BT incompetence will result in PN Broadband cease
It would appear that BT are incompetent almost beyond belief. They are completely unable to follow written instructions to terminate a specific voice line despite being given the relevant A/C & phone number for said line and have somehow managed to place a cease order very late Saturday on a completely different A/C with a completely different phone number from a completely different exchange that is connected to a completely different address.
Consequently, the BT line and PN Broadband service I'm currently using will cease sometime on Monday and I apparently have no way to stop it. PN tell me on the phone they can do nothing about it, e-mails to BT take several days at the best of times to get a response and all the BT so-called customer service phone numbers ultimately result in a recorded message stating "closed for the holidays" or words to that effect after trying every conceivable option from the menus.
So, time to say "bye bye" before my >15 years with F9/PN comes to an abrupt end tomorrow. Please don't cheer too loudly and all that
If anyone at PN can actually give BT a bl**dy good slap before Monday then please do so because once the line/number is actually terminated by BT it will NEVER be reconnected to them but will ultimately be moved to an alternative provider meaning I will have absolutely no choice but to find any Broadband supplier other than PN or BT to provide the service(s) I need.
PS: It wouldn't be a very good idea for PN to attempt to charge me for a cease order that I didn't request to cease the Broadband service that I didn't want ceased right now ... and the Direct Debit has already been cancelled just in case anyone tries to take the p*ss any more than BT already have done
Consequently, the BT line and PN Broadband service I'm currently using will cease sometime on Monday and I apparently have no way to stop it. PN tell me on the phone they can do nothing about it, e-mails to BT take several days at the best of times to get a response and all the BT so-called customer service phone numbers ultimately result in a recorded message stating "closed for the holidays" or words to that effect after trying every conceivable option from the menus.
So, time to say "bye bye" before my >15 years with F9/PN comes to an abrupt end tomorrow. Please don't cheer too loudly and all that
If anyone at PN can actually give BT a bl**dy good slap before Monday then please do so because once the line/number is actually terminated by BT it will NEVER be reconnected to them but will ultimately be moved to an alternative provider meaning I will have absolutely no choice but to find any Broadband supplier other than PN or BT to provide the service(s) I need.
PS: It wouldn't be a very good idea for PN to attempt to charge me for a cease order that I didn't request to cease the Broadband service that I didn't want ceased right now ... and the Direct Debit has already been cancelled just in case anyone tries to take the p*ss any more than BT already have done
I've received mystery "cease" emails before as well due to someone somewhere entering wrong data and then had to try and get the cease stopped. Unfortunately on this particular occasion I just don't think there's enough time to manage it. BT are totally hopeless and a completely lost cause. I just wish they'd loose so much business due to their incompetence and couldn't care less attitude that they went bust. I despair at the amount of grief they have persistently given me over the years and the consequences of their most recent gross incompetence. Maybe it's a good thing though ... BT & PN finally out of my life forever ... as my experiences over the past 25 years certainly make the likes of Vir**n Me**a seem like the best thing since sliced bread that's for sure despite the often bad reports from customers various !! [no need for anyone to mention frying pans and fires etc]
I've recently found out the most likely reason why my late mother virtually refused to answer the phone for the last several years of her life: BT have allegedly been publishing the ex-directory phone number (along with my late father's name) as being in use at an address some 50 miles away from where it's actually connected. A BOURNEMOUTH phone number with the name of someone who's been dead for 10 years and some almost random address effectively being listed in the TAUNTON phone book with the data being sold to anyone who wants to pay for it. A blatant breach of the DPA by disseminating personal information not only without consent but contrary to specific instructions not to do so apart from anything else. But no one at BT gives a monkey's about it despite the fact that it appears to have resulted in several years of what can only be described as harassment. I've only got the bottom of what I think has been going on after being on the receiving end of it myself and doing loads of investigation, I wasn't aware there had been any significant problem until just a few months ago other than her extreme reluctance to answer the phone without giving any real explanation.
