|
|
|
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:10:05 +0100,
group: uk.legal.moderated
back
A thought - Data protection
Just been issued with a default notice for a home contents policy I
cancelled by post in July.
On phoning "customer services" (will I *ever* stop laughing at that one)
they didn't want to talk to me, spouting the DPA, as I would only identify
myself by surname and the reference number they issued.
It occurs to me, does the UK DPA actually cover calls to India?
--
Regards,
Him & Her
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:10:05 +0100
author: Him & Her
|
Re: A thought - Data protection
Him & Her wrote:
> Just been issued with a default notice for a home contents policy I
> cancelled by post in July.
>
> On phoning "customer services" (will I *ever* stop laughing at that one)
> they didn't want to talk to me, spouting the DPA, as I would only identify
> myself by surname and the reference number they issued.
>
> It occurs to me, does the UK DPA actually cover calls to India?
>
No. That is how they get away with harassing you at all time of the day
and night.
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:30:09 +0100
author: Ace Geezer
|
Re: A thought - Data protection
> Just been issued with a default notice for a home contents policy I
> cancelled by post in July.
>
> On phoning "customer services" (will I *ever* stop laughing at that one)
> they didn't want to talk to me, spouting the DPA, as I would only identify
> myself by surname and the reference number they issued.
>
> It occurs to me, does the UK DPA actually cover calls to India?
You really have only yourself to blame. Anybody holding personal data is
required to take appropriate steps to ensure that it is not disclosed. By
refusing to cooperate with the company they have quite correctly not taken
action because they could not be satisfy themselves as to your identity.
Provided the law on transferring data outside Europe are complied with there
is nothing to stop the company doing so.
Peter Crosland
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:35:06 +0100
author: Peter Crosland
|
Re: A thought - Data protection
> You really have only yourself to blame. Anybody holding personal data is
> required to take appropriate steps to ensure that it is not disclosed. By
The OP didn't seem to want them to disclose any personal data, just to
talk to them about a letter they'd sent. Perfectly possible to do that
without disclosing any personal data.
If a company refuses to talk to someone they're chasing money from then
they've only got themselves to blame if they don't get paid. Hopefully a
court would award costs against them too.
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:05:04 +0100
author: lid lid
|
Re: A thought - Data protection
<a@b.invalid> wrote in message news:9b2dnVVQTt27MDDV4p2dnAA@pipex.net...
:> You really have only yourself to blame. Anybody holding personal data is
: > required to take appropriate steps to ensure that it is not disclosed.
By
:
: The OP didn't seem to want them to disclose any personal data, just to
: talk to them about a letter they'd sent. Perfectly possible to do that
: without disclosing any personal data.
:
: If a company refuses to talk to someone they're chasing money from then
: they've only got themselves to blame if they don't get paid. Hopefully a
: court would award costs against them too.
:
:
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:15:07 +0100
author: Him & Her
|
Re: A thought - Data protection
a@b.invalid wrote in message news:9b2dnVVQTt27MDDV4p2dnAA@pipex.net...
:> You really have only yourself to blame. Anybody holding personal data is
: > required to take appropriate steps to ensure that it is not disclosed.
By
:
: The OP didn't seem to want them to disclose any personal data, just to
: talk to them about a letter they'd sent. Perfectly possible to do that
: without disclosing any personal data.
Exactly so. All I needed was for them to listen to what I said once they
confirmed they were recording the call. Didn't want any misunderstanding
about what was said re their default notice.
: If a company refuses to talk to someone they're chasing money from then
: they've only got themselves to blame if they don't get paid. Hopefully a
: court would award costs against them too.
A second call by me landed in Liverpool and while it didn't start much
better it ended how I wanted. They claim they didn't get the cancel
instruction but have cancelled the policy as of 1 August which is when they
renewal was due.
When I told them to remove the default notice they said they hadn't actually
placed anything on my credit file and the threatening letter was nothing
more than routine in the hope of getting payment ( in case I had changed
bank accounts etc )
--
Regards,
Him & Her
date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:25:05 +0100
author: Him & Her
|
|
|