GDPR?, Seeking advice for another |
GDPR?, Seeking advice for another |
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 09:15
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
As the other ubiquitous cover-alls (elf and safety and ooman rights) would be too much of a stretch, should we have some kind of rule, ostensibly under the guise of "GDPR innit" that we cannot discuss cases with OPs who are seeking to help a friend/relative by wasting our time playing chinese whispers?
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 09:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 10:56
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
That would be fun!
I want to help my mother's brother's 2nd cousin complain about a PPC breaking GDPR. Sorry, OP, it's against GDPR for us to discuss this with you! Which of us would be the first to break the edict of the mods?? -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 11:28
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Everyone else seems to use GDPR as a reason to avoid anything that could possibly contravene.
Or often cos it is an excuse to avoid giving an answer. I'm not as hard and fast as Andy on the third party queries, often we can resolve on the council forum. But fully understand the frustration when we are not getting the full story. Couple of recents around P&D tickets, both relations asking "on behalf of..." Both up in arms that their dearly beloved had got a PCN when they had paid. Both cases where tickets had not been properly displayed but took some digging to get that fact on the table. |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 11:41
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Some years ago I went to see a solicitor for advice regarding employment law. Apparently due to 'data protection', he needed to see 2 forms of ID before he could advise me based on the information I was providing.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 11:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
As always there is a big difference between law and convenience, I'm pretty sure Andy is being tongue in cheek, but we also all know he has a pet hate for Chinese whispers.......
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 11:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Some years ago I went to see a solicitor for advice regarding employment law. Apparently due to 'data protection', he needed to see 2 forms of ID before he could advise me based on the information I was providing. I had similar when I had to get accounts verified for a student loan for the lad. Accountant "needed" the two forms of ID before he would discuss with me. That is discuss the bank statements etc that I had provided to him. In a way I can understand, I had provided the information without proving it related to me, accountant may have been digging into a rat's nest they should not have been. ID is an issue for me these days, pink driving licence with no photo and an out of date passport are not what people want Unrelated but as silly as many GDPR "necessities", last year the lad (who is 27) ordered a bottle of spirits from Amazon. Duly delivered the next day. I answered the door to be asked for ID to prove I was over 18. And had to be photo ID ! That I am 63, full head of grey hair and obviously old enough meant nothing to the guy. Rules is Rules |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 12:51
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,505 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
But I use the personal information provided in these circumstances to start direct marketing. I presume that's ok?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 13:27
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Some years ago I went to see a solicitor for advice regarding employment law. Apparently due to 'data protection', he needed to see 2 forms of ID before he could advise me based on the information I was providing. I had similar when I had to get accounts verified for a student loan for the lad. Accountant "needed" the two forms of ID before he would discuss with me. That is discuss the bank statements etc that I had provided to him. In a way I can understand, I had provided the information without proving it related to me, accountant may have been digging into a rat's nest they should not have been. That sounds more like an AML compliance issue. Certain businesses must have that information before they can act for you. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 13:33
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 14:13
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As the other ubiquitous cover-alls (elf and safety and ooman rights) would be too much of a stretch, should we have some kind of rule, ostensibly under the guise of "GDPR innit" that we cannot discuss cases with OPs who are seeking to help a friend/relative by wasting our time playing chinese whispers? That would just result in OPs pretending to be the friend / relative and it would make things even worse. At least at present we know it's chinese whispers. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2019 - 14:51
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
.........That sounds more like an AML compliance issue. Certain businesses must have that information before they can act for you. Could be. I seem to remember he said it was needed for Data Protection but some years back and memory fades on details. In all my years of engaging with banks and lawyers I've never been asked to provide ID for data protection purposes. But these days you cannot do anything as a client of a regulated business (which banks and law firms certainly are) without complying with KYC (know your client) procedures, which are related to AML (anti-money laundering) laws and regulations. I suspect that Andy's point about the solicitor was that even they sometimes attribute these burdensome, bureaucratic ID requirements to the wrong reasons. But, you never know... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:25 |