No prizes for guessing why an ex-directory phone number received quite so many repeated unsolicited calls from scammers, salesmen, DCAs and scumbags various when it's being publicly disseminated as being in use at an address elsewhere. No prizes for guessing why an elderly person wouldn't answer the phone due to not understanding what the hell was going on, why so many people were demanding to speak to her long-since dead husband and/or lots of other people she'd never even heard of, and not to mention the often somewhat rude and abusive calls being received. No prizes for guessing why I instructed BT to close the A/C and terminate the service either ... just a pity they chose not to terminate the line which is no longer required and is pretty much unusable in any case but are instead terminating my line and broadband on a different number at a different address. There's a VERY good reason why telephone lines have specific telephone numbers and are also associated with a specific A/C number regardless of who actually receives the statements and pays the bill but BT don't appear to understand this
Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh
I've recently found out the most likely reason why my late mother virtually refused to answer the phone for the last several years of her life: BT have allegedly been publishing the ex-directory phone number (along with my late father's name) as being in use at an address some 50 miles away from where it's actually connected. A BOURNEMOUTH phone number with the name of someone who's been dead for 10 years and some almost random address effectively being listed in the TAUNTON phone book with the data being sold to anyone who wants to pay for it. A blatant breach of the DPA by disseminating personal information not only without consent but contrary to specific instructions not to do so apart from anything else. But no one at BT gives a monkey's about it despite the fact that it appears to have resulted in several years of what can only be described as harassment. I've only got the bottom of what I think has been going on after being on the receiving end of it myself and doing loads of investigation, I wasn't aware there had been any significant problem until just a few months ago other than her extreme reluctance to answer the phone without giving any real explanation.
No prizes for guessing why an ex-directory phone number received quite so many repeated unsolicited calls from scammers, salesmen, DCAs and scumbags various when it's being publicly disseminated as being in use at an address elsewhere. No prizes for guessing why an elderly person wouldn't answer the phone due to not understanding what the hell was going on, why so many people were demanding to speak to her long-since dead husband and/or lots of other people she'd never even heard of, and not to mention the often somewhat rude and abusive calls being received. No prizes for guessing why I instructed BT to close the A/C and terminate the service either ... just a pity they chose not to terminate the line which is no longer required and is pretty much unusable in any case but are instead terminating my line and broadband on a different number at a different address. There's a VERY good reason why telephone lines have specific telephone numbers and are also associated with a specific A/C number regardless of who actually receives the statements and pays the bill but BT don't appear to understand this
Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh
Quote from: Anotherone I see no reason why PN cannot intervene and stop the cease
If the phone Rental is with BT Retail OFCOM rules say why Plusnet cannot intervene!
Thanks for the responses ... and PN did in fact intervene on a previous instance that a cease had mysteriously appeared out-of-blue for no apparent reason other than BT incompetence. This time however, the only real 'help' they could offer was telling me they were going to charge me £65 if/when BT terminate the line.
Well, a good 90 mins on the phone being passed around and talking to people who couldn't really understand what the problem actually was and it's allegedly sorted. The fact that there was still a cease order showing on the wrong A/C online and all that appeared to have happened is the date on it had been changed from being placed yesterday to be being placed today is apparently not important ... it should be OK now and all that. NOT will be OK but should be OK The BT Manager did also of course call me back in a few minutes as promised to discuss the situation and confirm that the problem really had been resolved. Yeah, right 
Over 2 hours later and he obviously hasn't quite finished the call he was on at the time I wanted to speak to him so he hasn't been able to contact me as yet. I give up now. I'm actually beginning to hope it all goes through in the end so that it will finally force me to do what I should have done at least a decade ago and go elsewhere regardless of the massive problems there will be if my Broadband ceases and I lose all the e-mails I'm expecting in connection with the Estate I'm trying to deal with in particular. Several months of pain due to a complete loss of e-mails to an address in constant use daily for >15 years is probably a price well worth paying to finally resolve any problems once and for all.
