Energy Firm passed my data on

boo_star

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

You seem to be disagreeing with what the ICO state.

Game, set and match.

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

You seem to be disagreeing with what the ICO state.

I don't know where ... but I think I am going to bow to you on this one.

It's likely that I am unlikely to convince you otherwise ... like.

boo_star

bandana22 wrote: »

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 .....

I'd say "it's not me, please stop calling."

If they persisted I'd ask to go above the caller and ask for their manager.

I have moved house a couple of times in the last year and I invariably get letters that relate to the previous occupants owing money. I just return them as "Not at this address."

It's not a big deal.

Manxman_in_exile

bandana22 wrote: »

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 .....

But they haven't got your details and they aren't chasing you for money. All they've got is your 'phone number that they think belongs to someone else. They ring up and ask "Is that Mr XY living at ZZZZ?" and you say "No it's not. I don't know anyone of that name and I don't live in ZZZZ. Why are you asking?" Now I can imagine it may become a bit more unpredictable from there on, but I'd expect it to take no more than 30 minutes and perhaps a couple of 'phone calls to establish that your 'phone number had been passed on in error, and that was all that had happened. No other personal details compromised.


It's just struck me - are you actually a customer of this energy company? (I don't think you've said?).


If you aren't then I can see that it could become bit more complicated because you'd be asking them a question about your "details" (ie 'phone number) and they wouldn't even know who you are. If you aren't a customer then all they hold about you is a 'phone number that can't be linked to you.


[Edit: Upon checking I infer from your post 24 that you are a paying customer. In which case I don't understand why it should take so long to sort out and for you to be satisfied that it was nothing more than a 'phone number. Who is this company? They must be incredibly incompetent. Change supplier]


Just draft a LBA and send it on Monday 1st class with proof of postage from a post office...

Korkyb

Life


really


is


too


short.






The really positive thing is that the op must have a problem free life & loads of free time given the import placed and time spent on this issue.


I for one am jealous.

unholyangel

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.

What PR is trying to say (or my understanding of his posts anyway) is that the ICO's decision is not in any way binding on any court. They don't overrule it and a higher court wouldn't reinstate it because it was never a valid legal ruling in the first place.

Even with decisions in lower courts, they can't be overturned by higher courts except in very narrow circumstances. Like them making an error in application of the law. Nor can you appeal a judgement just because you disagree with the verdict.

bandana22

boo_star wrote: »

I'd say "it's not me, please stop calling."

If they persisted I'd ask to go above the caller and ask for their manager.

Done all that. The DCA was useless. They got dates wrong, my name wrong, etc. They eventually said my contact details had been removed from their system. However, by then I had lost complete confidence in them and could not be sure what they said was correct.

I had already started to pursue the energy company at that point to find out why they passed my details on.

bandana22

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But they haven't got your details and they aren't chasing you for money.

But they did and they were.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

All they've got is your 'phone number that they think belongs to someone else. They ring up and ask "Is that Mr XY living at ZZZZ?" and you say "No it's not. I don't know anyone of that name and I don't live in ZZZZ. Why are you asking?" Now I can imagine it may become a bit more unpredictable from there on, but I'd expect it to take no more than 30 minutes and perhaps a couple of 'phone calls to establish that your 'phone number had been passed on in error, and that was all that had happened. No other personal details compromised.

As explained in previous post... it became a lengthy protracted affair. In the end I could not rely on what the DCA company said. Its a big deal if you are on the records of a dca.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

If you aren't then I can see that it could become bit more complicated because you'd be asking them a question about your "details" (ie 'phone number) and they wouldn't even know who you are. If you aren't a customer then all they hold about you is a 'phone number that can't be linked to you.

You would have thought it easy. I am a customer. My first letter to them went unanswered. I waited three weeks. I wrote again and they eventually started looking into it. It took them another three weeks to decide which department should deal with it. There's lots more of that .... And I'm not kidding either...

bandana22

unholyangel wrote: »

What PR is trying to say (or my understanding of his posts anyway) is that the ICO's decision is not in any way binding on any court. They don't overrule it and a higher court wouldn't reinstate it because it was never a valid legal ruling in the first place.

Even with decisions in lower courts, they can't be overturned by higher courts except in very narrow circumstances. Like them making an error in application of the law. Nor can you appeal a judgement just because you disagree with the verdict.

PR is getting into a twist with his wording, 'likely' etc.

Firstly the ICO's decision is definitive. Their response to me does not say the company 'likely' breached GDPR. They say the company DID breach.

Correct - this is not a legal decision and thus not binding. If I were to go to court I would use that as evidence. The court would have to rule the ICO decision was not correct, thus 'overturn'. I agree its not overturning a previous legal decision but just the findings of ICO.

Clearly if the court did rule that there was no breach, I could then take that to a higher court and the decision could be overturned.

The response from ICO states, "if you are unhappy with my decision you can request a review." The energy company I presume has the same option. If the energy company is unhappy with the decision they can ask for a review. As far as I am aware that has not happened.

Therefore, I would presume a court judge would ask if there was an appeal to the ICO for the decision to be reversed. The court could still change the ICO decision, however, I think it unlikely ... to use that word again!!

bandana22

Korkyb wrote: »

Life


really


is


too


short.






The really positive thing is that the op must have a problem free life & loads of free time given the import placed and time spent on this issue.


I for one am jealous.

I totally agree with you. Totally .... absolutely ..... unequivocally.

Life is far too short to be reading threads which you have no interest in ..... get out that fishing rod or whatever your thing is and go enjoy ...