Compensation for Data Protection Breach?

wee_plumb

Bangton wrote: »

Unlikely to have grounds. If you live with your partner and he is a named driver 9 times out of 10 an insurance company will reserve the right to discuss the policy with him so disclosing named drivers, whilst possibly irrelevant will not stand up. (it is likely this will appear in your policy documents too, under the DPA section).

If you feel strongly enough about it then complain (after all a lot of well meaning but poor advice is given on these sorts of forums). I think you will find you are offered a token payment at best. Likewise I can't see the FOS overturning such a decision as in all honesty how has it caused any detriment to you?

(Lots of spouses and partners WANT their other halves to be able to discuss their policy which is why it tends to be noted on the policy booklet that the insurance company will do so)

Yep, totally understand what you're saying. I don't dispute or disagree with my boyfriend having access to discuss the policy he is named on. I do, however, when it's regarding information from yonks ago.

In my view I have had 5 different policies with this insurer over the years. They discussed named drivers on a policy I had two cars ago.

It's been inconvenient for me and did cause some issues. I'm just surprised that this is seen as acceptable.

wee_plumb

dacouch wrote: »

Is the Insurer Admiral by any chance

Not directly but think it's a sister company. Same experience?

crazyguy

wee_plumb wrote: »

Yep, totally understand what you're saying. I don't dispute or disagree with my boyfriend having access to discuss the policy he is named on. I do, however, when it's regarding information from yonks ago.

In my view I have had 5 different policies with this insurer over the years. They discussed named drivers on a policy I had two cars ago.

It's been inconvenient for me and did cause some issues. I'm just surprised that this is seen as acceptable.

I would say it is a fine line here and I would suggest you look to the insurance company for recompence, if taken to court you are going to be hard pushed to win a case I think.

Just explain to them that this caused you upset with your current partner, and that you feel they should not have disclosed previous details barring the latest policy.

I can see what you are saying and do think that they acted wrong.

wee_plumb

As an addition these other drivers are ended so clearly not related to the current policy details.

wee_plumb

crazyguy wrote: »

I would say it is a fine line here and I would suggest you look to the insurance company for recompence, if taken to court you are going to be hard pushed to win a case I think.

Just explain to them that this caused you upset with your current partner, and that you feel they should not have disclosed previous details barring the latest policy.

I can see what you are saying and do think that they acted wrong.

Thanks. I've said as much in my complaint. I'll see how it goes.

crazyguy

I would wait and see what they say first, personaly if they came back and said heres £50.00 as a gesture of goodwill I would say make it a £100.00 and I will walk away.

They may even come back with just a letter of an appology though !

dacouch

Admiral have the following in their policy document, which you have in effect agreed to.

Policy Administration (with the exception
of General Condition 4 - Cancellation)
It is our policy to deal with your spouse,
partner or parent and any other person
who is named on your policy. If you would
like someone else to deal with your policy
on your behalf on a regular basis please
let us know

Page 31 http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%200611%20Admiral%20Policy%20Book.pdf

raskazz

crazyguy wrote: »

This part is primarly used if you have previously requested a Company to remove or suppress your personal data on there system.

This is a common misconception actually. There is no right under the Data Protection Acts for a data subject to insist on removal of data unless there is some other breach - e.g. the data is incorrect or excessive.

crazyguy

raskazz wrote: »

This is a common misconception actually. There is no right under the Data Protection Acts for a data subject to insist on removal of data unless there is some other breach - e.g. the data is incorrect or excessive.

Raskazz,

I will have to disagree with you on this one, as if a company has your details and not used them in anyway you still have a right to ask for complete removal/suppression on the company's database regardless of any breach.

I am not sure how you would know they had your details, but never the less you can act on the above.

1ManArmy

I was under the impression that named drivers could discuss a policy but have no powers effecting one. For e.g. they can find out the price of the next quote but not take it on behalf of the main driver.