Napier --to-- BWlegal LBA Received, Next steps to response urgent

teccom

Indeed they have the V5C name and address.

Response along the lines to the email of letting them no they will recieve no more identity as they have no more in the first place.
Inform them due to the harassment then we will be proceed to a complaint to the ICO if they do refuse to comply to the SAR.

Have you a link to where a response has previously been "penned", I did search and SAR fires up tons!

beamerguy

teccom wrote: »

Indeed they have the V5C name and address.

Response along the lines to the email of letting them no they will recieve no more identity as they have no more in the first place.
Inform them due to the harassment then we will be proceed to a complaint to the ICO if they do refuse to comply to the SAR.

Have you a link to where a response has previously been "penned", I did search and SAR fires up tons!

Each case is different and it's best to complain to the ICO in your own words and facts

teccom

Hi all,

So I hit back on the PPCs DPO claim that they needed more ID, with a warning that to not disclose the SAR request when the ID (V5C) provided can me no more OR no less than what they can legally hold and therefore should be the only information they can require, coupled with a warning they will need to either provide the SAR to me or face a ICO breach complaint, I get a response:- (Abstracted for anonymity)

Dear XYZ
Wishing to comply to your SAR in speedy time, we need more ID as our DVLA contract reqs safeguards.
We called the ICO on this ourselves reg your concern and they advised us it us up to us what we consider "proportionate". So with cannot provide you with the info as we are not sure you are entitled!
To alleviate this issue please send a redacted if you want (photo covered) ID, your DOB for us to consider further!
Without this there is nothing we will do, contact the ICO if need be.
Sincerely, PPC scammer.


They are having a laugh, is this standard of them?

They are effectively 100% requiring as no more than a run as the mill limited company that I give them more personal info than they have to get what they already have, go get F'ed!

I may contact the ICO as I doubt they (PPC) worded it along the lines of:
"should we disclose a SAR request if we have validated the SAR to the exact "only" info we have or are we entitled to more personal DATA, which is more intrusive than the original data we hold?"
and that the ICO would reply
"oh yes, to release what you do have in a SAR request you by very nature need more personal info!"

I bet they didnt even make a call?!!

Also one further note, they are effectively bolstering any case I make in court by saying they cannot divulge any personal info they have on me and therefore I am not entitled to anything because they don't have enough information to know who I am, BUT they want to try and MCOL me to hold me responsible!

Bit of a double edged sword for one (PPC) to wield is it not?!

teccom

Umkomaas did just reply to me but it is gone?

Anyway in answer to his/her question they are asking for:-
a redacted driving license obscuring photo & DOB, and they would CONSIDER the request...

They would NOT guarantee this is enough, so I read it wrong they weren't asking for a DOB, the mention of DOB is as above.

Anyway, the fact that they are saying with the above they would "consider" my request with the above, to me is saying send us more, under the circumstances they may consider that ISNT enough and ask for something else, they equally may not but why should I play fast and loose with my data!!?

Umkomaas

Umkomaas did just reply to me but it is gone?

Sorry, after having posted it I had a further read of your prior post and thought I might have misinterpreted and my (tongue in cheek) advice might not take you any further forward, so deleted.

I’ve had a quick read of the ICO Code of Practice for SAR requests - page 23 covers ID requirements, but it’s not conclusive, although reading their examples of the different scenarios where further ID might be required, what Napier are asking for puts this in a similar bracket to a random request to a GP Practice for someone’s health record. Disproportionate, but I’m not sure the Code of Practice nails this for you.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf#page23

teccom

they have nothing on me anyway, I am only the RK, I know I weren't driving, have no intentions of giving them who was as they were invited in to the restricted (locked) parking area, told to park there and of one of the several days they were there recvd the NTK.

I will still complain to the ICO, the PPC should get real, if they want to be proportionate in evaluating if a SAR request is to the correct person then all they can possibly do is compare it to the current dataset they have, to give more does not assist them as they cannot have anything else to compare it too.

The ICO would then need to consider if the PPC is a serial abuser of playing by the "rules" or trying to dig for more info, I would imagine the latter is more likely the case and I will be wording my complaint to that effect.

Coupon-mad

they have nothing on me anyway, I am only the RK, I know I weren't driving,

They have the POFA if they used the right wording on their documents to hold you liable.

And the Napier/SAR/ID issue is being discussed on one or two other threads - search!