TBH, I think OFCOM is a bit of a waste of space however I do fully intend reporting the various issues with both BT and 192.com to them for the record. Unfortunately, they often seem to be more than a bit of toothless tiger in reality much like the ICO and FSA generally are. Companies like BT et al get away with poor service and frequent demonstrations of complete incompetence purely because they know full well they can get away with it. The customer suffers all the hassle, inconvenience and problems and even has to pay for the privilege of being on the receiving end into the bargain. The customer always has to pay for a company's incompetence in one way or another and will be milked to the maximum possible extent whilst the company takes no responsibility for whatever has gone on. The worst that will ever happen if a complaint is ever taken seriously by any regulator is more often than not just a very light smack on the leg and perhaps a public statement saying they were very naughty indeed and should spend a few microseconds in the naughty corner thinking about what they've done.
It's quite ridiculous that a cease order with a default action to proceed can automatically be placed on any line, especially so when there are 3rd parties providing services on the line as well. But then again, despite being charged something like £150 for a "self install" activation many years ago with no contract or termination charges at the time so a fully inclusive amount, BT have subsequently moved the goalposts by several miles of course and now do not charge for activation (or charge a minimal amount) but do charge a hefty amount for termination. Ceasing a service actually generates almost pure profit so why would they not want to take full advantage of that and charge the customer for the privilege of being screwed around ? Effectively charging the customer twice as would be the case in my situation is even better of course. Add to that selling on my personal information without consent and no matter what happens to the A/C in the end, they still generate profit for doing nothing other than inflicting pain and much inconvenience.
In addition to contacting OFCOM, all correspondence between me and the two collections of assorted morons various is already sat on my Solicitor's desk awaiting their attention in January. They will be instructed to take any remotely plausible action possible to resolve the situation fully (and publicly) to ensure that whoever is ultimately found to be responsible is brought to task and forced to accept full responsibility for their gross negligence. At the moment, I have documentary evidence proving beyond doubt that 192.com have been publicly disseminating personal information for profit without consent. They, needless to say, deny any responsibility whatsoever because they claim to simply be disseminating data from the OSIS database provided to them under licence by BT Wholesale. BT Wholesale, needless to say, have very little at all to say (aka nothing whatsoever !) other than implying they cannot possibly be in any way responsible because all they do is disseminate data supplied to them by telecom service providers various. BT retail, needless to say, effectively deny any responsibility at all and also deny any problem exists because everything is hunky-dory according to them. All the A/C details they have are entirely in order with the phone number definitely being ex-directory so it wont ever be published by any means anywhere. Funny how the offending data mysteriously disappeared within 2 hours of me first contacting all parties involved isn't it ?
So the only possible conclusion one can draw from this fiasco is that it MUST be my fault for putting up with b@rstewards various for so bl**dy long rather than biting the bullet and going elsewhere after any one of several previous demonstrations of negligence and/or incompetence. I've been desperate to get BT out of my life for years but unfortunately I rather stupidly tied myself very firmly into PN donkey's years ago so couldn't easily shift ISP and have therefore had to remain with BT no matter what excrement they throw at me. It's much the same thing with PN in all honesty, various serious problems and service issues over the years including of course the well known security breach(es) that resulted in dissemination of a whole load of personal information to spammers and scammers various. The good old ICO and/or OFCOM did lots about that didn't they ? Unfortunately, just so long as I keep on paying way over the odds for the so-called services I (often don't) receive then nothing will change. But I will definitely get BT (& PN) out of my life in due course now and no matter how much pain or inconvenience it will cause at the time ... because NO ONE could possibly be as useless or be entirely responsible for quite so many problems without actually taking any responsibility whatsoever for them.
