£20 to change name on Virgin Media bill. Justifiable???

fluffnutter

unholyangel wrote: »

I was just about to post that!

Under the Data protection act they must ensure their records are accurate, up to date and correct any errors when they are made aware of them.

Write to them telling them their records are incorrect and that your surname isnt abc but xyz.

Read more here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/personal_information/how_manage/correct_info.aspx

But you originally provided surname ABC, so they records aren't 'incorrect' as such, merely that your data has changed. To say their records are incorrect suggests culpability but, in this instance, it's not their own inaccuracies that have caused this data anomaly.

It's not unreasonable to charge an admin charge to amend data - there are processing costs associated with it. Sometimes it's not as straightforward as merely changing it on screen (and nor should it be). You'll need to provide paperwork (people can't just change your data; there has to be proof), this will need some sort of verification, a data change request initiated and processed and the work actually done (and possibly checked). Costs can quite easily mount up.

I know this might seem like overkill but trust me, it's to keep your data accurate and companies take data protection very seriously.

However... I personally feel that, in the case of a woman changing her name on marriage, amending the data for free is appropriate. It's not like it's some extenuating circumstance, it's very common and companies should be able to factor this cost into their day-to-day operational costs.

Azari

fluffnutter wrote: »

But you originally provided surname ABC, so they records aren't 'incorrect' as such, merely that your data has changed.

Sorry, that really does not make any sense.

You can't say incorrect data is not incorrect because it's changed since it was originally recorded.

The data on their records says one name and it is not the name of the customer. That is an incorrect record.

True it is not their fault that the data is incorrect until they are informed of the fact but once they have been informed, then as long as the data is not correctly recorded they are at fault.

fluffnutter

Azari wrote: »

Sorry, that really does not make any sense.

You can't say incorrect data is not incorrect because it's changed since it was originally recorded.

The data on their records says one name and it is not the name of the customer. That is an incorrect record.

True it is not their fault that the data is incorrect until they are informed of the fact but once they have been informed, then as long as the data is not correctly recorded they are at fault.

But they're perfectly entitled to choose the process whereby data is corrected. To say they've been 'informed' and if they then don't correct the data, they're at fault is not something that would be upheld by the data commissioner.

So you can't just phone up and say 'my name's now X, over to you. If you don't correct it, you're at fault'. You have to follow due process (provided it's reasonable but that's a slightly different issue). Therefore if they say 'we need a copy of your marriage certificate, plus a form, plus admin charges of £20' then you've got to comply, unfortunately. You could argue against it, of course. And you might well be successful but there's nothing wrong with their processes and they're not at fault by not acting on the strength of your original phone call.

Honestly; I know it's an embuggerance but it's supposed to be there to protect you. There's a lot more to changing data on a live system (rightly so) than people might think and £20 is a fair representation of the costs involved. I think they should waive this for name changes on marriage and recoup the costs elsewhere but it's still a realistic charge.

Azari

fluffnutter wrote: »

But they're perfectly entitled to choose the process whereby data is corrected. To say they've been 'informed' and if they then don't correct the data, they're at fault is not something that would be upheld by the data commissioner.

I'm afraid that you are drifting further away from reality with each post.

Under what circumstances would the information commissioner consider they were at fault for not maintaining accurate records if not after they had been notified that their records were incorrect?

So you can't just phone up and say 'my name's now X, over to you. If you don't correct it, you're at fault'. You have to follow due process (provided it's reasonable but that's a slightly different issue). Therefore if they say 'we need a copy of your marriage certificate, plus a form, plus admin charges of £20' then you've got to comply, unfortunately. You could argue against it, of course. And you might well be successful but there's nothing wrong with their processes and they're not at fault by not acting on the strength of your original phone call.

I'd agree that they can ask for reasonable evidence but to lump in a demand for £20 with that is absurd.

There's a lot more to changing data on a live system (rightly so) than people might think and £20 is a fair representation of the costs involved. I think they should waive this for name changes on marriage and recoup the costs elsewhere but it's still a realistic charge.

As someone who has designed and built such systems I have to tell you you are completely wrong. The name would not even be a key field. You wouldn't be able to measure the cost of changing it - apart from the data entry cost.

The only people who would could reasonably expect to make you jump through some hoops to change your name are banks and similar.

This is a simple account maintenance function that should not cost anything to change. Virgin are just acting like a bunch of chancers!

fluffnutter

Azari wrote: »

As someone who has designed and built such systems I have to tell you you are completely wrong. The name would not even be a key field. You wouldn't be able to measure the cost of changing it - apart from the data entry cost.

We're going to have to disagree! As someone who has designed and built such systems, and migrated data to them, and maintained them, I know that a name change request would cost a fair bit. Plus name is always a key field on the systems I've worked on. Together with your unique number (whatever that might be called) and your NI number, it's about the most important field the systems I've worked with carry!

Here's the process on the MOD system I work on (I'm not going to give any more details). Name request comes in with accompanying paperwork. Received by admin section and verified. Change request initiated by admin section. Paperwork raised and completed by change team. Change request passed to data team. Change tested on test systems. Paperwork completed for 'go live' request. Go live request passed to implementation board. Request discussed and approved at implementation board. Change scheduled by operational team. Change actioned and checked. Some dozen people will be involved in that seemingly simple activity.

This is all stipulated by the MOD and actioned by a private IT contractor so there are extra tasks and effort involved in actually charging for the work! But that's outsourcing for you... :rotfl:

But there's a serious point in there - I don't think data changes are as straightforward on all systems, as on the ones you've developed.

fluffnutter

Azari wrote: »

The only people who would could reasonably expect to make you jump through some hoops to change your name are banks and similar.

