Energy Company passed on my data - outcome.

Takmon

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

It's not offensive posts I put them on for (well, not only), it's the trolls and general idiots. I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain that but then again...

But that just means you miss parts of the conversation in the thread which may be discussed in other posts so you can't read it properly...

I find the silly posts amusing yet they must bother you in some way because you have decided you never want to read from that person again but i really can't understand why.

bandana22

The general decorum of posts etc is probably for another thread.

I don't think it is right to close threads unless there is specific bad taste posts going through.

This thread is really about demonstrating the power of the individual. Some may agree some may not. That is the whole purpose of the forum.

I started the previous thread looking for ideas etc. I was surprised at the number of people who told me I would get nothing. I've come back with the outcome of the issue. That demonstrates people should pursue their case.

£385 to an energy company is less than peanuts. But thats not the point. The point is I'm a nobody in the eyes of that company. Yet they caved to a nobody. Why would they do that? Because my complaint as correct and factual.

Thus I say don't listen to the nay sayers.

waamo

I said on the previous thread I thought you had a good case. Had this gone to court I think you probably would have won.

born_again

If you can £350 for this.

How much could you stand to gain from something like the BA data breech.....

waamo

born_again wrote: »

If you can £350 for this.

How much could you stand to gain from something like the BA data breech.....

It's going through the courts at the moment. Permission for a group action has been granted so it may well be pretty substantial if the claimants win.

bandana22

waamo wrote: »

I said on the previous thread I thought you had a good case. Had this gone to court I think you probably would have won.

I'm sure I would have won. So did the energy company ..... and the energy company's solicitors!!! I'm not really sure why it got to the solicitors in the first place .... however, when the solicitors got it and looked at it they presumably advised their client that they really should not go through with this .... hence the payoff and closure.

born_again wrote: »

If you can £350 for this.

How much could you stand to gain from something like the BA data breech.....

Nothing personally as I was not impacted by the BA breach ..... but more than £350 for those that were, would be my guess ..... but there will be some who will say life is too short and I ain't gonna bother taking money from BA for recompense for their breach......... least ways that's what some might say on here publicly ......

powerful_Rogue

bandana22 wrote: »

I'm sure I would have won. So did the energy company ..... and the energy company's solicitors!!! I'm not really sure why it got to the solicitors in the first place .... however, when the solicitors got it and looked at it they presumably advised their client that they really should not go through with this .... hence the payoff and closure.

Everything legal goes through a companies soliciators. As stated in reply number 1, it's got nothing to do with them thinking you were going to win, it's because it's cheaper to pay then spend money on a soliciator defending.

bandana22

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Everything legal goes through a companies soliciators. As stated in reply number 1, it's got nothing to do with them thinking you were going to win, it's because it's cheaper to pay then spend money on a soliciator defending.

I think you might be a little confused ..... so let me fill you in on how it goes down.

Firstly, everyone agrees the money is peanuts to the energy company .... thus they don't make the decision on money alone. Thus, it is not simply a case of its cheaper to pay than defend in court.

If I made a silly claim for something, e.g.they spelled my name wrong on a letter or the engineers were 5 minutes late for a call out. Now if I tried to claim £350 for said issues, they would not just pay me because it would be cheaper than defending. Clearly they would know they have a near 100% chance of winning - nor could they pay out on such ridiculous claims or they would inundated. So the court case would proceed in such circumstances.

One of the jobs of the solicitor is to advise their clients on the chances of victory/defeat. So, while the energy company is not really concerned about the £350 as such, they certainly are are about losing court cases. Equally, they are concerned about any potential adverse publicity as a result. Such issues are much more pertinent to the company than £350. The solicitors would have advised the company accordingly in this case.

Now, my point about why the solicitors were involved in the first place was merely that it was not necessary. After the ICO made their ruling that the company was in breach of GDPR, I went back to the company to negotiate. They seemed to stick to the original £50 offer and did not seem to want to negotiate. Had they negotiated with me, it may be that we would have fixed on some figure around £200-£300 and it would have been all over. Again, back to your point, if they were working of the basis of it being cheaper, that would have been way cheaper. Either, they thought they could fob me off with £50, or they dealt with the matter just clumsy.

Of course, if they had negotiated right at the beginning, even before I complained to the ICO, then for their £200-£300 they would not now have an ICO ruling against them. They would not have spent as much time on the matter. They would not have solicitors fees. They would not have to retrain their staff. They would not have had to change their policies. Of course, for the latter two items, this may mean they will be less likely to make a breach further down the line that could be more expensive.

So, it may be that the arrogance of the company was such that they thought this Mr Nobody would just crawl away and die in a deep hole somewhere ......... boy, were they wrong.

Aylesbury_Duck

You’re remarkably touchy for someone who insists they’ve got what they wanted.

boo_star

You're completely wrong.

This is all a numbers game to them and if, for example, £100 was the point that every complainant would go away they'd need to have more than one in four people taking their complaint to court in order for the paying them off in the first instance approach to be more expensive.

I'd be surprised if even one in a thousand complaints go that far, so it just makes more sense to fob people off than "negotiate."

I also think that £50 was a more than generous offer under the circumstances.

Ultimately you may think you have "won" here and their capitulation is an admission of wrongdoing but it really isn't, and if you worked in any reasonably large company in a position above a minimum wage worker you'd know this.