... wanders off muttering & swearing profusely and still cursing those d@mn Mayans for not delivering what they promised on the 21st December. An appointment made in writing donkey's years ago and clearly written on my calendar but a complete no-show. Yet another outfit who apparently believe it's perfectly OK to rip the customer off by not delivering 'services' that would have fully resolved ALL of my problems in one hit and all that
[/rant]
Well, a good 90 mins on the phone being passed around and talking to people who couldn't really understand what the problem actually was and it's allegedly sorted. The fact that there was still a cease order showing on the wrong A/C online and all that appeared to have happened is the date on it had been changed from being placed yesterday to be being placed today is apparently not important ... it should be OK now and all that. NOT will be OK but should be OK
The BT Manager did also of course call me back in a few minutes as promised to discuss the situation and confirm that the problem really had been resolved. Yeah, right Over 2 hours later and he obviously hasn't quite finished the call he was on at the time I wanted to speak to him so he hasn't been able to contact me as yet. I give up now. I'm actually beginning to hope it all goes through in the end so that it will finally force me to do what I should have done at least a decade ago and go elsewhere regardless of the massive problems there will be if my Broadband ceases and I lose all the e-mails I'm expecting in connection with the Estate I'm trying to deal with in particular. Several months of pain due to a complete loss of e-mails to an address in constant use daily for >15 years is probably a price well worth paying to finally resolve any problems once and for all.TBH, I think OFCOM is a bit of a waste of space however I do fully intend reporting the various issues with both BT and 192.com to them for the record. Unfortunately, they often seem to be more than a bit of toothless tiger in reality much like the ICO and FSA generally are. Companies like BT et al get away with poor service and frequent demonstrations of complete incompetence purely because they know full well they can get away with it. The customer suffers all the hassle, inconvenience and problems and even has to pay for the privilege of being on the receiving end into the bargain. The customer always has to pay for a company's incompetence in one way or another and will be milked to the maximum possible extent whilst the company takes no responsibility for whatever has gone on. The worst that will ever happen if a complaint is ever taken seriously by any regulator is more often than not just a very light smack on the leg and perhaps a public statement saying they were very naughty indeed and should spend a few microseconds in the naughty corner thinking about what they've done.
It's quite ridiculous that a cease order with a default action to proceed can automatically be placed on any line, especially so when there are 3rd parties providing services on the line as well. But then again, despite being charged something like £150 for a "self install" activation many years ago with no contract or termination charges at the time so a fully inclusive amount, BT have subsequently moved the goalposts by several miles of course and now do not charge for activation (or charge a minimal amount) but do charge a hefty amount for termination. Ceasing a service actually generates almost pure profit so why would they not want to take full advantage of that and charge the customer for the privilege of being screwed around ? Effectively charging the customer twice as would be the case in my situation is even better of course. Add to that selling on my personal information without consent and no matter what happens to the A/C in the end, they still generate profit for doing nothing other than inflicting pain and much inconvenience.
In addition to contacting OFCOM, all correspondence between me and the two collections of assorted morons various is already sat on my Solicitor's desk awaiting their attention in January. They will be instructed to take any remotely plausible action possible to resolve the situation fully (and publicly) to ensure that whoever is ultimately found to be responsible is brought to task and forced to accept full responsibility for their gross negligence. At the moment, I have documentary evidence proving beyond doubt that 192.com have been publicly disseminating personal information for profit without consent. They, needless to say, deny any responsibility whatsoever because they claim to simply be disseminating data from the OSIS database provided to them under licence by BT Wholesale. BT Wholesale, needless to say, have very little at all to say (aka nothing whatsoever !) other than implying they cannot possibly be in any way responsible because all they do is disseminate data supplied to them by telecom service providers various. BT retail, needless to say, effectively deny any responsibility at all and also deny any problem exists because everything is hunky-dory according to them. All the A/C details they have are entirely in order with the phone number definitely being ex-directory so it wont ever be published by any means anywhere. Funny how the offending data mysteriously disappeared within 2 hours of me first contacting all parties involved isn't it ?
