A survey conducted in April and May 2023 revealed that around ** percent of the companies that do business in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) found it challenging to adapt to new or changing requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). A further ** percent of the survey respondents said it was challenging to increase the budget because of the changes in the data privacy laws.

As of February 2025, the largest fine issued for violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the United Kingdom (UK) was more than 22 million euros, received by British Airways in October 2020. Another fine received by Marriott International Inc. in the same month was the second-highest in the UK and amounted to over 20 million euros.

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is one of the ways to find out what privacy risks people face when information is collected, used, stored, or shared about them. This helps the London Borough of Barnet find issues so that risks can be taken away or lowered to a level that is acceptable. It also cuts down on privacy breaches and complaints that could hurt the Council's reputation or lead to action by the Information Commissioner (the government watchdog). The London Borough of Barnet makes DPIAs public in with its Data Charter and the 2018 Data Protection Act and UK GDPR.

Whilst this some of the requested information is held by the NHSBSA, we have exempted some of the figures under section 40(2) subsections 2 and 3(a) of the FOIA because it is personal data of applicants to the VDPS. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a - it is not fair to disclose individual’s personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b - these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into the privacy of the individual. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Guidance is that information is personal data if it ‘relates to’ an ‘identifiable individual’ regulated by the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018. The information relates to personal data of the VDPS claimants and is special category data in the form of health information. As a result, the claimants could be identified, when combined with other information that may be in the public domain or reasonably available. Online communities exist for those adversely affected by vaccines they have received. This further increases the likelihood that those may be identified by disclosure of this information. Section 40(2) is an absolute, prejudice-based exemption and therefore is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. To comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency data protection principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. The NHSBSA has considered this and does not have the consent of the data subjects to release this information and believes that it would not be possible to obtain consent that meets the threshold in Article 7 of the UK GDPR. The NHSBSA acknowledges that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information to provide the full picture of data held by the NHSBSA; however, we have concluded that disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm and therefore, section 40(2) is engaged. This is because there is a reasonable expectation that patient data processed by the NHSBSA remains confidential, especially special category data. There are no reasonable alternative measures that could meet the legitimate aim. As the information is highly confidential and sensitive, it outweighs the legitimate interest in the information. Section 41 FOIA This information is also exempt under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). This is because the requested information was provided to the NHSBSA in confidence by a third party - another individual, company, public authority or any other type of legal entity. In this instance, details have been provided by the claimants. For Section 41 to be engaged, the following criteria must be fulfilled:

A data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is a process to identify privacy risks to individuals in the collection, use, storing, and disclosure of information. This allows Camden to identify problems so that risks can be removed or reduced to acceptable levels. It also reduces privacy breaches and complaints which can damage the Council’s reputation or enforcement action against it by the Information Commissioner (the regulator). We publish these as a dataset in accordance with the Council's Data Charter and also the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018.

Thank you for your request for information about the following: Request You asked us: ‘I require the following under my rights in the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000: • The full name and professional registration number of the independent medical assessor who reviewed or is currently reviewing my claim • The name and registered address of the organisation/company employing them • Details of who owns and/or controls that organisation, including parent companies • Details of who funded the assessor’s work on my case and the terms of payment (hourly, per case, etc.) The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) received your request on 11 August 2025. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Our response I can confirm that the NHSBSA holds some of the information you have requested and a copy of the information. Question 1 - The full name and professional registration number of the independent medical assessor who reviewed or is currently reviewing my claim Name(s) The following response does not relate to a specific claim or claimant. The request is being answered more generally given requests under FOIA are requester-blind, that is to say the identity of the requester is not taken into account when considering a request for information under FOIA. I can confirm that we do hold the names of the medical assessors however, we consider the names of the medical assessor to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018. Please be aware that I have decided not to release the names of the medical assessors as this information falls under the exemption in section 40 subsections 2 and 3(A)(a) of the FOIA. This is because disclosure of their names would result in their identification. As the requested information would allow a medical assessor to be identified, I consider this information is exempt. This is because it would breach the first data protection principle as: a) it is not fair to disclose their personal details to the world and is likely to cause damage or distress. b) these details are not of sufficient interest to the public to warrant an intrusion into their privacy. The requested information is exempt if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. For disclosure to comply with the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle, we either need the consent of the data subject(s) or there must be a legitimate interest in disclosure. In addition, the disclosure must be necessary to meet the legitimate interest and finally, the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm. This means that the NHSBSA is therefore required to conduct a balancing exercise between the legitimate interest of the applicant in disclosure against the rights and freedoms of the medical assessor. While I acknowledge that you have a legitimate interest in disclosure of the information, the disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm. Disclosure under FOIA is to the world and therefore the NHSBSA has to consider the overall impact of the disclosure and its duty of care. The expectation of the medical assessors is that they will remain anonymous and will therefore not be subject to contact or pressure from claimants or campaigning groups. Given the certainty that the name and will identify them, there is a reasonable expectation that this information will not be disclosed under the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be unfair and as such this would breach the UK General Data Protection Regulation first data protection principle. Please see the following link to view the section 40 exemption in full: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40 Question 2 - The name and registered address of the organisation/company employing them The prime contractor delivering the service is: Crawford & Company Adjusters (UK) Limited The Hallmark Building 106 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 5JE Question 3 - Details of who owns and/or controls that organisation, including parent companies The parent company is Crawford & Company Adjusters (UK) Limited. Question 4 - Details of who funded the assessor’s work on my case and the terms of payment (hourly, per case, etc.) The NHSBSA administers the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) on behalf of DHSC and contracts a third-party supplier for the provision of medical assessments under the scheme. The third-party supplier is paid by the NHSBSA

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) pre-screen is a shortened version of the full DPIA and is used to determine if the full assessment is needed. It should be carried out before any new data processing starts (or if the processing is already happening, before a change that will involve a high risk to individuals starts). In many cases the pre-screen is sufficient to assess and manage any risks and a full assessment is not required. Like full DPIAs, these are published in accordance with the Council's Data Charter and also the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018.”

