PIPEX incompetence

My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
their apparent incompetence.

There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)

But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!

It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

> My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
> letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
> booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
> long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
> another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
> Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
> on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
> promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
> their apparent incompetence.
>
> There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
> unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
> been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
> her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)
>
> But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
> given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
> I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
> Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
> been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
> On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
> Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
> surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!
>
> It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
> as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
> widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
> as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
> police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
> there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
> could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
> wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?

Bringing child murders into a thread about a problem with your ISP is a
little childish. While I understand your frustration at Pipex's
incompetence, once you've calmed down it's possible you might look back on
this post and wonder whether you might have set out your thoughts in a
different way.

OK, to practical issues. The Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure of
information about a person to a third party (in this case, you). There are
no degrees to this, it's just a black-and-white rule. And the law is being
applied quite correctly.

Confirming that a welcome pack has been sent out has consequential
implications: that the third party has entered into a financial arrangement
with a company; that they might intend staying at a specific address for a
period of time; that they are the registered payer of the telephone bill;
that they might be the registered tenant/homeowner at that address; that
they have a bank account; and so on. None of this information is any
business of any third party, and the company concerned has no means to
identify you as the third party's husband beyond your word: if you were
intending to obtain information by deceit, you would hardly admit as much.
We and Pipex only have your word that you are her husband.

So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
consent, no company should act any differently.

"Nigel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45c334a0$0$8745$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
>> letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
>> booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
>> long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
>> another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
>> Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
>> on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
>> promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
>> their apparent incompetence.
>>
>> There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
>> unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
>> been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
>> her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)
>>
>> But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
>> given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
>> I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
>> Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
>> been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
>> On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
>> Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
>> surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!
>>
>> It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
>> as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
>> widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
>> as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
>> police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
>> there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
>> could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
>> wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?
>

> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
> consent, no company should act any differently.
No. Get the wife to tell them where to put their Data Protection Act and go
somewhere else.

>>> My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
>>> letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
>>> booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
>>> long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
>>> another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
>>> Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
>>> on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
>>> promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
>>> their apparent incompetence.
>>>
>>> There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
>>> unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
>>> been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
>>> her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)
>>>
>>> But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
>>> given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
>>> I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
>>> Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
>>> been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
>>> On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
>>> Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
>>> surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!
>>>
>>> It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
>>> as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
>>> widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
>>> as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
>>> police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
>>> there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
>>> could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
>>> wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?
>>
>
>> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
>> consent, no company should act any differently.
> No. Get the wife to tell them where to put their Data Protection Act and
> go somewhere else.

And whatever "somewhere else" they go to will be bound by the same Act.

On 2007-02-02, Nigel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[ A message that completely failed to attribute any of the quotes in it ]

[snip]
>>
>>> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
>>> consent, no company should act any differently.
>> No. Get the wife to tell them where to put their Data Protection Act and
>> go somewhere else.
>
> And whatever "somewhere else" they go to will be bound by the same Act.

Yup. The same Act, but perhaps a more rational interpretation of it.

--
David Taylor

Nigel wrote:
>>>> My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
>>>> letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
>>>> booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
>>>> long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
>>>> another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
>>>> Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
>>>> on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
>>>> promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
>>>> their apparent incompetence.
>>>>
>>>> There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
>>>> unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
>>>> been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
>>>> her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)
>>>>
>>>> But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
>>>> given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
>>>> I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
>>>> Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
>>>> been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
>>>> On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
>>>> Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
>>>> surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!
>>>>
>>>> It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
>>>> as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
>>>> widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
>>>> as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
>>>> police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
>>>> there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
>>>> could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
>>>> wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?
>>> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
>>> consent, no company should act any differently.
>> No. Get the wife to tell them where to put their Data Protection Act and
>> go somewhere else.
>
> And whatever "somewhere else" they go to will be bound by the same Act.

What act? The act that says the customer services have to be unhelpful
and useless? All the CS need to do is say "Sorry your wife hasn't
received it, I'll post another in the post recorded delivery for you".

The fact is compaines use the DPA as an excuse for being unhelpful.

Nigel wrote:

> OK, to practical issues. The Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure of
> information about a person to a third party (in this case, you). There are
> no degrees to this, it's just a black-and-white rule.

Utter, utter rubbish. See http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tony/dpa-foi-ripa.ppt

It's all about balance. Use of the DPA is inappropriate if it is
hindering progress. Disclosure of information to a third party depends
on what the information is, whether there is consent, what is in the
subject's best interests and so on and so on.

> We and Pipex only have your word that you are her husband.

And we and pipex only have her word that she is she when she rings.
Husband can probably provide all the account information and answer
security questions just as well as she can!

