Bristow and Sutor - Mailing Neighbours and Disclosing Personal Information

nottoolate

behaving in a way that may disclose to a 3rd party the involvement of a debt recovery business would also be a unfair and improper practice under oft guidelines

even when sending trace letters in the name of the person to their actual address they must enclose any correspondence in an envelope so no 3rd party can see that it is a debt recovery company writing. so writing to neighbours in the name of a debt recovery company is completely out of order.

if they make enquiries to a 3rd party they should use a non debt recovery specific trading name or non specific general tracing agency.

ayayay

So you avoid paying your debts, someone else is out of pocket because of your failure to meet your legal obligations, you're deliberately evading your creditors and now you're outraged that they have the effrontery to try to find you? Why dont you write to them and complain? Make sure you give them an address to respond to.

Hanky_Panky

Azari wrote: »

This sentence demonstrates exactly why both your posts in relation to what I wrote are nothing but you working yourself into a right tizz about something I never said.

A very simple post containing: "Really they can write to whomever they like - what's stopping them."

Was responded to by an equally simple: "Data Protection Act."

So my response was specifically to tell the poster what would stop them writing to 'whomever they like'. (e.g. if I run a business X and you owe me money that fact is personal information and I would be in breach of the DPA if I wrote to your employers and told them I was from the unpaid bills department of X and could they give me an address for 'shaun from Africa'.)

All your detailed waffle above is nothing but hot air because the DPA is not a set of enumerated rules. It doesn't need to say particular things about particular cases.

When a debt collection agency obtains personal information about someone it is under exactly the same obligation to protect that information as anyone else. Unless there is some specific exemption, using that information in some way that potentially reveals information about a person's financial situation is a breach of the act.

You keep digging your hole !

Where have either myself or SOA suggested that it would be ok to disclose personal information ? You just keep jumping to conclusions without properly understanding what we are stating.

Once more:

Anyone can write to anyone else asking if they know where a third party is - OK?

Nothing in that statement about divulging personal information and also nothing in that statement that contravenes the DPA. It really is very simple.

Azari

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

You keep digging your hole !

Where have either myself or SOA suggested that it would be ok to disclose personal information ? You just keep jumping to conclusions without properly understanding what we are stating.

LOL!

You think that because yopu keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Anyone can write to anyone else asking if they know where a third party is - OK?

No, it isn't OK.

For reasons already explained by both myself and others.

You just continually ignore the saliant point which is that simply by identifying themselves as a debt collection agency they are revealing personal information about someone.

That is the limit to my objection to what you originally wrote, although some of your subsequent posts do seem to indicate that yo really are unable to grasp some of the fundamentals of the DPA or its implications.

Nothing in that statement about divulging personal information

Except, as I pointed out, you were a little over general.

It really is very simple.

You are correct in your statement that it is simple. It's just a pity that you still seem to be unable to grasp the point.

Perhaps I could focus your mind and help you see the problem is I pose a question:

Suppose you are a debt collection agency and you are asked by Carphone Warehouse to collect a debt (or you buy the debt) from Mr. X.

You write to Mr X's neighbours on your letter headed paper asking if they know his whereabouts.

You are then prosecuted for a breach of the data protection act in that Mr X's neighbours are now aware that his activities have brought him to the attention of a debt collection agency.

How would you defend yourself in court and persuade a jury that information relating to Mr X's financial affairs have not passed from Carphone Warehouse to others through your actions?

shaun_from_Africa

Azari wrote: »

You just continually ignore the saliant point which is that simply by identifying themselves as a debt collection agency they are revealing personal information about someone.

So if this is the case, how do you explain that HMCE, the police, hospitals, other government departments, and many thousands of other companies and businesses show their details and a return address on the outside of letters they send to people yet have never fallen foul of the DPA for doing this?

These companies are identifying themselves and the name of the person that they are writing to so surely using your logic, they are all guilty of breeching the act.

Azari

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So if this is the case, how do you explain that HMCE, the police, hospitals, other government departments, and many thousands of other companies and businesses show their details and a return address on the outside of letters they send to people yet have never fallen foul of the DPA for doing this?

Because they don't generally write to neighbours asking if they know someone's whereabouts.

These companies are identifying themselves and the name of the person that they are writing to so surely using your logic, they are all guilty of breeching the act.

I really don't think you have got the hang of this DPA thing. It's not illegal to share data about someone with the person themself. :rotfl:

shaun_from_Africa

Azari wrote: »

Because they don't generally write to neighbours asking if they know someone's whereabouts.



I really don't think you have got the hang of this DPA thing. It's not illegal to share data about someone with the person themself. :rotfl:

You can put all the smilies that you like but you are still totally clueless.
The postman must read the name and address on the envelope, and if the details of the company concerned are also showing (as is the case with many thousands of companies), then according to your very flawed logic, that company is in breech of the DPA.

How about if the letter is delivered and someone in that household sees the details on the envelope, or what about the workers in the sorting and delivery offices?

Azari

A very accurate little ditty for someone who can't properly use the quote system and still doesn't seem to have a clue what s/he's talking about.

I'll just deal with one of your 'red' points as it's the one that shows your complete ignorance about legal matters in startling clarity:

"Ok then, please point to the exact piece of legislation or the part of the guidelines that leads you to this conclusion"

As has already been explained to you, in very simple terms:

The DPA (and most other legislation) does not enumerate all cases that its provisions cover. To try to do so would be absurd. What it does do is state any exemptions to those terms. You seem to believe that a debt collection agency does have some exemption.

That is why I invited you to explain how you would defend yourself against a charge brought under the DPA for knowingly passing on personal information (that a subject is of interest to debt collectors) to third parties.

Of course, all you did was huff and puff and refuse to answer the question. A sure sign of someone who knows he's lost the argument but doesn't want to admit it.

Azari

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

You've surprised me Azari.
You normally resort to insults after only a couple of posts when people disagree with you. At least you managed to wait a little bit longer today.

It's the sign of a dense or stupid person that they will insult someone by telling them that they don't know what they are talking about, that they are clueless, or implying they are so stupid that they are digging themselves into a hole but then get all antsy and self righteous if someone is straightforward enough to call a spade a spade and tell them directly that they are being 'a bit thick'.

So I ask again.

Don't tell lies.

You are not asking the same question again.

You asked why a load of other entities could do it.

Now I have pointed out the very obvious reason why they can you have modified the question.

Don't try and dishonestly score points by pretending that I have previously ignored the question you are now asking.

If as you claim, making a third person aware of their interest by using headed notepaper is a breech, why is making a third person aware of the same facts by using the same company details on the outside of an envelope, an envelope that can be seen by many other people, not a breech?

It may well be. As it is unlikely to be mentioned in the statute that would be a matter for case law.

It may well be that showing such information on the outside of an envelope would be considered to constitute a breech. I can't say and neither can you (unless you are aware of case law) as it would be a matter for a court to decide.

I would point out that it is you who seem to have made a decision that such an action is permissible - I assume simply out of your own head - and that I have made no such assertion and hence you cannot imply inconsistency on my part.

ayayay

The OFT and the relevant trade body have actually agreed a form of words that can be used to trace missing debtors. As long as the company follows the guidance there is no problem. They send a so called "soft letter" which does not make reference to any debt (many people also use similar letters to trace beneficiaries of legacies).

Has no-one ever heard of Google?