In September 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission fined Meta Ireland 91 million euros after passwords of social media users were stored in 'plaintext' on Meta's internal systems rather than with cryptographic protection or encryption. In May 2023, the EU fined Meta 1.2 billion euros for violating laws on digital privacy and putting the data of EU citizens at risk through Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers. European privacy legislation is seen as being far stricter than American privacy law, and the sending of EU citizens’ data to the United States resulted in the record breaking penalty being issued to the tech giant. In January 2023, after it was discovered that Meta Platforms had improperly required that users of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp accept personalized adverts to use the platforms, the company was issued a 390 million euro fine by the European Commission. EU regulators claim that the social media giant broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by including the demand in its terms of service. In addition, Meta was fined 405 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) in September 2022 for violating Instagram's children's privacy settings. In November 2022, the DPC fined Meta a further 265 million euros for failing to protect their users from data scraping. GDPR violations in 2022 Social media sites and companies are not the only types of online services upon which users' data can potentially be compromised. In 2022, the online service with the biggest fine for violating GDPR was e-commerce and digital powerhouse Amazon, which was issued a 746 million euro fine. Furthermore, in December 2021, Google was penalized 90 million euros for GDPR violations. What are the most common GDPR violations? Since GDPR went into effect in May 2018, fines have been imposed for a variety of reasons. As of June 2022, companies' non-compliance with general data processing principles accounted for the largest share of fines, resulting in over 845 million euros worth of penalties. Insufficient legal basis for data processing was the second most common violation, amounting to 447 million euros in fines.

List of properties licensed under the Council’s HMO Licensing Scheme. This list is updated on a monthly basis. Under section 232 of The Housing Act 2004 the London Borough of Barnet is required to maintain and make available a public register of licensed Houses in Multiple Occupations. An extract of the register is published on the Council’s website here. The dataset is not intended for marketing purposes and none of the individuals or organisations mentioned within this register have given their consent for such use. Companies wishing to use this data for commercial purposes, and marketing in particular, are advised to consider whether their use of this data complies with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Information Rights are upheld by the Information Commissioners Office, for further information, see the Information Commissioner’s Office website at ww.ico.org.uk. More information on Houses in Multiple Occupancy can be found on our website as well as on the council's Planning portal. You will need to select "Houses in Multiple Occupation" from the drop-down menu and click "Search":

Dataset on commits (and repositories) on GitHub making reference to data privacy legislation (covering laws: GDPR, CCPA, CPRA, UK DPA).

The dataset contains:
+ all_commits_info_merged-v2-SHA.csv : commits information as collected from various GitHub REST API calls (all data merged together).
+ repos_info_merged_USED-v2_with_loc.csv: repository information with some calculated data.
+ top-70-repos-commits-for-manual-check_commits-2coders.xlsx: results of the manual coding of the commits of the 70 most popular repositories in dataset.
+ user-rights-ω3.csv: different terms for user rights teriminology in legislation.
+ github_commits_analysis_replication.r: main analysis pipeline covering all RQs in the R programming language.

In order to perform also the initial data collection, the GitHub REST API can be used, collecting data using time intervals, for instance:
https://api.github.com/search/commits?q=%22GDPR%22+committer-date:2018-05-25..2018-05-30&sort=committer-date&order=asc&per_page=100&page=1

This dataset accompanies the following publication, so please cite it accordingly:

Georgia M. Kapitsaki, Maria Papoutsoglou, Evolution of repositories and privacy laws: commit activities in the GDPR and CCPA era, accepted for publication at Elsevier Journal of Systems & Software, 2025.

Energy Performance Data for Non-domestic Buildings:This dataset presents data from every valid non-domestic EPC assessment held by the Scottish EPC Register (SEPCR) from commencement of central lodgement of the current EPC format to the SEPCR in October 2014 to September 2024. The data was extracted from the register on 25 October 2024.The data is published as a single file. Historic records (where a newer assessment of a building is lodged) and records lodged but subsequently marked ‘not for issue’ (usually due to an error in lodged data) are not reported. The data published in this extract is made available as Environmental Information for data analysis and to enable research into energy efficiency issues. The data must not be relied upon to verify if a valid EPC exists for a building, nor as the basis for the provision of energy improvement advice for a building. To check for compliance with regulatory requirements, a search for a valid EPC for a building should be undertaken at the Scottish Energy Performance Certificate Register. Please note that this data is not personal data in its published form. Persons accessing this dataset should be aware that if processing falls within the scope of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, or The Data Protection Act 2018, they will become a data controller and must comply with the data protection legislation. In line with the Scottish Government's Open Data Strategy, this data is published in a three-star format (data which is made available online, in an open and machine-readable format – see below for copyright information).