Tweet
Court Liaison
On behalf of EE Law Enforcement Team
Everything Everywhere Limited
1 Trident Place
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9BW
Dear Court Liaison,
Re: Subject Access Request under S.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998
You will note from your records that I am authorised to act for and on behalf of X and I am responding to your recent correspondence addressed to her. Please address all future correspondence to me.
I refer to my complaint on behalf of X to the Information Commissioners Office and it’s decision that it is unlikely you have complied with the requirements of the Data Protection Act in this case and as a result it has reminded you of your obligations in relation to subject access requests.
Your apology to X made on the basis “if we have not replied in full to your initial request” is noted. Given the ICO’s assessment and your undertaking that you would seek confirmation whether the requested information is still required I will leave you in no doubt; you have not replied in full to my initial request nor supplied all the data requested and it is still required.
To assist you in supplying all the data please note: Following my initial subject access request I made subsequent data requests and you did not respond; you told the ICO you had received them, my email of 24 July 2012 included a list of information I believed you had overlooked.
There is also data you submitted to CISAS in your defence to my complaint to them, which you did not supply in response to my requests. Additionally there is data you refer to in your "Defence" document dated 17 September 2012, in support of your submissions in that document, but which you did not provide to the CISAS Adjudicator or in response to my requests. The Adjudicator noted the absence of this data in her judgement and concluded you breached your obligations to X under the T-Mobile contract.
I note you have waived the £10 subject access request fee, which was enclosed with my initial request, and, which you misused until recently to offset against X’s T-Mobile phone account. Incredibly you have sent further harassing communications to X threatening dire actions in 2013, months after the CISAS judgement against you, after this misused fee was correctly recovered from you by your data processor/debt collector Buchanan, Clark & Wells, after it in turn had remembered it’s obligations following my complaints to the CSA and the ICO but months after I had repeatedly complained to it. The CSA have confirmed to me in writing that it will continue to monitor it’s member with particular regard to issuing collection letters and subject access requests.
I understand the ICO has explained to you that it does not expect you to use subject access request fees to offset monies in relation to your customers’ accounts.
The ICO went on to inform me that you have been asked by it to clarify my concerns regarding the fee, please do so. Please clarify why you misused this fee and why you did not respond to my repeated objections to you and your debt collector/data processor relating to it’s misuse, and, please explain why you harassed X again in 2013 in relation to the fee paid to you by your agent Buchanan, Clark & Wells, misused by you and therefore recovered from you by Buchanan, Clark & Wells.
Attached to this letter is your completed form to be read in conjunction with this letter and my earlier requests.
I look forward to receiving your explanations and separately the requested information.
Yours faithfully,
Desyduk
For and on behalf of
X
cc ICO
BCW
On behalf of EE Law Enforcement Team
Everything Everywhere Limited
1 Trident Place
Hatfield Business Park
Hatfield
Hertfordshire
AL10 9BW
Dear Court Liaison,
Re: Subject Access Request under S.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998
You will note from your records that I am authorised to act for and on behalf of X and I am responding to your recent correspondence addressed to her. Please address all future correspondence to me.
I refer to my complaint on behalf of X to the Information Commissioners Office and it’s decision that it is unlikely you have complied with the requirements of the Data Protection Act in this case and as a result it has reminded you of your obligations in relation to subject access requests.
Your apology to X made on the basis “if we have not replied in full to your initial request” is noted. Given the ICO’s assessment and your undertaking that you would seek confirmation whether the requested information is still required I will leave you in no doubt; you have not replied in full to my initial request nor supplied all the data requested and it is still required.
To assist you in supplying all the data please note: Following my initial subject access request I made subsequent data requests and you did not respond; you told the ICO you had received them, my email of 24 July 2012 included a list of information I believed you had overlooked.
There is also data you submitted to CISAS in your defence to my complaint to them, which you did not supply in response to my requests. Additionally there is data you refer to in your "Defence" document dated 17 September 2012, in support of your submissions in that document, but which you did not provide to the CISAS Adjudicator or in response to my requests. The Adjudicator noted the absence of this data in her judgement and concluded you breached your obligations to X under the T-Mobile contract.
I note you have waived the £10 subject access request fee, which was enclosed with my initial request, and, which you misused until recently to offset against X’s T-Mobile phone account. Incredibly you have sent further harassing communications to X threatening dire actions in 2013, months after the CISAS judgement against you, after this misused fee was correctly recovered from you by your data processor/debt collector Buchanan, Clark & Wells, after it in turn had remembered it’s obligations following my complaints to the CSA and the ICO but months after I had repeatedly complained to it. The CSA have confirmed to me in writing that it will continue to monitor it’s member with particular regard to issuing collection letters and subject access requests.
I understand the ICO has explained to you that it does not expect you to use subject access request fees to offset monies in relation to your customers’ accounts.
The ICO went on to inform me that you have been asked by it to clarify my concerns regarding the fee, please do so. Please clarify why you misused this fee and why you did not respond to my repeated objections to you and your debt collector/data processor relating to it’s misuse, and, please explain why you harassed X again in 2013 in relation to the fee paid to you by your agent Buchanan, Clark & Wells, misused by you and therefore recovered from you by Buchanan, Clark & Wells.
Attached to this letter is your completed form to be read in conjunction with this letter and my earlier requests.
I look forward to receiving your explanations and separately the requested information.
Yours faithfully,
Desyduk
For and on behalf of
X
cc ICO
BCW