So the only possible conclusion one can draw from this fiasco is that it MUST be my fault for putting up with b@rstewards various for so bl**dy long rather than biting the bullet and going elsewhere after any one of several previous demonstrations of negligence and/or incompetence. I've been desperate to get BT out of my life for years but unfortunately I rather stupidly tied myself very firmly into PN donkey's years ago so couldn't easily shift ISP and have therefore had to remain with BT no matter what excrement they throw at me. It's much the same thing with PN in all honesty, various serious problems and service issues over the years including of course the well known security breach(es) that resulted in dissemination of a whole load of personal information to spammers and scammers various. The good old ICO and/or OFCOM did lots about that didn't they ? Unfortunately, just so long as I keep on paying way over the odds for the so-called services I (often don't) receive then nothing will change. But I will definitely get BT (& PN) out of my life in due course now and no matter how much pain or inconvenience it will cause at the time ... because NO ONE could possibly be as useless or be entirely responsible for quite so many problems without actually taking any responsibility whatsoever for them.
... wanders off muttering & swearing profusely and still cursing those d@mn Mayans for not delivering what they promised on the 21st December. An appointment made in writing donkey's years ago and clearly written on my calendar but a complete no-show. Yet another outfit who apparently believe it's perfectly OK to rip the customer off by not delivering 'services' that would have fully resolved ALL of my problems in one hit and all that
[/rant]
Well ... sorry for keeping you in suspenders (you naughty boy) suspense and all that but I think I can safely confirm now that someone definitely did stop the cease in the nick of time. A couple of unusual major hiccups in stats and errors during Mon (much as there was on Sat around the time I received the notification of the cease) but other than that it's situation mostly normal. It's always very obvious when someone somewhere has just run tests or whatever on the line. I spent all of Sun/Mon right through to very stupid o'clock this morning desperately trying to catch up on a whole load of stuff I had in progress so I could get it submitted and/or e-mailed just in case things were about to go t*tsup so at least my todo list a lot clearer now than it has been in several years ! I even managed to bang in several different reports to OFCOM and ICO for whatever good that might do. However, both of them just logging numbers and then maybe doing something in due course is all well and good but if they actually had to provide a proper response to individual reports that led to a confirmed problem then any problem there is would get sorted out swiftly if only to prevent them sinking in the same sea of c**p that many customers have to put up with.
Mucho thanks to PN (and Kelly in particular) for doing whatever they tried to do behind the scenes as well
I'm not sure whether your efforts helped or not as the 'order' visible on-line never appeared to change significantly, only the placement date changed never the completion date or the action being taken and all that. The order was still visible all the time on the wrong A/C almost up to the end but then finally just disappeared (order not found) with no action apparently taken as the line is obviously still working. I never did hear back from BT to confirm all would definitely be OK now and get some sort of explanation as to how they managed to screw things up so badly. As for did BT have the right info in the beginning ... well yes, it all boils down to the A/C number really as that is the definitive identifier. I was VERY careful that I quoted the correct one as I have previously screwed up bigtime by paying one A/C via on-line banking using the stored payee details for the other A/C. Consequently 1 A/C very overpaid and 1 A/C not paid so the customary £20 (or whatever) penalty to suffer in due course. They definitely had all the right info and early responses from them do actually confirm that as the A/C number if nothing else appears in them. What I hadn't noticed sooner than I actually did was that they claimed to have called me on my HOME phone number rather than trying the number for the line being ceased. With hindsight that should have immediately raised a flag that someone had probably got things badly wrong rather than were just trying to be sensible and call me on a number I was more likely to be somewhere close to.
If, as seems to be being suggested, there is or has been a big issue with incorrect cease orders being placed then perhaps a concerted effort is needed to 'encourage' someone to actually do something about the problem. A whole batch of customer complaints hitting OFCOM at once might just make them take notice and deal with the problem. Of course, PN must be well aware of any significant problem there might be as well because they do at least appear to always notify customers if an unexpected cease order has turned up if nothing else. Maybe PN should be taking steps to ensure that any fundamental problem there might be in the system is addressed ? Of course PN effectively complaining to OFCOM or whoever about BT is perhaps highly unlikely to ever happen and perhaps the potential £65 windfall is a welcome bonus in any case but everyone concerned must be well aware of a problem if it exists. If they cannot or will not do something between themselves to fix the problem in some way without involving the customer then it seems pretty unlikely that anyone else will be able to get something done about it. When (almost) everyone seems to be in bed with BT in one way or another at some point in time then I suppose no one's ever going to be that interested are they.
