breach of data protection???

olly300

polka_dot_rock_and_roll wrote: »

firstly i didnt switch to santander knowing that they were consider to be a bad bank, i switched because i couldnt stay with my current bank

secondly i was unaware it was a machine that seals envelopes
this had never been sealed in the 1st place for any one in my house hold to open it the flap had never been folded and the gum unused

and i am not complaining for the sake of complaing, i consider the information in the letter privet

You know don't you that you can get spell checkers for browsers so you don't have so many spelling mistakes in your forum posts?

As I stated RM can't do anything with the details and with the back log with deliveries I expect their staff to have other things on their minds.

custardy

polka_dot_rock_and_roll wrote: »

firstly i didnt switch to santander knowing that they were consider to be a bad bank, i switched because i couldnt stay with my current bank

secondly i was unaware it was a machine that seals envelopes
this had never been sealed in the 1st place for any one in my house hold to open it the flap had never been folded and the gum unused

and i am not complaining for the sake of complaing, i consider the information in the letter privet

not having a go,but did you really think all the envelopes sent were hand sealed?

mcdaly

not a breach of DPA. Best you will get is an apology. Phone call is also not a breach of DPA.

Nothanks

Far from a breach of DPA, far from it.

I do think however that you should let them know their machine isn't working as effectivdly as it could, numbers of complaints is the only measure a company has to change its policies. You're right to let them know because it is a bit of a risk to them as well as you. As far as the phone call, it is best practice NOT to leave a bank name on an answerphone, some banks train their staff in this way, but it's not the most pressing thing the staff have on their minds.

Just depends how you go about it and how you communicate. I handle complaints full time, and you could be either a "Thanks for letting us know, this chap is OK" or a "sad old git, get a life" when the letter arrives.

Darryl_C

I'm also a complaint handler and have to advise that an unsealed envelope IS a breach of the DPA. Personally I didn't think it was until I investigated the matter.

The reason why it becomes a breach is due to the 7th principle of the Data Protection laws, which states:

Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

As such, an unsealed envelope would constitute not taking an organisational measure against accidental loss of personal data due to the envelope being open/unsealed.

Hope this clarifies this matter.

Mikeyorks

Darryl_C wrote: »

Hope this clarifies this matter.

Not in the slightest.

It's an error - not a breach. When you invest in hugely expensive in-line mailing machines which are virtually foolproof. But an operator doesn't follow procedures following a malfunction and the last envelope processed prior to the jam goes out unsealed .......... your quote does not apply.

Stalkdog

Mikeyorks wrote: »

It's an error - not a breach

That makes no difference. If I accidentally give away your personal information, it doesn't matter if I did it on purpose or not, I would still be in breach. I'm sure Santander didn't mean to send out millions of statements to the wrong customers either...

Regardless of whether it's a breach or not, it is still worth complaining to the bank, if only to highlight the fact that their procedures are failing.

zppp

Darryl_C wrote: »

I'm also a complaint handler and have to advise that an unsealed envelope IS a breach of the DPA. Personally I didn't think it was until I investigated the matter.

The reason why it becomes a breach is due to the 7th principle of the Data Protection laws, which states:

Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

As such, an unsealed envelope would constitute not taking an organisational measure against accidental loss of personal data due to the envelope being open/unsealed.

Hope this clarifies this matter.

It may be classified as a data protection issue, it doesn't mean they have automatcally breached data protection legislation. If for example the organisation quality controls a percentage of their outgoing mail, then it could be argued that they have taken organisational methods to prevent unauthorised and unlawful proessing of personal data.

It is at the end of the day the ICO's decision whether an organisation has breached data protection law, exactly that was mentioned in my original reply to the OP. It is not for you or I to decide whether there is a breach though.

Stalkdog wrote: »

Regardless of whether it's a breach or not, it is still worth complaining to the bank, if only to highlight the fact that their procedures are failing.

I do agree. To play devil's advocate though, how a bank would check billions of envelopes are sealed after they have gone through an automatic machine, and don't become unsealed during the postal system, or that there is a slight fault with the gum on the envelope etc.

Stalkdog

zppp wrote: »

I do agree. To play devil's advocate though, how a bank would check billions of envelopes are sealed after they have gone through an automatic machine, and don't become unsealed during the postal system, or that there is a slight fault with the gum on the envelope etc.

But if nobody complains about it, how does anobody know that there hasn't been a major, or systematic fault with the machine, and thousands have been sent out unsealed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there has been a breach or that the OP should be given compensation, just that it's worth highlighting.

Mikeyorks

Stalkdog wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there has been a breach or that the OP should be given compensation, just that it's worth highlighting.

But the person who decided to unearth this thread after it was well dead ..... says it is a breach. I say not .... you argue .... then say you're not saying it's a breach. So just what are you saying? There's a huge difference between the odd unsealed envelope that will not be caught by documented checks and Santander issuing a whole wagon load of corrupted Statements that no one checked. And where neither Santander nor the outsourcer had procedures in place.

I don't have an issue with people drawing attention to a problem .... but this thread is titled 'Data Protection' ......... and the example is not. Nor does it fit in any way to the extract the poster who resurrected this thread decided to inflict us with.