Why can banks and similar do it but not Virgin? You have a legally binding contract with Virgin and are paying for a service. I think part of that contract involves your data; there are probably loopholes and technicalities that void contracts if data such as your name is incorrect, so it makes sense for this to be important.

Say you ran up enormous bills and then tried to argue 'I'm not X, I'm Y'. At worst you might get away with it and even at best, it would cause Virgin a big headache trying to sort it out, so it stands to reason they'd take this pretty seriously.

Perhaps it's just my perspective - data's my profession. I do realise I can get a bit more excited about it than most people

I have said, but it's worth saying again, I don't actually agree with Virgin charging for name changes on marriage. It seems churlish and opportunistic.

fluffnutter

One more thing before I disappear up my own backside...

At least this isn't an airline! If your ticket says 'Nick X' but your passport says 'Nicolas X' some airlines make you pay for a name change on the ticket! And charge far more than £20 to do so!

Another opportunistic scam perhaps, but at least it shows how goddam important your name is!

gjs6385

Can I try to put a real-life example behind this:

I work for a company which holds personal data of members of the public.

If a name change is required through marriage, we request the person to send us copies of their birth and marriage certificates.

When these are received in the office, they are opened, scanned onto the system and copies taken for our files. It is then passed on to the relevant member of staff, who checks them and updates our records.

We then have to write back to the person acknowledging receipt of the documents, confirm that our records have been updated and of course return the original documents - which we do via recorded/special delivery to ensure their safe transit.

Bearing in mind our hourly rates range from £90 - £140 per hour, if (assuming the latter), all of the above only has to take 10 minutes (plus postage costs) for a chargeable amount of £20 to be reached.

Therefore, although I agree it looks a high charge on the face of things, their processes are in place for your data protection.

Gareth.

GraceCourt

gazsharpe101 wrote: »

I work for a company which holds personal data of members of the public.

If a name change is required through marriage, we request the person to send us copies of their birth and marriage certificates.

When these are received in the office, they are opened, scanned onto the system and copies taken for our files. It is then passed on to the relevant member of staff, who checks them and updates our records.

We then have to write back to the person acknowledging receipt of the documents, confirm that our records have been updated and of course return the original documents - which we do via recorded/special delivery to ensure their safe transit.

Gareth, I appreciate that you haven't said why all of this is necessary in respect of the company for which you work - for example, it could be a bank and that all of the above is necessary - but it simply isn't comparable. Very few companies could justify taking copies of birth certificates, in fact for the vast majority the act of copying and storing them would breach at least three of the statutory Data Protection Principles (Schedule 1 of the DPA 1998), because they only need to be assured that the new name given is correct - your procedures under those circumstances would breach Principles 2, 3, and 5.

I'm 100% with azari on this - fluffnutter, you have lost sight of the argument. You state:

Therefore if they say 'we need a copy of your marriage certificate, plus a form, plus admin charges of £20' then you've got to comply, unfortunately.

But actually, no, you don't. You only need to comply with their reasonable requests to (for example) identify yourself as who you claim to be, which is standard for a call centre, and if you then - having confirmed your identity - inform them that your name has changed for the purposes of updating administrative records for commercial purposes, and they refuse, then so be it. Charging a fee is unlawful unless it is explicitly allowed for in your contractual agreement with the company concerned, and even then there is every likelihood that it would be deemed by a Court as an "unfair contract term" unless it was clearly and openly drawn to your attention before signing the contract.

But as someone who has, on numerous occasions, successfully obtained County Court judgements in proceedings against third parties under Section 13 Data Protection Act 1998 for nominal damages for exactly this sort of reason, I can assure you that it's them as the "data controller" that is then liable for that refusal.

In case anyone is wondering, "nominal damages" in such cases is £50, because of the decision by the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786.

GraceCourt

fluffnutter wrote: »

As someone who has designed and built such systems, and migrated data to them, and maintained them, I know that a name change request would cost a fair bit.

Completely irrelevant here, fluffnutter. The discussion on this thread is about charges to change name data held within a name field in an existing data structure... you appear to be describing a change request to alter the name of one or more elements of a data structure, or a change to the structure itself, which would indeed justify the need for a formal change request, etc., etc.

If you are seriously suggesting that "Some dozen people will be involved in that seemingly simple activity" when the activity really is simple, and requires only that data held within an IT system needs to be amended, then:

(a) something is seriously wrong with the architecture and data validation routines within your systems, and...

(b) now we all know why MoD expenditure is horrifically out of control and regularly overspent by orders of magnitude!

fluffnutter wrote: »

Plus name is always a key field on the systems I've worked on. Together with your unique number (whatever that might be called) and your NI number, it's about the most important field the systems I've worked with carry!

In real life, I can't think of a single system that uses a name field as a key field. I can think of many where the name field is indexed together with other data to provide a key field, but I'm astonished to learn that the MoD apparently thinks that there is only one "John Smith" in the entire world... :rotfl:

I can assure you that (for example) the Police National Computer wouldn't last very long on that basis... and indeed the PNCID field, which it does use as a key field, doesn't use the subject's name at all... it's generated once the subject's fingerprints are verified as unique, and allocated sequentially (with a check value) at that point in time.

Oh, and by the way... :rotfl: there is no charge for "customers" of the PNC to change their names... many of them do so regularly, and don't even notify anyone!