Brighthouse family harassment

OlliesDad

NeilF3485 wrote: »

Does someone want to come along and move this to the "vent" board instead, as that is all it is?

That said, it has developed a debate on whether or not they are breaching consumer rights and so i think it is relevant in both forums.

George_Michael

They can point out to BH that they do not have permission to contact the persons given for character references to discuss their finances.

Who said anything about their finances being discussed with someone else?
All that the OP stated is that Brighthouse contacted a family member. I'm sure that if finances were discussed or disclosed to an unauthorised person, we would have been made aware of this by now.

If, as the BH website suggests they are to be references only, and Brighthouse are retaining the data to find out where the customer is in the event of a missed payment then they have breached the DPA.

Simply keeping hold of personal data is not a breech of the DPA, nor is asking someone if they could pas on a message or if they have an alternative contact number for the account holder.
They would only be breeching the DPA if they disclosed personal information which they have in their records, and as far as I can tell, there has been no mention that this has happened.

MamaMoo_2

I have a brighthouse contract to hand, and nothing about references etc is stated in the actual contract for credit.
However, when I went in today to make my regular weekly payment, I was talking about this to a member of staff. He went out to the back, brought me my file, and inside there was a sheet, with my 5 references names and contact details on, and at the bottom it said "I agree to the above named references being contacted in order to verify the information that I have given on my application for credit is correct", next to which I ha signed it.
Underneath this, it said:
"I agree that in the event that Brighthouse are unable to contact me using the contact details that I have provided they may phone the above references to get into contact with me." next to which, I had signed. I remember doing this, and also remember being offered a copy of the sheet, but I refused as I didn't need a copy, but I was offered one. And again l, today I was asked if I would like a copy, so presumably the OP's local store will have their record of this.
But I think this settles it, really.

Flyboy152

MamaMoo wrote: »

My guess would be that this information was offered up by a relative who was called. "do you have any alternative contact details for mr. X?" "yes, try his mother/brother/uncle/aunts house on 01234567890, he is there a lot"
Also, Flyboy, if the OP was asked for people the company could contact in this situation (which he would be) and he freely offered this information after being informed of why those details would be taken and how they would be used (as he would be) then he really has no comeback. Brighthouse made it perfectly clear to me that if they Repeatedly could not get hold of me, then they would use the contact details on the reference form to try and get hold of me. As I had every intention of paying on time every week, or contacting them first in any instance where I couldn't pay, I had no issue with this.

But their reason for requiring these names is for reference purposes, not contacts if the OP does not pay. Secondly, if we were to assume that that he did give them permission, I hardly imagine that the those named gave the company the permission to call them if he didn't pay. Just because a condition is included in a contract, does not make it lawful. Why are these such difficult concepts for people to grasp?

Flyboy152

mynameisdave wrote: »

Replace Brighthouse with Doctor and missed payment with a named medical test result..

LOL. Brighthouse are not doctors. I thought some people on this thread had some odd ideas, but this one really is the oddest.

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

Just because brighthouse describe them as 'personal references' doesn't mean there isn't a clause in the contract op agreed to stating they can contact the names provides in such cases.

Is anybody with brighthouse here and do you have a contract at hand?

They cannot tell the customer one thing and then change their mind in a different clause. That would make either clause to be an unfair condition.

Flyboy152

OlliesDad wrote: »

I would imagine the information is more detailed within the T's and C's, but without knowing exactly what the OP signed, all the advice given is speculative.

At the risk of repeating myself; just because it appears in the terms and conditions does not make it lawful. If I were to write in a contract that you can only borrow money from me, if you sign over the souls of your children and in the event you miss a payment I can have their everlasting essence, would that mean I can take them to hell?

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Who said anything about their finances being discussed with someone else?
All that the OP stated is that Brighthouse contacted a family member. I'm sure that if finances were discussed or disclosed to an unauthorised person, we would have been made aware of this by now.


Simply keeping hold of personal data is not a breech of the DPA, nor is asking someone if they could pas on a message or if they have an alternative contact number for the account holder.
They would only be breeching the DPA if they disclosed personal information which they have in their records, and as far as I can tell, there has been no mention that this has happened.

It is if it is held for an inappropriate use, is not relevant to the that use, or held for an inappropriate length of time.

MamaMoo_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But their reason for requiring these names is for reference purposes, not contacts if the OP does not pay. Secondly, if we were to assume that that he did give them permission, I hardly imagine that the those named gave the company the permission to call them if he didn't pay. Just because a condition is included in a contract, does not make it lawful. Why are these such difficult concepts for people to grasp?

Firstly, look at my last post.
Secondly, as the T&C's aren't breaking any laws , there's no issue here. If, as per your example, you only agreed to Lend me money if you could take my children's souls etc, I'd tell you politely to f*ck off.
Not to mention that enforcing those terms is a physical impossibility, whereas clearly, BH are enforcing their terms quite happily. If those terms were illegal, surely by now this would have been challenged in court and been proven to be illegal. As it hasn't been, well, you just keep trying to convince yourself that you know best...

George_Michael

It is if it is held for an inappropriate use, is not relevant to the that use, or held for an inappropriate length of time.

Inappropriate use?
No. The information was held to enable BH to obtain contact details for the account holder if they couldn't get hold of them any other way (as shown in the post from MamaMoo), so I would say it was very appropriate.

Not relevant?
The reason for the details being held was clearly stated on the forms (also as shown by MamaMoo), and the use of the information was consistant with its intended purpose.

held for an inappropriate length of time?
The OP still had a account with an outstanding balance owed to Brighthouse, therefore why would it be an inappropriate length of time?
This would probably be case if the loan was paid off, but it wasn't.