sent a bill for an imaginary speeding ticket from insurance

AdrianC

nidO wrote: »

This privacy policy being the one that states that conviction info will be used for no purpose other than providing a quote.

And the meerkats did no more than that. Which the OP agreed to.

From a data protection standpoint the fault would therefore be comparethemarket (assuming this is the aggregator the OP actually used) for providing sensitive data to a third party for use other than that outlined in their privacy policy.

The meerkats (yes, or whoever else) did exactly what they said they would do. No more.

They submitted the details to the other insurer's websites.
The other insurers did whatever their websites said they would do. No more.

And, for Admiral, that includes...

"We will collect Your personal information when:
* You ask for a quote"

"We may also collect information defined as "sensitive data" within the Data Protection Act 1998. This includes:
...
* Claims history"

"We will use Your information for:
* Processing Your quotes
* Administering Your policy including claims handling
* Fraud prevention and detection"

"We will endeavour to treat Your personal information as private and confidential.
We would like to bring to Your attention our obligations to disclose information in the following four exceptional cases permitted by law, and the other situations set out below. These are:
...
* Where disclosure is required to protect our interest"

"In order to prevent and detect fraud insurers may, at any time:
* share information about You with our other group companies
* pass details to Insurance Hunter, a central Insurance application and claims checking system, whereby it may be checked against information held by Insurance Hunter and shared with other insurers
* If false or inaccurate information is provided and fraud is identified details will be passed to fraud prevention agencies."

That doesn't change the fact though that your "this shouldn't be news to you" response isn't helpful

<shrug> Don't shoot the messenger.

when as reading through the aggregator's privacy policy carefully it is clear that the OP's information should explicitly not have been used for the purpose that it was.

Reading through the privacy policies of both the comparison engine and the insurer show they've done PRECISELY what they said they were going to do, and no more.

Marktheshark

Data shunting as its know is subject to the first set of disclaimers or contract.
Unless the OP was directed to the new disclaimer and contract and given the choice to accept it is void.
I would SAR them and straight to the Information Commissioner with the evidence.

Swipe

So the moral of the story is to get dummy quotes using a false name, address, dob, don't use your car reg, do the quote in incognito/private browsing mode and preferably from a work PC. Then sign up for real from home with the genuine details. Job done!

Marktheshark

Swipe wrote: »

So the moral of the story is to get dummy quotes using a false name, address, dob, don't use your car reg, do the quote in incognito/private browsing mode and preferably from a work PC. Then sign up for real from home with the genuine details. Job done!

The Moral of the story I would say is someone needs to take them to the cleaners, they are taking the proverbial and acting like demigods over their customers.

CHR15

There has been more than enough publicity warning people to be careful of protecting our identities online.
Blissfully throwing every intimate detail onto a random website blissfully believing your interpretation of the words on a website are true, is one of the most important ones.

Enter true details ONLY when you specifically wish to purchase something and take the much smaller risk is the best we can do. This does not mean multiple comparison sites.

The majority of spam we all recieve (even that which is blocked by filters) is derived from our email addresses being sold/displayed somewhere.

Swipe

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Moral of the story I would say is someone needs to take them to the cleaners, they are taking the proverbial and acting like demigods over their customers.

I agreed, it's insurance though, what do you expect? The whole sector needs investigating. I'm astounded at the number of people on this forum that jump to the insurance companies defence.

facade

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Moral of the story I would say is someone needs to take them to the cleaners, they are taking the proverbial and acting like demigods over their customers.

And if you are sucessful, and they are fined £500,000, who do you think is going to pay the £500,000?

I can tell you one thing, it will not come out of the shareholders bubbly, or the directors salary :rotfl:

Marktheshark

facade wrote: »

And if you are sucessful, and they are fined £500,000, who do you think is going to pay the £500,000?

I can tell you one thing, it will not come out of the shareholders bubbly, or the directors salary :rotfl:

Why is that even a consideration.
Lets say if they were fined £500,000 which is the maximum.

Do you think they would do it again ?
Do you think the directors would risk a prison sentence for doing the same thing twice.
The fine is a shot across the bows.
Making the same mistake twice is what the custodial punishment if for.

It is about Justice, fairness and because people are prepared to turn around and fight and not turn and run we can have a fairer chance at life.

arcon5

caronoel wrote: »

Seriously, what are you on? Why would you give all your details to an insurance company, tell them you have three points that you don't and then get annoyed when an insurer picks up on this.

Do you not understand that insurers share information across the industry?

Who cares? If they have other information which could signify a client has provided false or misleading information then they should investigate it. Not make judgement as to what is true and what is false and change the terms of the contract based on unsubstantiated suspicions!

There quite simply isn't any justification for this. Doesn't matter how you look at it, they should have discussed it with op first, no ifs not buts!

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

Who cares? If they have other information which could signify a client has provided false or misleading information then they should investigate it. Not make judgement as to what is true and what is false and change the terms of the contract based on unsubstantiated suspicions!

There quite simply isn't any justification for this. Doesn't matter how you look at it, they should have discussed it with op first, no ifs not buts!

I've asked it once, and the OP didn't answer it. Has he provided them with his driving licence number?