Energy Company passed on my data - outcome.

bandana22

:T
So, I thought I would update all the interested folk on the issue of Energy Company passing on my data ... thread on the link below. Now, so many nay sayers said I was not entitled to anything, or very little, or zilch, £50 maybe, etc etc.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6065303/energy-firm-passed-my-data-on&highlight=bandana22

Heres what happened:

Having got a judgement from the ICO that the company was in breach of GDPR, I contacted the energy company and asked them to review their position. They said they had issued a deadlock letter so nothing more to discuss. Go to the Energy Ombudsman. I did just that. However, Energy Ombudsman said not our thing as it is a ICO thing.

Therefore, I then issued a Letter Before Action. This was the company's response verbatim: I understand that you’re going to refer the matter to the small claims court- we won’t therefore, discuss or conclude any related issues separate to this. Our legal team will respond accordingly.

Thus I then proceeded to lodge a claim via small claims court. My claim was for £350 and £35 court costs at that stage. I then get a letter from the company's solicitors saying they were now taking up the case and they intended to defend the case in full.

A week later I get a response from Court saying defendant requested a 14 day extension. Nothing unusual.

A further week later, I get a letter from company's solicitors saying their client had agreed to pay my claim in full i.e. £350 + £35 court costs on the basis I discontinue the claim. I did just that and thus matter settled. However, if the company had negotiated instead of trying to fob me off with £50, I would probably have settled for less than £350 if it got to that point. As it stands, they have to pay £385 plus their solicitors fees!!!

Point is, too many nay sayers on here telling me that I was not entitled to anything. If the case is good, and the facts are right etc then people should follow through and get a fair and just settlement.

Not sure how long this thread will last before its closed but there is a moral to the story for those that are interested.
:T

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

:T
So, I thought I would update all the interested folk on the issue of Energy Company passing on my data ... thread on the link below. Now, so many nay sayers said I was not entitled to anything, or very little, or zilch, £50 maybe, etc etc.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6065303/energy-firm-passed-my-data-on&highlight=bandana22

Heres what happened:

Having got a judgement from the ICO that the company was in breach of GDPR, I contacted the energy company and asked them to review their position. They said they had issued a deadlock letter so nothing more to discuss. Go to the Energy Ombudsman. I did just that. However, Energy Ombudsman said not our thing as it is a ICO thing.

Therefore, I then issued a Letter Before Action. This was the company's response verbatim: I understand that you’re going to refer the matter to the small claims court- we won’t therefore, discuss or conclude any related issues separate to this. Our legal team will respond accordingly.

Thus I then proceeded to lodge a claim via small claims court. My claim was for £350 and £35 court costs at that stage. I then get a letter from the company's solicitors saying they were now taking up the case and they intended to defend the case in full.

A week later I get a response from Court saying defendant requested a 14 day extension. Nothing unusual.

A further week later, I get a letter from company's solicitors saying their client had agreed to pay my claim in full i.e. £350 + £35 court costs on the basis I discontinue the claim. I did just that and thus matter settled. However, if the company had negotiated instead of trying to fob me off with £50, I would probably have settled for less than £350 if it got to that point. As it stands, they have to pay £385 plus their solicitors fees!!!

Point is, too many nay sayers on here telling me that I was not entitled to anything. If the case is good, and the facts are right etc then people should follow through and get a fair and just settlement.

Not sure how long this thread will last before its closed but there is a moral to the story for those that are interested.
:T

It was cheaper for them just to pay you off. Doesn't mean you was right or they was wrong. I stand by my previous comments in the other thread.

KatrinaWaves

For most that would not be worth their time. Clearly the company in question didn’t think it was worth their time either...

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It was cheaper for them just to pay you off. Doesn't mean you was right or they was wrong. I stand by my previous comments in the other thread.

Ah but you see I WAS right .... the ICO agreed with me that the company was in breach of GDPR.

In view of that, I determined a sum of £350 would be appropriate for the inconvenience, distress etc. Now many said I was not entitled to anything like that. .. Zilch in the view of many!!!

