodall’s suggestion, appointed San Juan as my second tutor and even gave her a Courtauld address. My donor and I paid the Courtauld to fulfil that obligation and it is your obligation to honour it not to excuse yourself from it.
Under the Data Protection Act (DPA) I have the right to get a copy of any personal data which is being processed about me by the Courtauld. The DPA explicitly refers to information regarding a person’s sexual preference or medical condition as “sensitive personal data”. So far, I have not been handled the Data Protection Request properly and you are liable for breaches of FOIA.
Since I haven’t got any answer from you regarding my last email asking for a clarification on the information capture processes I am forced to ask you again to conduct a search on your back-up server and to confirm once it has conducted the search. I offered my advisors to help your IT Support team if help is needed. The CIA is obliged to make searches for the data (even if these are potentially quite extensive). The fact that the information is almost certainly on a back-up server seems unlikely to excuse you from that obligation. I would take, then, your silence as a second failure to reply to my request. Consider this my third formal attempt which if fails will make me formal complain to the ICO. You need to be alert of your legal obligations.
If you claim that you have deleted those emails, I need to know the exact date of their deletion and the name of the person who did that. If you keep the information for one year, as told me previously in writing, all emails between Rose Marie San Juan and Joanna Woodall regarding the March 2013 email should be sent to me in less than 20 days. Not doing this would incur in a very serious offence under the terms of the Act.
I would like, then, to reiterate my formal request to search your back up server in terms of the Courtauld’s obligations under the DPA and the consequences of its failing to respond.