How Kelly Chung of the ICO has breached GDPR with an unlawful data request




Kelly Chung, a case officer at the ICO, has allegedly broken the Data Protection Act 2018 by asking a Company (also referred to as the registrar in this article), to break the law by disclosing private information about their customers.

A registrar in terms of domain names is a business that facilitates a domain purchase.

This relates to my website, PUBCHAT.CO.UK which is a domain registered in 2004 by me, a UK private individual. This is my private website where I blog about things I have an interest in. I blog under my article 10 Rights to Freedom of Expression.

This website is not owned or operated by an organisation and as such, is not under the remit of the ICO that appears to ‘cherry pick‘ what they will and will not investigate, usually by incompetent case workers who operate using email templates.

Kelly Chung, the ICO caseworker, claims to have undertaken ‘an investigation‘ and from that, incorrectly assessed that the registrar of my domain is the data processor and relayed this false assessment to Darren Hogan.

I own this website and domain. I am a private individual.  Kelly Chung of the ICO then gave a false account to Darren Hogan that the registrar was the data processor and in breach of the Data Protection Act, and told the registrar should write to Darren Hogan.

The registrar tore Kelly Chung a new arsehole in their formal letters, as they are not the data processors of my website and Kelly’s incompetence has allowed the registrar to be further harassed by Darren Hogan who is a convicted man.

Kelly Chung of the ICO prompted the registrar to disclose their ‘customer details’.  She said

We have noted your comments that you state that [redacted company name] is the registrar rather than the owner of the pubchat.co.uk website. If you are managing the domain you should be able to provide us with information regarding details of who owns the website. Should this information be provided, we will be happy to review and reconsider our position.

The ICO have (and gave) no lawful basis to request this private information and the registrar would have been in breach of GDPR laws if they had disclosed it.

Kelly Chung made it pretty obvious she would not change her view unless the registrar made this unlawful disclosure.

QUESTION: Do you think this is blackmail?
1
What are your thoughts on this?x

 

At no time has Darren Gary Hogan tried to contact me at this website (I would have told him to go fuck himself anyway), he has gone after the company trying to cause as much trouble as he can, but all the while bringing the focus back to him and his child abuse cautions which were sent to me, (a UK individual) because Darren Hogan had made inappropriate comments about a young teenage girl.

What happened?

Darren Hogan who has been convicted of criminal offences against my family made a right of erasure request to the registrar, to have his details removed from this website under the GDPR ‘right to be forgotten’.  Under Article 17 of the UK, GDPR individuals have the right to have personal data erased. The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances, and is when personal data is held and processed by an organisation.  Individuals have no obligation to erase anything they legally possess.

The claim by Darren Hogan was manifestly unfounded and is malicious in intent and is being used to harass an organisation with no real purpose other than to cause disruption.

Darren Hogan is trying to hide the fact that he is a criminal and a relentless online troll with child abuse cautions from West Midlands police for abuse of his own son.

Darren Hogan is also alleged to have been complicit in several other offences against the same family and now realises that his cunt’ish criminal behaviour is in the public interest.

I purchased this domain almost 20 years ago, I bought it from an online domain registrar, I cannot recall the name but most likely 123reg or something like that.  In 2015, I transferred the domain to a new registrar where it has been ever since.

The domain registrar is simply the business that facilitates the purchase & renewal of the domain name, nothing more.

The registrar has nothing to do with the website.  The website is ‘linked’ by DNS records and in my case, the website is hosted by a 3rd party web hosting company which I regularly change to avoid trolls.

I was provided with all related material by the registrar as it relates to me and my private website, they had a lawful basis to send me this information.  I am publishing it as a matter of public interest to show how Darren Hogan has intentionally targeted the registrar and provided false or misleading information and fake ID.

Darren Hogan sent the following email and letter to the registrar, referring to himself as ‘SIR’.

Please find attached our request, we look forward to your response.

Kind Regards,

Sir Hogan

 

The response to Darren Hogan by the registrar was

 

Mr Hogan

We are in receipt of your email but unsure who ‘we’ are? (as your email alludes to be from ‘we’ / ‘our’). Your letter also only refers to a single entity, that being Darren Hogan?

[redacted company name]  does not hold any of your personal data and therefore, is not sharing (processing) your data, however, for us to check, you would need to provide us with suitable identity (Drivers license, passport etc).

The only data we are aware that a Darren Hogan (you) ever provided to [redacted company name] was grossly offensive and malicious information posted on our public business Facebook page; this information (and other information) was provided to the police for which you were subsequently charged and convicted. You were subject to a restraining order that required extending a further year to two years for breaching that order.

Should you persist in sending further unwanted communications to us, we will seek reinstatement of that order and consider reporting the matter to the police if it continues.

