Jump to content


EAC2 Complaints to court about bailiffs and complainants ordered to pay costs.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2739 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I don't think this would come under the ICO remit anyway TBH. The bailiff are after all the authorised data handler for the authority, it is not as if data had been released to the gp.

 

To be fair OB it is not the first time you have tried to Involve the ICO in situations where it is entirely inappropriate.

 

Not sure that is true. The council and EC are separate in regard to their DPA registrations and accountability.

 

There is a DPA issue here and needs to be looked into. But it will be the council responsible for any data handling error.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Generally, i find that most people are only posting based on what they know or have seen. I can understand why it is then infuriating to be questioned.

 

If a council has passed on a persons data in error leading to unfortunate consequences, then the ICO do have a proper remit to look into this. They don't just look into whether there is a wider issue, unless the one case leads them to believe the council in this case, has a problem with their DPA processes. Whether they choose not to do anything, is another matter, but they might have searching questions for the council to answer, which might lead to the council admitting to a mistake in this case and being accountable to the pensioner concerned.

 

Spot-on, UB. That is more or less what the ICO told me when I spoke to them initially about the pensioner's case. There is more to the case than I am able to disclose and those issues have to be dealt with separately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that is true. The council and EC are separate in regard to their DPA registrations and accountability.

 

There is a DPA issue here and needs to be looked into. But it will be the council responsible for any data handling error.

 

Again, spot-on, UB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope neither spot in nor vaguely correct.

 

It is the same data the authority issues it to the bailiff, the LA is therefore the data controller, the bailiff the data handler

 

This is not the same as, when say a computer containing data has been left and is accessible by a third party.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

UB this is not about the way the bodies are registered, it is about how this specific data us processed.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:-

 

1. Do you have insider knowledge; and

 

2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error?

 

The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.

 

You seem to be suggesting here that someone engineered this situation, is that the case ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor.

 

OB,

 

Your above comment a few days ago was absolutely correct. You may or may not have read the following thread that I posted yesterday (which by the way, has received almost 500 views in just 24 hours !!!)

 

As a member of the admin team on that particular social media site,could you please convey the same message to the posters on there.

 

While the lady was texting messages to the FB page, some of the posters were trying to get her to complete an EA2 complaint.

 

PS: On this forum, we are not allowed to mention the social media site. Ir's probably just as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?471791-Vehicle-removed-and-High-Court-enforcement-debt-increases-by-over-%A31-000-following-bad-advice-on-social-media-site.(2-Viewing)-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

OB,

 

Your above comment a few days ago was absolutely correct. You may or may not have read the following thread that I posted yesterday (which by the way, has received almost 500 views in just 24 hours !!!)

 

As a member of the admin team on that particular social media site,could you please convey the same message to the posters on there.

 

While the lady was texting messages to the FB page, some of the posters were trying to get her to complete an EA2 complaint.

 

PS: On this forum, we are not allowed to mention the social media site. Ir's probably just as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?471791-Vehicle-removed-and-High-Court-enforcement-debt-increases-by-over-%A31-000-following-bad-advice-on-social-media-site.(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

TT,

 

I've just posted on another thread you have posted on about this. There are problems with rogue elements within the enforcement industry and professsional trolls causing disruption on the group you mention. The group should not be judged solely on what is posted, as what you are reading may not necessarily have been put there by a valid member of the group of member of the public seeking help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UB this is not about the way the bodies are registered, it is about how this specific data us processed.

 

I have dealt with DPA issues within financial services and received training on it. I think you might be misunderstanding what people are saying.

 

For example, within a large Bank, you might have a Mortgage department which is registered under DPA, with all of the scope of how they handle data documented. Then within the same Bank you have an Insurance department that is passed some of the data to use for specific purposes. If the Mortgage department makes a mistake in passing on data that is not accurate or is beyond the scope of what is allowed, then the Mortgage department staff can be in trouble for breaching data protection. The Insurance staff can get into trouble for going beyond what they are entitled to have to deal with customers Insurance requirements.

 

All that is being said is that if a council has passed on data of a data subject that is wrong or the EC is not legally entitled to have it, that the DPA has been breached by the council. The EC might not have realised there was any issue. You can"t just say it is an honest mistake by the council and that is ok. A breach of the DPA can just be an error and does not need to be a deliberate act knowing it was not compliant with the DPA.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to re read schedule 2 of the DPA in particular the parts relating to offences where the data controller is guilty of an offence .

 

You cannot be held liable for errors in a processing system which are beyond the data controllers reasonable control.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about enforcement measures here UB not just technical breaches.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to re read schedule 2 of the DPA in particular the parts relating to offences where the data controller is guilty of an offence .

 

You cannot be held liable for errors in a processing system which are beyond the data controllers reasonable control.

 

Personal liability of the data controller for an error i would agree would not apply, but if officers of the council had made errors, they are liable as individuals for the mistakes made. The council would take responsibility for the error.

 

For example, if you had customer services staff on the telephones giving out information to third parties by mistake failing to do proper identity checks, they would be personally liable, as might their direct supervisor. But the data controller would not be liable, provided the company had carried out appropriate training of staff and had put processes in place to ensure compliance with the DPA.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...