Breach of Data Protection-DWP

Juicyloo

Love the vexatious allegation. Never had that before

lauzellen

tcr wrote: »

The ISSUE is what the OP says it is. And that's a DATA PROTECTION BREACH.

And if DWP didn't disclose the OP's info to someone else then THERE'S NO BREACH. Or are you just thick ?

As to the overpayment, oh, they owe it alright.

It's quite immature really asking someone you don't know on an internet forum whether they are thick.. but since you ask so nicely - no i am not thanks :cool:

They should still have verified that OP was who she says she was - Obviously Brenda needs retraining It would have been a data protection breach had it been someone else claiming to be OP.. Brenda didn't know whether or not it was the person in question as she didn't verify the fact.

I'd personally bring it up - just to ensure no more faux pas on the DWPs part and to ensure staff are correctly trained.

As for the overpayment, how do you know they definately owe it? I'm not saying OP does or doesn't, just that judgement should be reserved.

tcr_3

So it wasn't a data protection breach, was it ? It might have been had someone else phoned up. But it wasn't. So apart from Brenda needing a reminder, the OP has sod all to complain about. But of course, the only reason they're complaining at all is because they've been asked to pay money they owe.

I'm no longer prepared to sit on the fence or give such people the benefit of the doubt, as you are Lauzellen. This board is full of people trying to avoid repaying DWP debt, from overpayments to Social Fund loans. None of them EVER owe the money, do they ? They're as bad as fraudsters, imho, these people who to try to swerve money they owe. I'm sick how they all get such an easy ride, always believed , DWP always pilloried.

I gave people the benefit of the doubt up until yesterday & one case in particular. No more.

lauzellen

I never said it was a data protection breach - I said the operator in question was in the wrong and could have caused a breach and as such needed retraining. This would have been highlighted by a complaint regarding the phone call by the OP.

You can not tar everyone with the same brush - given OPs details were stolen etc you just don't know. I'll give advice to people following the guidelines set by the various organisations but not with the intention of telling them how to avoid paying back what they owe.

Some people are attention seekers and need some other form of help.. don't judge others by such people.

Juicyloo

tcr wrote: »

So it wasn't a data protection breach, was it ? It might have been had someone else phoned up. But it wasn't. So apart from Brenda needing a reminder, the OP has sod all to complain about. But of course, the only reason they're complaining at all is because they've been asked to pay money they owe.

I'm no longer prepared to sit on the fence or give such people the benefit of the doubt, as you are Lauzellen. This board is full of people trying to avoid repaying DWP debt, from overpayments to Social Fund loans. None of them EVER owe the money, do they ? They're as bad as fraudsters, imho, these people who to try to swerve money they owe. I'm sick how they all get such an easy ride, always believed , DWP always pilloried.

I gave people the benefit of the doubt up until yesterday & one case in particular. No more.

Oh dear, anger is not a good emotion. I am just dealing with the facts. I do not owe them anything. The electronically churned out letters are a joke- Carbon Imprint!

tcr_3

I'm grouchy as hell today, am off the fags, I don't mean to be a moan. Sorry.
Normal service will be resumed once nicotine levels settle down, nicotine patch now applied *and relax*
That being said, why are they chasing you up for in work credit ? Have you ever claimed in work credit ?
Does this ring any bells ?


"In Work Credit is a fixed tax-free payment of £40 per week (£60 per week in London) for parents bringing up children alone. It is payable for up to 52 weeks on top of your earnings, when you start work of at least 16 hours per week. You need to claim for it before you start work.
Who is eligible

You may get In Work Credit if you:
are bringing up children on your own
have at least one child living with you who is under the age of 16
are starting work of at least 16 hours a week
expect that work to last five weeks or more"

cit_k

Most people would reasonably expect the DWP to verify who they are talking to, and the dwp usually (always have when I have called) perform security checks to confirm identity.

Failure to do so, would mean the DWP was handling personal data in a way that most people would feel unreasonable, after all, without checking who is on the phone properly, they could be giving out details to the likes of the daily mail for example.

This means, there has been a breach of data protection, specifically, principle one of the act, where data must be handled fairly and lawfully, part of the expectation is

handle people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect

(source)

So a complaint can be made to the Information Commissioner if you want....

Also, the DWP themselves have a privacy charter which clearly states

When we ask you for personal information, we promise:
•
to make sure you know why we need it
•
to only ask for what we need, and not to collect too much or irrelevant information
•
to protect it and make sure nobody has access to it who shouldn’t

Obviously, not performing any security checks means they have not protected your information to make sure no one else has access to
it who should not, so the DWP are in breach of their own charter too.
(source)

I would definately hit both the DWP and ICO with complaints about this.

After all, the DWP / ATOS make claimaints sign privacy documents restricting their rights if they want to record a medical, so they expect privacy - they cant complain if you complain about them breaching the rules...

samdd

I has cause to speak with ESA today, I had to confirm my DOB, Mobile Number and NI before she would give me any info, therefore i'm quite please with the security measures in place at my local office.

However i completely understand where the opp is coming from. IMO we should all be concerned if information (however small) is being given out without the necessary security procedures in place.

Times have changed, there's are lots of Profilers out there hoovering up all sorts of seemingly useless information in a bid to get into your bank account or leave you in lots of debt. We'll not know anything about it until after the horse had bolted.

Id write to the manager and polity remind him/her of the lax in security you have experienced and how you think it could be improved. If you go in all guns blazing, or having a go at them, then there is noting to be gained and will make you look like a fool.

I'd be very surprised if the ICO would get involved as there is no real damage been done.

Just my two penny worth..

Good Luck.

real1314

A single member of the 60 million population rings brenda at the dwp, and brenda can give them the details from just a name!

She might not be too hot on DPA but her memory skills are bloody incredible.

Perhaps people should take a step back and think about how credible this tale is?

Macro_3

real1314 wrote: »

A single member of the 60 million population rings brenda at the dwp, and brenda can give them the details from just a name!

She might not be too hot on DPA but her memory skills are bloody incredible.

Perhaps people should take a step back and think about how credible this tale is?

Perhaps Juicyloo is her *actual* Christian name, and she has an equally unusual surname, and is therefore the only person with that name in the UK? Or not.