Same kinda thing with BT in respect of the directory entries and OSIS database. Way too incestuous a relationship to ever get any sense out of anyone. If you have a BT line, are perhaps ex-directory, have an hour or so to fill and/or just want to have a good laugh ... contact the BT directory team and confirm all the details they have are correct. Not on 118whatever but via the usual customer (so-called) support number. They're reasonably friendly and helpful and all that. However, when they've told you everything you want to hear and probably said several times that your number will never be disseminated to anyone by any means because it's ex-directory ... ask for confirmation of everything they've just told in writing. I pretty much guarantee from experience that no matter who you talk to or how high you manage to escalate the request, you will not get it. You'll only get a 1001 reasons why they can't do it. Had a *very* interesting conversation with someone on one of the occasions I tried. Comments along the lines of they're always getting asked for that and even the supervisors/managers can't (or perhaps it's just wont) ever put anything in writing. Why not, what have they got to hide, if they're in any way 'confident' that the info they have and are prepared to give you over the phone is even remotely correct then what plausible reason could there possibly be for not confirming that same information in writing ? All typical BT (and most other big companies of course) I suppose: no accountability, no responsibility and plenty of heavy duty rear end protection always firmly bolted in place just in case. BT should NEVER have been left in control of such an important database and nor should any other service provider for that matter either, it should be with an independent 3rd party. It seems to me that there must be 2 different entries in the database for the same phone number ... and that should never have been allowed to happen no matter what as it's fundamentally wrong because a telephone number (including the STD code of course) is, almost by definition, quite unique.
Mucho thanks to PN (and Kelly in particular) for doing whatever they tried to do behind the scenes as well
I'm not sure whether your efforts helped or not as the 'order' visible on-line never appeared to change significantly, only the placement date changed never the completion date or the action being taken and all that. The order was still visible all the time on the wrong A/C almost up to the end but then finally just disappeared (order not found) with no action apparently taken as the line is obviously still working. I never did hear back from BT to confirm all would definitely be OK now and get some sort of explanation as to how they managed to screw things up so badly. As for did BT have the right info in the beginning ... well yes, it all boils down to the A/C number really as that is the definitive identifier. I was VERY careful that I quoted the correct one as I have previously screwed up bigtime by paying one A/C via on-line banking using the stored payee details for the other A/C. Consequently 1 A/C very overpaid and 1 A/C not paid so the customary £20 (or whatever) penalty to suffer in due course. They definitely had all the right info and early responses from them do actually confirm that as the A/C number if nothing else appears in them. What I hadn't noticed sooner than I actually did was that they claimed to have called me on my HOME phone number rather than trying the number for the line being ceased. With hindsight that should have immediately raised a flag that someone had probably got things badly wrong rather than were just trying to be sensible and call me on a number I was more likely to be somewhere close to.If, as seems to be being suggested, there is or has been a big issue with incorrect cease orders being placed then perhaps a concerted effort is needed to 'encourage' someone to actually do something about the problem. A whole batch of customer complaints hitting OFCOM at once might just make them take notice and deal with the problem. Of course, PN must be well aware of any significant problem there might be as well because they do at least appear to always notify customers if an unexpected cease order has turned up if nothing else. Maybe PN should be taking steps to ensure that any fundamental problem there might be in the system is addressed ? Of course PN effectively complaining to OFCOM or whoever about BT is perhaps highly unlikely to ever happen and perhaps the potential £65 windfall is a welcome bonus in any case
