Data Protection Act request.. How do I?

fozzeh

Equaliser123 wrote: »

fozzeh wrote: »

If recorded and proven to be and no action is taken, surely it would come under a breach of the Malicious Communications Act 2003, QUOTE]

Errrrr.....why?

Implicated by what was missed off the quotation; a question mark.

If you ring up anyone and they are abusive towards you in a way which would offend, it isn't warranted. Hence, why I asked would it not be covered and if the called wanted to proceed further.
In civil matter, for example, I called someone on this forum a "f*****g idiot" or said "I'm coming to get you", they could report that to the police, ISP checks, etc etc > police warning. Within employment, threatening or abusing others in a way which may offend may come under this act but I can't be sure.

I someone rung our office and one of our call staff said what was said, they'd be sacked and wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Optimist wrote: »

I'm curious to know which address this person gave ?
Normally they give their Luxenbourg address given that is where they are now based

CH says:

PAYPAL (EUROPE) LTD
WHITTAKER HOUSE
WHITTAKER AVENUE
RICHMOND
SURREY
TW9 1EH

Lux address is on their website which is where most must be directed.

Equaliser123

fozzeh wrote: »

If you ring up anyone and they are abusive towards you in a way which would offend, it isn't warranted. Hence, why I asked would it not be covered and if the called wanted to proceed further.
In civil matter, for example, I called someone on this forum a "f*****g idiot" or said "I'm coming to get you", they could report that to the police, ISP checks, etc etc > police warning. Within employment, threatening or abusing others in a way which may offend may come under this act but I can't be sure.





.

Very difficult to follow what you are saying.

But if you think every time someone swears at you on the phone, you can expect Police action, you are very mistaken.

DrScotsman

It's threads like this that make me really wonder why there are so few threads on MSE on how to record your own phone calls on the cheap. The threads that do exist always devolve into legal discussion.

(The answer is an old iPod with Rockbox along with the usual telephone-to-audio-jack kit by the way, but you won't find that info anywhere on the Internet)

magpiecottage

You don't need the Data Protection Act - Paypal is covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service so just tell PayPal you are making a regulated complaint and remind them they have 8 weeks to give you a satisfactory response or you will be going to the FOS.

An e-mail to Paypal will do but you will need to print out and snailmail the FOS form if it gets that far.

Be realistic in what you expect, though. Being sworn at is not worth megabucks!

Kearney_2

The Financial Ombudsman doesn't exist to resolve disputes between companies and their customers over being sworn at. This is not a regulatory issue.

Even if the call was recorded, the company can refuse you a copy of the call as other customers' data may be possible to be overheard in the background and by complying with the DPA, they would be breaching it.

The most that would come of this situation is someone from their customer complaints section contacting you and apologising for the fact and offering some form of small compensation.

DrScotsman

Kearney wrote: »

Even if the call was recorded, the company can refuse you a copy of the call as other customers' data may be possible to be overheard in the background and by complying with the DPA, they would be breaching it.

Not that I'm supporting this particular subject access request, but if that were true then there was a DPA breach when the OP originally had the call.

If it was an isolated incident then they could just erase that tiny portion of the recording. If it happened all over the call then I think the Information Commissioner would like to have a word with Paypal

cybergibbons

Kearney wrote: »

Even if the call was recorded, the company can refuse you a copy of the call as other customers' data may be possible to be overheard in the background and by complying with the DPA, they would be breaching it.

You're really going to need to cite something that says that this has ever happened and been upheld by the ICO, as it sounds like crap.

magpiecottage

Kearney wrote: »

The Financial Ombudsman doesn't exist to resolve disputes between companies and their customers over being sworn at. This is not a regulatory issue.

Yes it is. The Financial Ombudsman Service can make awards for material distress or inconvenience. If it decides an employee of a firm under its jurisdiction has caused this to a customer as a result of being abusive or swearing at a customer it is entitled to do so and this is legally binding.

The terms to which it relates include what is considered within the relevant industry to be good practice at the time of the events giving rise to the dispute. I don't think good practice would be thought to include swearing at customers.

Freddie_Snowbits

Sarsie wrote: »

Now... what do I write???

I would demand that the Girl who swore to you was given six of the best. That way you will be satisfied.

magpiecottage

Kearney wrote: »

The Financial Ombudsman doesn't exist to resolve disputes between companies and their customers over being sworn at. This is not a regulatory issue.

Yes it is. The Financial Ombudsman Service can make awards for material distress or inconvenience. If it decides an employee of a firm under its jurisdiction has caused this to a customer as a result of being abusive or swearing at a customer it is entitled to do so and this is legally binding.

The terms to which it relates include what is considered within the relevant industry to be good practice at the time of the events giving rise to the dispute. I don't think good practice would be thought to include swearing at customers.

FOS may decide that a complaint is frivolous or vexatious and refuse to deal with it but the mere fact that somebody is sworn at will not prevent it doing so.

It is also very difficult for a firm to resist a specific request for a recording of a conversation because it is then at risk of being reported to the FSA for refusing to co-operate.