Is a Verbal Apology Enough

-taff

davidmcn wrote: »

Not even that - they're only acting illegally if they actually commit fraud (or, say, steal the contents). It's not illegal merely to open mail after the postie has put it through the correct letterbox.

That is what 'to the detriment of' covers.....

ytfcmad

ValiantSon wrote: »

In which case you were not compensated, but rather were given a goodwill payment. You cannot be compensated if you have suffered no loss.

And your point is :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

davidmcn

-taff wrote: »

That is what 'to the detriment of' covers.....

No, it's referring to a separate offence (where you've opened mail which hasn't been delivered to the correct address and intend to act to the detriment of the addressee). The point is that it's the address which is relevant rather than the name.

ValiantSon

ytfcmad wrote: »

And your point is :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

My point is that this is not compensation and is entirely at the discretion of the company concerned. (I would have thought that was fairly obvious from what I wrote).

dunstonh

A bit of information from a duplicate thread running is that this is not the first complaint that the OP has made to the bank about data protection breaches and had previously received a goodwill offer.

Cotta

For the mistake and the fact they've issued an apology surely it would have made sense to pay a small amount to close this off.

-taff

davidmcn wrote: »

No, it's referring to a separate offence (where you've opened mail which hasn't been delivered to the correct address and intend to act to the detriment of the addressee). The point is that it's the address which is relevant rather than the name.

Nope.

128. Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, to open a postal packet which he knows or suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

Doesn't mention has not been delivered to the correct address....
Anyway, it's all by the by since I can't remember the last time the mail prosecuted anyone for opening anything that wasn't addressed to them or had their name on with the wrong address.
If it was a bit clearer, we wouldn't be sinking in a world of supposition.
Three cheers for deliberately obfuscated language.....

ValiantSon

dunstonh wrote: »

A bit of information from a duplicate thread running is that this is not the first complaint that the OP has made to the bank about data protection breaches and had previously received a goodwill offer.

Thanks, dunstonh. It's sad that some people try to exploit these issues. If someone has genuinely suffered as a result of a company's incompetence, including significant time spent trying to sort the problem out, then I support the view that they should try to make amends. I do not, however, support the vexatious and opportunistic attempts made by some people (some of whom brag about it on here) to extract money from companies as if it is some sort of great game or alternative way of funding their lifestyle.

bigstevex

-taff wrote: »

No they didn't. They would only have acted illegally if they were going to use the contents to the detriment of the adressee.

Sorry, true, you have me on a technicality :beer:

gycraig_2

ytfcmad wrote: »

And your point is :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The point is that’s how the bank you have handle it, one bank giving a gogw doesn’t even slightly affect how much a completely different business does or would give in the same situation.

If carphone warehouse failed to repair a phone and gave you 50 quid as a gesture of good will it doesn’t mean 3 network will or should do the same.