Paper shop debt

tinkerbell28

Doesn't matter whether it's Mavis' corner shop or some other hideous DCA's touted about on here.

There are strict laws with regards to debt collection, harrasment and data protection.

Chances are she's broken a fair few and left herself open to more costly fines and action than a repayment of a £100 odd debt would ever get her.

Flossie.

Haven't read all the thread, but am I the only one who thinks it's wacky that the paper shop let the bill run up so high! Sounds like a year's worth!

chambta

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

I'd tell her to whistle for her money after sticking signs to your house.

In this particular situation I'd be tempted to agree.

rochja

The irony of all this is that usually on these threads people are screaming because a service HAS been cut. We are talking about a village shop here. I think it highly likely if OP or spouse did not put regular visits in to shop the service would have been terminated. The shop is paying for delivery and for papers even if OP is not. I also consider it highly unlikely the question of the bill would not be raised at such visits. This situation is not as clear cut as the one sided presentation would suggest. Of course it is possible that the owner has broken the law by going OTT on attempts at revenue collection. Clearly posters have to be taken down, but please have a little perspective on this. Wanting to throw the book at someone who has little to no chance of ever being paid in a little village that if like mine normally operates on trust? Sledgehammers and nuts, people.

catshark88

Whilst the shop owner seems to have been OTT, they may have been as desperate as you OP. They probably have kids to clothe and feed too.

Have you agreed a repayment schedule or just said you'd like to pay but can't? If the latter, I see why they may have been so stressed.

Tiddlywinks

Flossie. wrote: »

Haven't read all the thread, but am I the only one who thinks it's wacky that the paper shop let the bill run up so high! Sounds like a year's worth!

Had you taken the time to skim read the previous page (just the one page, not as if it runs into double figures) then you would have known that this point has already been made several times.

Back to the OP.

Take a photo of the sign in the shop and write (recorded delivery) asking for its removal.

Keep the sign used on your door as proof.

Phone the police (101 not 999) and report this as harassment and ask for a reference number for follow up.

Phone the Information Commissioner's helpline to ask for advice about the possible breach of the DPA and how to pursue that.

https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us

rochja

DPA is a complete red herring. No data has been published - only the personally known fact of the debt. The only data in existence is the news book which itemises deliveries and payments. That is an audit-able record of the fact of the existence of the debt to be used for accounting purposes and and as proof of the debt in any recovery proceedings.

boo_star

rochja wrote: »

DPA is a complete red herring. No data has been published - only the personally known fact of the debt. The only data in existence is the news book which itemises deliveries and payments. That is an audit-able record of the fact of the existence of the debt to be used for accounting purposes and and as proof of the debt in any recovery proceedings.

I hope you don't work in any role where it's possible to breach the DPA in any form.

What you then went on to say was largely referencing defamation, which yes, you're correct, it isn't libellous as it is factually correct.

Disclosing customer information (even the fact that Person A is a customer is a breach of the DPA) and the debt collection guidelines from the OFT (it's very much a no-no to slap a poster on a debtors door or in your shop window detailing their debt) is not acceptable.

[Deleted User]

rochja wrote: »

No data has been published

Yes it has.

DPA wrote:

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—

(a) from those data, or

(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller

AND

DPA wrote:

“processing”, in relation to information or data, means obtaining, recording or holding the information or data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data, including—

(a) organisation, adaptation or alteration of the information or data,

(b) retrieval, consultation or use of the information or data,

(c) disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, or

(d) alignment, combination, blocking, erasure or destruction of the information or data

(emphasis is mine)

Where I work, DPA comes up a lot.

Even transferring personal information between individuals/departments, is carefully controlled.

magpiecottage

I agree with boo_star and Bedsit Bob.

If the shop owner can prove the debt exists than a libel action can be successfully defended on the basis that it is true.

However, the personal data has been unfairly processed in the sense that it has been widely published.

In the position of the OP, I would take photographs of the - er - "publication" of the personal data and report the matter to the Information Commissioner here.

My guess is that the shopkeeper is processing personal data (even if only details of newspaper accounts) without registration under the Data Protection Act - and is therefore likely to attract interest that they will find most unwelcome.

The OP may also be able to take action against the shopkeeper under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act.