Data Protection Act

[My Sacrifice]

At work tonight I was having a discussion with a few mates and thought I'd throw it open to you guys.

One of them is going through a messy relationship breakdown. He's moved out of the 'marital' home while it's all being dealt with.

Just before he moved out he had a parking ticket and the fine came through the door which he was planning on getting around to paying, although with his personal problems he didn't get around to doing so, so they sent him an increased fine of £90 for not paying it within 14 days.

This isn't the issue by the way.

Whilst he's estranged from his ex, he doesn't want her knowing anything about his affairs, however when the 2nd demand came through the door (his vehicle is still registered at that address) she opened it and phoned the company to find out more details of any other fines he has outstanding (he has 3).

Apparently she told them she was willing to pay them all with her credit card so the parking company told her exactly how much he owed.

She then ended the call without paying a penny and now knows about his situation which he is not happy about.

The question is, has the parking company broken the DPA?

They aren't married and he's never given her permission to speak to them on his behalf. He's furious that she was able to get this information on the pretence that she would pay it. When he phoned them to complain, all they said was "most people would be grateful to have someone offer to pay their bills".

[Kentish]

Possibly, but then she technically broke the law by opening his mail. Not sure what he can do about it though. If she's lied to the parking people, what can you expect them to do?

[Kermit]

She technically broke the law by opening his mail, and it is bad practice to speak to anyone other than the responsible person without their consent. My bank, for instance, won't speak to my wife about the credit card she is a second cardholder of, because its my credit card and I'm responsible for paying it. I don't know if it is against the DPA; I would suspect it is, but only technically.

Not sure what he wants to do about it though.

[JsT]

Yes its against the DPA. Have just been rebriefed on the DPA at work!

[Babyshambler]

I would say it is definitely a breach of the DPA rules.

[morrocan roll]

yes it is and if he plays his cards right ...he could escape all his fines by agreeing not to take the matter further ...i'd certainly be up for giving it a try.

[Daibach]

Yes, this is definitely a breach of the data protection act. They should only discuss the issue with the person who owns the car, not anyone else.

[Kentish]

What's going to happen to the country if companies refuse to speak to anybody but the account holder. I've certainly taken money over the phone from spouses and will happily go to jail to defend anybody's right to do so.

Let's not forget who was in the wrong here...

[Kermit]

Originally Posted by Kentish

What's going to happen to the country if companies refuse to speak to anybody but the account holder.

An awful lot of fraud will be cut out, for starters.

It is quite rightly against the DPA. Because of this very reason.

[Kentish]

No, it just changes the responsibility for the fraud from the individual committing it to the company facilitating it.

Like I say, I've taken money from spouses which involved (obviously) disclosing the sum to be charged to the card. Had I not done this, there would have been a lot of angry people. And I can't see how this prevents fraud - as long as the usual checks are carried out - there aren't many fraudsters who will pay for the victim's parking fines.

In this case, the guy is just passing on his frustration with his ex onto the parking company.

[Kermit]

The company were entirely in the wrong, and should not have done what they did. If you get voice confirmation you can allow someone else to talk on your behalf- I've done that with the bank when I've been too angry to talk with them- but if you don't then you can't.

The company were in the wrong, the DPA is a good piece of legislation, and comments to the contrary are a bit odd, tbh.

The company is responsible for making sure its talking to the right person, and that they have permission.

[Kentish]

In theory it is indefensible. But in reality all they have done is disclose the amount of money they will be charging to his partner's credit card after she phoned up to pay his fines for him. Jobs like this get delegated to spouses all the time and the DPA must surely be used in conjunction with common sense.

[idowhatiamtold]

People wo are oowed money always throw rules out the window and grasp desperately for payments.

[morrocan roll]

Originally Posted by Kentish

spouses

spouses! are you a mormon?

[Kentish]

I think I was suggesting that more than one spouse has been given the task of paying a bill over the phone before now.