Monday, 29 July 2013

And section 21

So, not content with breaching section 22 of the The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, they are now trying to breach Section 21 as well, though that would be damages claimed by A&A not myself personally.

Here is the call recording of someone claiming to be John from IT Solutions trying to get an email address for me for some reason. Oddly they call from the number listed in several places as Deane Computer Solutions and one digit away from the fax number listed on his emails from them. At around 1:15 it says "it's just a sales call really".

2:01 WAV recording

What can I say?

Update: He has found my blog at last, and wants the call recording removed.

He admits they made the call "I asked a young/junior member of staff (not me) to call your office to get your work email address, so I could email you at work as a representative of your organisation."

No idea why he wants to contact A&A. The blog is not A&A's and the court action is not A&As. Why would he want to contact my employer? Strange.

Apparently "Your approach and the manner in which you have conducted yourself in public forum is not conducive to a resolution."

Anyone else find a problem with the way I have conducted myself? Just curious...

13 comments:

  1. "John" is really quiet in that wav file, any chance of a transcript or increased volume of "John"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is stereo - you sure you don't have it all one channel on your playback?

      Delete
    2. Yep, my fault. - Certainly an awkward conversation. Strange, for a telemarketer he lacked confidence. Makes me wonder if "John" really worked for IT Solutions.

      Delete
  2. These guys seem determined to get laughed out of court. I'm guessing they were trying to get your titanic.co.uk email through a sales call so they could try and argue that it's not personal use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was trying to work that out - obviously we would not give out a titanic email address as a contact for me at A&A. It is a personal email address and not company related in any way. But then, even if they had, the legislation defines “subscriber” means a person who is a party to a contract with a provider of public electronic communications services for the supply of such services;

      That means "individual subscriber" is simply a subscriber that is an individual. The legislation does not cover actual "use" of a domain or email address or communications service, it covers the legal status of the person that contracts for those services.

      I could use that email address as a "business contact" all over the place, but if the person contracting for the service is an individual, it comes under the regulations.

      In this case it is much more clear cut as titanic is not mine, the owner happens to be a friend of mine, hence selling me an email service on his cool domain.

      Delete
  3. When in a hole - stop digging!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is fantastic reading. You should charge a subscription fee!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am really struggling to believe that these people (this person?) is really as idiotic as they (he?) seem intent on appearing.

    On the face of it what they are (he is?) doing is about as ding-bat crazy as could be - it's almost like they're (he's?) reading the "How to be an idiot" guide book and religiously following every instruction letter by letter.

    Try as I might, I really cannot credit anybody who has managed to complete the paperwork necessary to start up a company with such stupidity. This leaves me wondering exactly what game he is playing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trying to defeat the RevK with logic and homebrew legal arguments is like trying to stop the Terminator with an air pistol. Turn and run...

    ReplyDelete
  7. This call was one step away from "errrr............... What you wearing..........go on.......go on call me daddy........"

    Alternatively it was almost like a teenager ringing reception to tannoy a customer "...Wayne Kerr to reception please....... Wayne Kerr."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Surely by asking that you take the phone call down he's admitting it's from his company without the "coincidence" of the phone number. Straight away showing that he was in breach of section 21.

    Second item on the claim!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...is not conducive to a resolution"

    Bwahahahaha.

    Best laugh of the day.

    Thank you Mr Spann^H^Hmmer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Your approach and the manner in which you have conducted yourself in public forum is not conducive to a resolution." <- he could have resolved this before hand and has only just become aware of the public forum: therefore how does this affect matters. When you replied to his original email, you give him options for resolution which he failed to agree to.

    ReplyDelete