I must inform you that the websites you refer to are privately owned, we cannot provide any further details to you as this is protected by GDPR.

Given the nature of your threats of legal action, I will forward your email to the website owners but please do not consider this to be an obligation for them to respond, I am unable to confirm their receipt of my emails.

I see both websites have contact forms where I would strongly suggest you send your requests to them directly.

In any event, we note that you do not detail what amounts to your personal data, nor do you identify anything specific on the given websites, especially as you claim the information is untrue. For us to consider intervening as a business, we would need to see clear evidence of such allegations and as I stated before, confirmation of your identity.

I draw notice to your usage of a title of nobility? (‘Sir’)?

This raises serious concerns that this is a falsified use of the realm for social benefit and could be considered fraud. This is especially the case as your email relates to the use of legal action intended to be brought in the Crown Judiciary.

I would advise you to seek legal advice before pursuing a further course of conduct and trust this concludes the matter.

Legal services,
[redacted company name]

 

Darren Hogan replied. (notice he claims to have a legal team ?) what numpty legal team would support his stupidity… oh, let me guess, a vile old man and moon face.

 

Dear [redacted company name]

Please find attached confirmation that [redacted company name] is the website registrant [screenshot is below]. As such you are the data controller. You have received my lawful request to remove all personal data. I will consult my legal team on if I am required to send you further personal data , in regards to my passport, considering the director of the company also personally shares my personal data to cause damages to myself.

As for the “Sir” remark, auto correction I’m afraid , apologies. Appreciate no further threats of contacting the police in response to me submitting a reasonable request lawfully to [redacted company name]

I also make you aware I have received advise from the ICO and are aware of the ownership of www.pubchat.co.uk in case it suddenly changes to private or personal, as [redacted company name] are still controlling that change and personal data of mine and are liable.

Any information relating to myself and my name Darren Hogan , Darren Gary. Any photographs of myself. Any documents belonging to myself. Any reference to my name. If this matter isn’t resolved in the allocated time , then further steps may be taken.

Please would you kindly give me the contact details of your legal services, whom am I speaking with.

Kind regards,

Mr Hogan.

 

Darren Hogan provided the following screenshot showing that the company he was targeting is the REGISTRAR and not the REGISTRANT.  The registrar is the company that facilitates the purchase of a domain, and the registrant is the person purchasing the domain.  Neither are, as registrar or registrant necessarily the website owner.

The screenshot also proves the domain name was registered a year before the company was even formed.

Darren Hogan, thinking he is clever, then sent the following email which really shows his for the pathetic individual he is.

 

Dear Sir/Madam ,

After consulations, please find attached photo identification displaying my photograph and full name alongside an expiry date.  I am sure this will suffice.  After deliberations It has been agreed I cannot provide a drivers licence or passport due to the director of the company having access to sensitive information.

I look forward to your response in dealing with the request of removing all data relating to me as set out in the letter previously sent.

For avoidance of doubt you will see a photo of myself displayed at the following link below which is clearly myself as you may see.

https://pubchat.co.uk/darren-hogan-of-wolverhampton-bjj-has-restraining-order-extended/

Regards

D Hogan

 

Darren Hogan accompanied his email with the following ID, suggesting it was formal identification.

Seriously, I shit you not, this arsehole tried to use this as formal identification!  Sadly, Kelly Chung of the ICO seems to accept it as well.

 

 

The registrar then, realising they were being unnecessarily targeted by Darren Hogan send a cease and desist letter.

 

Dear Mr Hogan

I have, in my previous email, warned you of your conduct and now instruct you to cease and desist.

The identification you have provided is not official identification, and it is clear you are now intending to cause alarm and distress.

The article you have sent does not form any sort of identification however, I am aware that the facts surrounding that particular article are true.

Legal services,
[redacted company name]

 

So, now Darren Hogan has continued to harass the registrar by bringing this unwarranted complaint to them.  Thankfully, I have been fully approved of this communication, and the registrar has copied us into their communication with Darren Hobo.

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
B. Anon
B. Anon
1 year ago

I have experience of ICO investigator breaching guidelines also to protect an MP being reported for breach of my data rights. She had to back-peddle when I complained against her, but has since sent multiple lies about furthering the investigation. The ICO has many corrupt assets in place, and the Commissioner needs firing for allowing this to happen. It’s another whitewash performative organisation that fails to deliver on the promise and is corrupt to the bone. Their investigators are not being properly vetted and many are abusing post to cause detriment to those relying upon the ICO to investigate data… Read more »

Anon
Anon
1 year ago
QUESTION: Do you think this is blackmail?" Read more »

Yes, that is blackmail.