Even when provided with evidence of a breach (a complete call recording, which they can finally now play with the help of their IT dept) and with caller's number and date/time and so on, they are REFUSING to actually take action.
"As mentioned in my previous correspondence, we will not be taking any further action in relation to your complaint."
What is the point in the ICO existing if they won't take action, and what is the point of the law saying I can ask them to take action if they are not expected to act on my request...
I have pointed out that I will continue to send call recordings and request that they take action as long as the law says I can.
ICO refuse to take action
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Companies bad at banking
I was discussing with a colleague the other day how so many companies are so bad with banking. In some ways we have been lucky, but to be fa...
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
Escalate to your MP?ReplyDelete
+1 on this, it's amusing how quickly even Immigration jump when an MP comes sniffing around. Plus junk phone calls is the kind of thing that annoys more than just techy constituents and can be kind of thing an MP can get on his hobby horse and campaign on.Delete
Have they given any indication why they won't be taking action?ReplyDelete
First excuse was could not play recording, then could not identify from "Energy Dept" name in recording, then something about not being able to identify from calling number but no indication that they have in fact tried to. Then just a "we're not doing anything, tough".Delete
I wonder if it's not bloody-mindedness, just a lack of skill or technical nouse.Delete
Do they have a document which details exactly what information they need?
I wonder if Watchdog would be interested.Delete
So, lie about your company name and withhold/fake your phone number and you can call whoever you want whenever you want about whatever: if the ICO can't be told who you are, you are in the clear.... Hmm..Delete
Judicial Review Time?Delete
From the ICO web-site:
The UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
Yes, they're there to "uphold information rights in the public interest". I wonder what box didn't get checked by your complaint?
The ICO exists to make websites stick silly cookie banners on the top of their pages. And keep friends/relatives of MPs in the style to which they've become accustomed.ReplyDelete
The idea they do anything in the public interest is pretty laugable.
Does the writ of mandamus still exist? Do ICO not have a statutory duty to enforce these regulations, so a writ of mandamus would be an appropriate mechanism to force them to perform that duty.ReplyDelete
It was renamed a decade ago to a 'Mandatory Order' - the problem may be that if the legislation just says that you may *ask* for ICO to take action, that's all that is required - in much the same way that I could *ask* RevK to come round and re-grout my bathroom, but he doesn't actually have to do it.Delete
It's very disappointing, though: even if it requires legislative action to correct, we need to get ICO to take action over these calls.
It's got so beyond a joke now that the line of action by those tasked with enforcing the law/regulations is a disgrace.ReplyDelete
My 93-year-old father is now getting calls asking if someone on his number "asked for help". Fortunately his cognitive abilities are pretty much intact so he knows what to do - well except that he still asks how someone got hold of his number. I explained autodialling and the insignificant cost of whatever war-dialling is called these days, but he sounded lost. So I held off on caller-number-spoofing via SIP...