How much can a company charge you to access your personal information?

earthstorm

OlliesDad wrote: »

Ok.. but what this advisor "told you" contradicts what they publish on their site. It is more likely the advice given was wrong. As a data controller I suggest you look into it.

Many people on here have successfully obtained telephone conversations under a subject access request.

already fired off an email to the ICO Director of Operations

boo_star

earthstorm wrote: »

already fired off an email to the ICO Director of Operations

Regardless of the answer it'll still be hearsay.

System

boo_star wrote: »

I'd agree with you that this is as unsubstantiated as earthstorm's posts however krisdorey already posted a link which answers the question.

It is in complete agreement with what I had been told around six years ago when I started working for a bank and they went through the DPA (and SARs.). That being that telephone recordings ARE included in an SAR.

I agree with you I think earthstorm is wrong. It just seems double standards to tell him he's got no proof of his phone call but then use what posters have said has happened to them as proof against him!

earthstorm

boo_star wrote: »

Regardless of the answer it'll still be hearsay.

so that answert will mean the head of the ICO is a liar. get a life as you many be on MSE, but you dont know more that GOVERNMENT departments. I will also now fire him another email to say MSE users call him a liar.

boo_star

earthstorm wrote: »

so that answert will mean the head of the ICO is a liar. get a life as you many be on MSE, but you dont know more that GOVERNMENT departments. I will also now fire him another email to say MSE users call him a liar.

Not at all. It simply means that whatever you post is meaningless.

I could also email the ICO and post the response here, there's literally no way of anyone verifying whether the email you post is genuine or a complete fabrication.

That is compared to public websites, like the one krisdorey posted that are in the public domain and anyone can visit and verify.

I'd also note that I said "regardless of the response," that meaning if the email agrees with us or not. Yes, that means even if it agrees with the consensus, it is still hearsay unless it can be verified.

halibut2209

earthstorm wrote: »

just because you are on MSE does not mean you know everything.

I love the smell of irony in the morning

arcon5

Right, so to sum up the last page and a half --- unless you have whatever you are saying in writing, stamped and verified by an independent body or persons whose credentials can also be verified,, then laminated to prevent it being tampered with, then certified afterwards, do not post on MSE. Otherwise you will fail the 'substantiate your claim' test imposed by fellow MSEers.

Because of course it's unknown for an official body to give our wrong information. Especially HMRC - they've never got it wrong, especially in writing

wealdroam

arcon5 wrote: »

Right, so to sum up the last page and a half --- unless you have whatever you are saying in writing, stamped and verified by an independent body or persons whose credentials can also be verified,, then laminated to prevent it being tampered with, then certified afterwards, do not post on MSE. Otherwise you will fail the 'substantiate your claim' test imposed by fellow MSEers.

Because of course it's unknown for an official body to give our wrong information. Especially HMRC - they've never got it wrong, especially in writing

I don't think anyone is making those demands.

It would be nice though if occasionally people were able to provide a link to help others better understand the information being given.

Most posters have no problem with that.

MothballsWallet

arcon5 wrote: »

<snip>
Because of course it's unknown for an official body to give our wrong information. Especially HMRC - they've never got it wrong, especially in writing

And they're never inefficient or incompetent...