the discourtesy of a law I ARCO it does not entail for yes same the commission of an offense of the LOPD.

Although Aqualia neglected the request of cancellation formulated by the denouncer due to not having given the Town Council immediate transfer from the request, as he should have made to act as person in charge of the treatment and not have the resolution of the requests of exercise of the rights ordered I ARCO. But this in yes same does not constitute an offense of the LOPD. And in so far as the denial of the cancellation abides by law for the fact that Aqualia treats the data necessary for the provision of the service of supply of potable water to the here denouncing, evidence that it lead to considering that the silence or aquietament of this entity in the face of the request of cancellation has prevented or hindered is not observed the exercise of the law of cancellation. Equally, the order of the treatment made by the Town Council in favor of Aqualia for the provision of the related service fits out to this entity to treat the data of the denouncer necessary for the fulfillment of the functions ordered, without its consent being necessary.