Energy Firm passed my data on

born_again

bandana22 wrote: »

Not as simple as that. If it ever happens to you, then you will find out. It took a deal of time, phone calls, emails etc etc to find out what happened. All the while, you do not know where your data is or what is going to happen next. Believe me, not a desirable situation.

I have many years ago a ISP passed MY (not someone else details) to DCA. As they thought a bill had not been paid. As it was I was one of many and all it took was one call to the DCA to tell them I was not in debt. They simply sent it back.

You really seem to have wasted a lot of time and effort to just find out that all the error was. It was a phone number.
Most people would be happy just to tell the DCA, that you are not the person who owes the money and it would be returned to the company.
What data they held would be a simple question to the caller from the DCA on the call. With a reply "That is not me"
End of call and problem.

bandana22 wrote: »

They have an obligation to ensure that any data passed on to a third party is correct. If they pass on data to a third party that is belonging to someone else they are in breach. Thus they have a responsibility to have procedures to ensure the data they are passing on is correct. Its not a case of saying, well Joe Smith told me his name was Tom Jones so I believed him and passed on Tom Jones name.

The key word here is 'responsibility'.

How else are companies supposed to check data that they have been given? Are you prepared to have increased bills, due to the extra staff needed to check every piece of info a customer gives to them.. And the distress of them not believing who you are and having to check back that the details you gave them are correct?

It was just a phone number that may have been typed in wrong or as suggested a number the debtor actually used, but had not updated for obvious reasons.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Jackonary Jackonary.

Op Is either a Russian Bot being tested for the General Election, or some year 10 school kid on half term. None of them is going to make millions of pounds!

I suggest this thread has run its course and is closed.

Manxman_in_exile

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Jackonary Jackonary.

Op Is either a Russian Bot being tested for the General Election, or some year 10 school kid on half term. None of them is going to make millions of pounds!

I suggest this thread has run its course and is closed.

Spoilsport!!! Run out of popcorn?

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Before getting all funny, I would check what you are saying

Not getting all funny at all ....

In fact .... whenever I tell a joke nobody ever laughs ....

I mean, you can't know how depressing that is.

Now to play along with your word game .... you do seem a bit desperate to prove your own point .... ICO has found there was a breach. That has been decided. A court can overrule that decision. A higher court can re-instate it etc etc.

bandana22

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

You've tried to get them to increase their offer, they've deadlocked it. You're unhappy.

That was before the complaint to ICO.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Send them a letter before action (or whatever it's now called) and if they don't offer you more, issue a claim against them. As suggested above, make sure you can provide evidence of your distress.

This is correct and sensible and that would be the next step. I have asked them to review the matter and if they choose not to then a formal letter of before action would be the next step.

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

Not getting all funny at all ....

In fact .... whenever I tell a joke nobody ever laughs ....

I mean, you can't know how depressing that is.

Now to play along with your word game .... you do seem a bit desperate to prove your own point .... ICO has found there was a breach. That has been decided. A court can overrule that decision. A higher court can re-instate it etc etc.

I'm not playing any game, what i'm quoting is direct from the ICO. They found that there was likely a breach of the data protection rules.

You've changed your tune though, earlier you was saying

"Therefore court does not decide if there was a breach." - Which is untrue.

bandana22

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Jackonary Jackonary.

Op Is either a Russian Bot being tested for the General Election, or some year 10 school kid on half term. None of them is going to make millions of pounds!

I suggest this thread has run its course and is closed.

Nope ... questions are raised .... people are commenting .... opinions are pooled .... why close the thread?

I have a suggestion ..... take your popcorn and toddle off to a thread that you find more interesting rather than your autocratic silencing approach.

By all means return to us if you would like to participate ....

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I'm not playing any game, what i'm quoting is direct from the ICO. They found that there was likely a breach of the data protection rules.

You've changed your tune though, earlier you was saying

"Therefore court does not decide if there was a breach." - Which is untrue.

I fully understand the quote is from the ICO website .... they did not say they was a likely breach .... they state in their view the company breached GDPR. They do not say the company 'likely' breached GDPR. They are definitive.

As for my tune ... I'm still totally in tune .... the ICO has decided there was a breach. The court can overrule that. It has been decided by the ICO. So if it has been decided by ICO then the court can overrule and decide otherwise. Does that wording make you happier? I so hope you do say yes ....

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

I fully understand the quote is from the ICO website .... they did not say they was a likely breach .... they state in their view the company breached GDPR. They do not say the company 'likely' breached GDPR. They are definitive.

As for my tune ... I'm still totally in tune .... the ICO has decided there was a breach. The court can overrule that. It has been decided by the ICO. So if it has been decided by ICO then the court can overrule and decide otherwise. Does that wording make you happier? I so hope you do say yes ....

You seem to be disagreeing with what the ICO state.

You can make a complaint to the ICO and we will give you our opinion on whether data protection law is likely or unlikely to have been breached. You can give the court our letter as evidence, but ultimately the court will make its own decision. The court’s decision may not agree with the ICO’s opinion.

bandana22

born_again wrote: »

Most people would be happy just to tell the DCA, that you are not the person who owes the money and it would be returned to the company.
What data they held would be a simple question to the caller from the DCA on the call. With a reply "That is not me"
End of call and problem.

So you would be happy to say, not me Gov and just hang up. Would you not be even curious why a debt collection agency is chasing you for money? Would you not want to know how they got your details? Would you not want to know exactly what details they held on you? Would you not want to know what action they may have taken with those details?

If not, I suggest you should want to know and find out precisely what had happened.
Just a suggestion .....