Clearly the sum of £385 + their solicitors fees is less than a drip in the ocean to them. Equally if there was no valid case, the company would not have paid anything and would have followed through in court. They don't just pay out without any reason.

The point is the little man spoke ... the big giant answered. Get my drift???

bandana22

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

For most that would not be worth their time. Clearly the company in question didn’t think it was worth their time either...

Well I guess it depends on that value you place £350. In terms of time, well, I can't say exactly how much time I have spent on it but it was mainly emails, writing a letter, submitting a claim to small claims ..... 10 minutes per email .... maybe 30 minutes on the letter ... same for the court claim ....

However, I have learned in the process also. Knowledge has no value!!!

I took on the giant .... and, as virtually every time I do take them on, I get what I asked for in recompense .....

What's not to like???

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

Ah but you see I WAS right .... the ICO agreed with me that the company was in breach of GDPR.

In view of that, I determined a sum of £350 would be appropriate for the inconvenience, distress etc. Now many said I was not entitled to anything like that. .. Zilch in the view of many!!!

Clearly the sum of £385 + their solicitors fees is less than a drip in the ocean to them. Equally if there was no valid case, the company would not have paid anything and would have followed through in court. They don't just pay out without any reason.

The point is the little man spoke ... the big giant answered. Get my drift???

Our discussion was in the other thread and it's probably best it remains there.Just because the ICO said there was a breach, that was their opinion and not binding on the court. You stand by your point of view and I stand by mine. As it never actually went to court, we will never know.

Funny how you think £350 was the right amount when you originally said £500 was what you was after. You was paid to "go away". Shame really, wish it had of gone to court.

Lorian

bandana22 wrote: »

Ah but you see I WAS right .... the ICO agreed with me that the company was in breach of GDPR.

In view of that, I determined a sum of £350 would be appropriate for the inconvenience, distress etc. Now many said I was not entitled to anything like that. .. Zilch in the view of many!!!

What penalty did the ICO impose on the company?

born_again

Lorian wrote: »

What penalty did the ICO impose on the company?

They wrote to the company and told them they must change their procedures and re-train the staff.

So was not breech in the terms that most people would think. Just OP's phone number passed on incorrectly.

£350 will have been less than their legal reps would be charging a hour if it went to court.

LadyDee

You can enjoy your £350 OP, knowing that somewhere along the line the people paying for this "compensation" and other nonsense claims will be other customers.

I think this grabbing after every penny for every little hiccup or slight is distasteful and cheapens the concept of compensation for real hurt and distress.

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Our discussion was in the other thread and it's probably best it remains there.Just because the ICO said there was a breach, that was their opinion and not binding on the court. You stand by your point of view and I stand by mine. As it never actually went to court, we will never know.

Yes it is correct to say the ICO finding is not binding on the court. However, the 'opinion' of the ICO is pretty relevant. While the court can overrule that decision, it's unlikely. The ICO is the body that is responsible for Data Protection - thus they should have a pretty good idea if their own policies have not been followed.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Funny how you think £350 was the right amount when you originally said £500 was what you was after. You was paid to "go away". Shame really, wish it had of gone to court.

Not funny at all ...... as far as I can see ... though I would admit I'm slow at getting jokes.

I said initially that I thought around £500 would be appropriate. That was my initial guess as I had not had any dealings with such matters previously. In taking the case to court I made a judgement that £350 was an appropriate amount given that a judge would be ruling on it. It was in my opinion a 'sensible' amount that a judge might not see as being greedy or extravagant. Clearly, if it was excessive, or I asked for an excessive amount, e.g. £2000, it is more likely the company would have proceeded through court.

Thus, while clearly its the easiest route for a company to pay out, pay to make him 'go away' etc etc, do you really think if I had asked for £2,000, or £3,000 they would still have just paid me to 'go away'?

I'm awfully sorry though that you are disappointed that it did not go to court. I can't think why. However, I don't know if you are aware or not, but majority of cases never actually get to court. All parties are encouraged to try to resolve the matter before going to court. That's just what we did.......

LilElvis

Yawning .....