Tony

>>>>> My wife signed up for Pipex Broadband a week or so ago. She received a
>>>>> letter a few days later saying "...please find enclosed your welcome
>>>>> booklet." No booklet was enclosed. So she 'phoned (and waited in the
>>>>> long queue) and was promised it would be sent straightaway. Wednesday
>>>>> another letter arrived: "Please to enclose your welcome booklet."
>>>>> Nothing else in the envelope. That time she spent some 20 mins waiting
>>>>> on 'phone around 7.30pm that evening, and was again given same
>>>>> promise, having told them she was considering canceling in view of
>>>>> their apparent incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no package from Pipex in today's post, so - as my wife is
>>>>> unable to do so today - I thought I'd call to check it had definitely
>>>>> been sent, as tomorrow Saturday is the 'going live' day they advised
>>>>> her of (and presumably the 'starting charging' day too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> But I ended up nearly apoplectic with an idiot 'team leader'. Having
>>>>> given her the details, including the account number, and explained why
>>>>> I was calling, she told me she could go to jail under the Data
>>>>> Protection Act if she told me whether the Welcome Pack had at last
>>>>> been sent! And refused my predictable request to speak to a manager.
>>>>> On calling main reception and asking for the Director of Sales and
>>>>> Service, Mark Carberry, I was told he didn't take calls. Not
>>>>> surprising; I expect he'd be getting quite a few!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's incredible that 'The Data Protection Act' is still being touted
>>>>> as an excuse for unhelpfulness and incompetence. This despite the many
>>>>> widely publicised 'shamings' it's had. The Soham Murders come to mind
>>>>> as perhaps the most notorious instance. In that case, I recall gross
>>>>> police incompetence hid behind it - with dreadful consequences. And
>>>>> there have been several more since then. What possible indiscretion
>>>>> could be committed by answering my question: "After 2 failures, has my
>>>>> wife's booklet now been sent please?" ?
>>>> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
>>>> consent, no company should act any differently.
>>> No. Get the wife to tell them where to put their Data Protection Act
>>> and go somewhere else.
>>
>> And whatever "somewhere else" they go to will be bound by the same Act.
>
> What act? The act that says the customer services have to be unhelpful and
> useless? All the CS need to do is say "Sorry your wife hasn't received it,
> I'll post another in the post recorded delivery for you".

See my earlier post, the relevant parts of which were snipped. The Data
Protection Act prohibits the disclosure by Pipex of ANY information,
inlcuding a confirmation that someone has an account with them. Saying
"I'll post another" constitutes a material disclosure and would in itself be
actionable.

> The fact is compaines use the DPA as an excuse for being unhelpful.

Agreed. It would have been far better for Pipex to have said "Sorry, we're
not allowed to disclose this information. Please ask the person on whose
behalf you claim to be calling to contact us directly and we will be del
with them."

>> OK, to practical issues. The Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure
>> of information about a person to a third party (in this case, you).
>> There are no degrees to this, it's just a black-and-white rule.
>
> Utter, utter rubbish. See http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tony/dpa-foi-ripa.ppt

Which perfectly proves my point. Read it, especially the bit about consent.
(I note you are not a lawyer. IAAL)

> It's all about balance. Use of the DPA is inappropriate if it is
> hindering progress. Disclosure of information to a third party depends on
> what the information is, whether there is consent, what is in the
> subject's best interests and so on and so on.
>
>> We and Pipex only have your word that you are her husband.
>
> And we and pipex only have her word that she is she when she rings.
> Husband can probably provide all the account information and answer
> security questions just as well as she can!

Apart from sounding distinctly male! Having identified himself as the
putative account-holder's husband (and therefore not the person in
question), he automatically excludes himself from any right to the
information without the prior consent of the person concerned. In the event
that he deliberately attempted to mislead Pipex, they might, if they had no
reason to suspect that they were being conned, disclose the relevant
information, but could not be held liable if they could show that they have
made reasonable efforts to establish the identity of the person on the other
end of the telephone.

On 2007-02-02, Nigel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> OK, to practical issues. The Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure of
> information about a person to a third party (in this case, you). There are
> no degrees to this, it's just a black-and-white rule. And the law is being
> applied quite correctly.

The DPA does no such thing. It merely requires organisations which store
personal information to register, and record what they use the information
for. The information must be kept up-to-date and used for legal purposes.
It must be kept secure. There is nothing about "it may not ever be
disclosed to third parties". Not even just "without written permission".

I find it ridiculous that companies find perfectly legal ways to sell
my personal contact details to marketing firms, then attempt to claim
the DPA prevents them doing something I am explicitly giving them
permission to do. Yet they do it, all the time.

> Confirming that a welcome pack has been sent out has consequential
> implications: that the third party has entered into a financial arrangement
> with a company; that they might intend staying at a specific address for a
> period of time; that they are the registered payer of the telephone bill;
> that they might be the registered tenant/homeowner at that address; that
> they have a bank account; and so on. None of this information is any
> business of any third party, and the company concerned has no means to
> identify you as the third party's husband beyond your word: if you were
> intending to obtain information by deceit, you would hardly admit as much.

If they had all the details the OP claimed to have, and were intending to
obtain information by deceit, they would simply find someone with a female
voice to pretend to be THE CUSTOMER rather than the customer's husband.

Further, as the customer's husband was able to provide the account
number, address, telephone number, etc, none of your increasingly far-fetched
explanations of potential damages actually apply.

> We and Pipex only have your word that you are her husband.

Yet if someone phoned up claiming to be his wife, what magical
identification system would be used to verify this?

What, other than having a male voice, would have prevented her husband
from passing the same verification?

What's the point?

> So, bite the bullet and live with the fact that without express written
> consent, no company should act any differently.

Rubbish. Anyway, they're perfectly capable of getting your "express
written consent" (aka your failure to tick a microscopic box) for them
to sell your personal details, so why not for this?

--
David Taylor