Energy Firm passed my data on

bandana22

waamo wrote: »

I might be in the minority here but I think passing someone's phone number to a debt collector is a fairly important deal. I mean who wants debt collectors ringing them demanding monies you don't owe?

Absolutely correct. And that is what has happened.

All those on here who say they would not pursue and that I am somehow scrounging, and most would be doing exactly the same as me, were they in the same position!!!

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

Absolutely correct. And that is what has happened.

All those on here who say they would not pursue and that I am somehow scrounging, and most would be doing exactly the same as me, were they in the same position!!!

I can assure you I would not be doing the same as you. I would highlight the issue to get it resolved and that would be job done.

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I can assure you I would not be doing the same as you. I would highlight the issue to get it resolved and that would be job done.

Yes and I fully respect your position also.

My own view is if the company has failed they should pay as well as resolving the issue and ensuring it does not happen again to someone else.

That is how standards are raised. Otherwise companies will just take no notice.

NotRichAtAll

The world is full of scammers and spongers, which one are you op?

bandana22

NotRichAtAll wrote: »

The world is full of scammers and spongers, which one are you op?

Why would you think I belong to either group?

Do elaborate.

boo_star

bandana22 wrote: »

Correct. The will look at a complaint and decide if there has been a breach or not. They will not get involved in any discussion on whether there should be compensation etc. They can fine the company if the breach is severe enough. Not so in this case but they advised the company to update its procedures and retrain the staff.

I did not claim I 'only' want an apology. Reread the thread.
I want an apology AND compensation if I am entitled to it.
The apology is a minimum.

You were offered £50 for what is, at best, a minor inconvenience. I'd have bitten their hand off.

Instead you've wasted the time and resources of yourself and at least two other agencies in a quest to squeeze out way more money than your complaint is worth.

Compensation culture at its worst (IMO.)

bandana22

boo_star wrote: »

You were offered £50 for what is, at best, a minor inconvenience. I'd have bitten their hand off.

Instead you've wasted the time and resources of yourself and at least two other agencies in a quest to squeeze out way more money than your complaint is worth.

Compensation culture at its worst (IMO.)

Wrong.

If my credit rating etc had been impacted then that would have been anything but 'a minor inconvenience'
In this case it did not get that far. However, it COULD have done. Just think, my actions might be eliminating the same thing happening to you if you were a customer of this company.

I have not wasted the time of any agency. The ICO found my complaint to be valid. Thus that cannot be a waste of time. If the company had agreed with me and accepted their procedures were inadequate then I would not have had to go first to the Ombudsman and then to the ICO.

It's the failure of the company that resulted in these organisations having to deal with a complaint which the company now finds itself having to be corrected officially.

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

Wrong.

If my credit rating etc had been impacted then that would have been anything but 'a minor inconvenience'
In this case it did not get that far. However, it COULD have done. Just think, my actions might be eliminating the same thing happening to you if you were a customer of this company.

I have not wasted the time of any agency. The ICO found my complaint to be valid. Thus that cannot be a waste of time. If the company had agreed with me and accepted their procedures were inadequate then I would not have had to go first to the Ombudsman and then to the ICO.

It's the failure of the company that resulted in these organisations having to deal with a complaint which the company now finds itself having to be corrected officially.

If i'd stepped into the road 2 seconds earlier I would have been run over.
If i'd pulled out that junction 3 seconds slower my car would have been written off.
If Bob had a vagina he'd be my Auntie.

Your post is riddled with the words 'if' and 'could' - You can't claim for what didn't happen.

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

If i'd stepped into the road 2 seconds earlier I would have been run over.
If i'd pulled out that junction 3 seconds slower my car would have been written off.
If Bob had a vagina he'd be my Auntie.

Your post is riddled with the words 'if' and 'could' - You can't claim for what didn't happen.

I'm not claiming for what didn't happen. I am claiming for what DID happen.

Do be clear.

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

I'm not claiming for what didn't happen. I am claiming for what DID happen.

Do be clear.

Then why bother posting about what could have happened. It didn't.


You talk about your actions meaning this might not happen to anyone else - Exactly. It's been reported and they have adjusted their processes. No need to jump on the compo train.