but everyone concerned must be well aware of a problem if it exists. If they cannot or will not do something between themselves to fix the problem in some way without involving the customer then it seems pretty unlikely that anyone else will be able to get something done about it. When (almost) everyone seems to be in bed with BT in one way or another at some point in time then I suppose no one's ever going to be that interested are they.Same kinda thing with BT in respect of the directory entries and OSIS database. Way too incestuous a relationship to ever get any sense out of anyone. If you have a BT line, are perhaps ex-directory, have an hour or so to fill and/or just want to have a good laugh ... contact the BT directory team and confirm all the details they have are correct. Not on 118whatever but via the usual customer (so-called) support number. They're reasonably friendly and helpful and all that. However, when they've told you everything you want to hear and probably said several times that your number will never be disseminated to anyone by any means because it's ex-directory ... ask for confirmation of everything they've just told in writing. I pretty much guarantee from experience that no matter who you talk to or how high you manage to escalate the request, you will not get it. You'll only get a 1001 reasons why they can't do it. Had a *very* interesting conversation with someone on one of the occasions I tried. Comments along the lines of they're always getting asked for that and even the supervisors/managers can't (or perhaps it's just wont) ever put anything in writing. Why not, what have they got to hide, if they're in any way 'confident' that the info they have and are prepared to give you over the phone is even remotely correct then what plausible reason could there possibly be for not confirming that same information in writing ? All typical BT (and most other big companies of course) I suppose: no accountability, no responsibility and plenty of heavy duty rear end protection always firmly bolted in place just in case. BT should NEVER have been left in control of such an important database and nor should any other service provider for that matter either, it should be with an independent 3rd party. It seems to me that there must be 2 different entries in the database for the same phone number ... and that should never have been allowed to happen no matter what as it's fundamentally wrong because a telephone number (including the STD code of course) is, almost by definition, quite unique.
I had already though of doing that (and I might well still do it out of morbid curiosity) but when you consider the information you MUST include in the request, it will only show up any sort of problem if you already know that there is a problem to find and you are able to give the specific details of it.
If I ask for an SAR on me and either of my A/Cs at either of my real addresses then everything will always come up just fine and dandy. I would need to submit an SAR in a 3rd party's name using a 4th party's address and one of my genuine phone numbers to potentially get what I need to see. That just wouldn't get through to ever being actioned but even if it did I wouldn't actually receive it. To the best of my knowledge, only the individual concerned can personally request an SAR and the individual in this case has been dead for 10 years plus I've no idea who's address it is but I do know the individual concerned certainly never lived anywhere even remotely close to it ! Apart from anything else, providing someone else's data via an SAR just has to be contrary to the DPA doesn't it ?
In any case, much like my initial report of the problem resulted in, it would probably just lead to the offending data mysteriously disappearing from the live database without further comment. I somehow doubt an SAR would reveal exactly (and specifically) what was in the OSIS database in any case because apart from the fact it's a BTW thing shrouded in mystery, whatever the mistake actually is and wherever it's buried it isn't going to be visible when doing a legal SAR. What's needed is a "reverse directory enquiry" and that isn't something that anyone (other than perhaps the database owner/manager) would ever be legally able to do.
If I ask for an SAR on me and either of my A/Cs at either of my real addresses then everything will always come up just fine and dandy. I would need to submit an SAR in a 3rd party's name using a 4th party's address and one of my genuine phone numbers to potentially get what I need to see. That just wouldn't get through to ever being actioned but even if it did I wouldn't actually receive it. To the best of my knowledge, only the individual concerned can personally request an SAR and the individual in this case has been dead for 10 years plus I've no idea who's address it is but I do know the individual concerned certainly never lived anywhere even remotely close to it ! Apart from anything else, providing someone else's data via an SAR just has to be contrary to the DPA doesn't it ?
In any case, much like my initial report of the problem resulted in, it would probably just lead to the offending data mysteriously disappearing from the live database without further comment. I somehow doubt an SAR would reveal exactly (and specifically) what was in the OSIS database in any case because apart from the fact it's a BTW thing shrouded in mystery, whatever the mistake actually is and wherever it's buried it isn't going to be visible when doing a legal SAR. What's needed is a "reverse directory enquiry" and that isn't something that anyone (other than perhaps the database owner/manager) would ever be legally able to do.