Information Commissioner’s Office

[andymalory]

Think there is a rule that prior performance can not be taken into account when evaluating current bids. Which is why no matter how tulip Crapita and G4tulip is they will continue to get new contracts.

Not exactly. Poor performance can be taken into account. but it is not as simple as it should be. You need to ask previous customers for confirmation or rely on default notices which don't typically get issued unless the sh*! really hits the fan.

[AtW]

Good, ICO should be completely shut down and everybody working there fired.

[SueEllen]

For what its worth I think the Financial Ombudsman Service is the worst of the bunch, completely incompetent and corrupt. But I am surprised that the open lack of pretence that they are even doing the basics of their job has spread as far as the ICO too. Its completely wild west out there now, with big organisations pretty much allowed to do as they please.

Tax payer is paying a lot of money for these public services which dont deliver even the basics of their remit.

I've actually got results from the FOS.

Though only in my case because the companies involved were probably worried I could go public to help trash their reputations.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Absolutely this. I found one of these online car raffles that was blatently cheating so no one ever won the prize. Had all the evidence and it did not matter who I reported it to, absolutely no one, and I mean no one gave a flying fig. They were absolutely untouchable. It beggard belief.

During the football index scandal, basically a ponzi scheme that was given a licence by the Gambling Commission (when they had no idea how the product worked) they naturally got a lot of victims who were asking for something to be done. Many of them were banned from contacting the GC under 'unreasonable behaviour policy'. You would think it would be 'oh well they are pissed off, probably a bit aggressive', nope they were simply asking why GC doesn't do anything.

[northernladuk]

GC is just corrupt, no other word for how they operate. A gambling company could literally steal your money and send you a letter saying 'Lol, yeah we did, what you gonna do?' and they will just tell you take it to court because 'we do not investigate individual complaints'.

Absolutely this. I found one of these online car raffles that was blatently cheating so no one ever won the prize. Had all the evidence and it did not matter who I reported it to, absolutely no one, and I mean no one gave a flying fig. They were absolutely untouchable. It beggard belief.

[CoolCat]

For what its worth I think the Financial Ombudsman Service is the worst of the bunch, completely incompetent and corrupt. But I am surprised that the open lack of pretence that they are even doing the basics of their job has spread as far as the ICO too. Its completely wild west out there now, with big organisations pretty much allowed to do as they please.

Tax payer is paying a lot of money for these public services which dont deliver even the basics of their remit.

[JustKeepSwimming]

Capita has been awarded a £ 50 million contract to run a new national fraud reporting hotline despite being at the centre of a data breach. City of London police awarded the five year contract as a replacement for Action Fraud which is being scrapped next year.

Think there is a rule that prior performance can not be taken into account when evaluating current bids. Which is why no matter how tulip Crapita and G4tulip is they will continue to get new contracts.

[CoolCat]

AFAIK Action Fraud is just a database not law enforcement. If they detect something juicy or a pattern it then goes to real police. I've just used it to get a crime number for insurance, never expected anything else.

GC is just corrupt, no other word for how they operate. A gambling company could literally steal your money and send you a letter saying 'Lol, yeah we did, what you gonna do?' and they will just tell you take it to court because 'we do not investigate individual complaints'.

Capita has been awarded a £ 50 million contract to run a new national fraud reporting hotline despite being at the centre of a data breach. City of London police awarded the five year contract as a replacement for Action Fraud which is being scrapped next year.

[JustKeepSwimming]

They are all the same now. ASA, Gambling Commission, Action Fraud, Ofcom, ICO you name it.

I've tried to deal with the first three a few times and just got told they aren't interested unless a lot of people complain. GC and AF literally stated in an email they are limited by size/budget so will only deal with cases where they receive multiple complains. Absolutely toothless the lot of them.

AFAIK Action Fraud is just a database not law enforcement. If they detect something juicy or a pattern it then goes to real police. I've just used it to get a crime number for insurance, never expected anything else.

GC is just corrupt, no other word for how they operate. A gambling company could literally steal your money and send you a letter saying 'Lol, yeah we did, what you gonna do?' and they will just tell you take it to court because 'we do not investigate individual complaints'.

[northernladuk]

They are all the same now. ASA, Gambling Commission, Action Fraud, Ofcom, ICO you name it.

I've tried to deal with the first three a few times and just got told they aren't interested unless a lot of people complain. GC and AF literally stated in an email they are limited by size/budget so will only deal with cases where they receive multiple complains. Absolutely toothless the lot of them.

[JustKeepSwimming]

It comes from the top and it's part of a wider trend against transparency.

Partner is a lawyer. Financial Ombudsman and Gambling Commission as a matter of practice refuse to disclose information and will spend our money fighting a court order. ICO no where to be seen even after the court has ruled the information must and should've been disclosed.

Unload everything on to the civil courts which funny enough have 18+ month backlog on top of the normal timescales and is on the verge of systemic collapse. There is no mumblings from MPs that court funding should be reduced more and only these pesky little pleb cases done away with.

[SueEllen]

I think some company's lawyers took their pants down in court.

Years ago I did know of a couple of companies who got raided by them however no letters threatening enforcement were sent out before hand.

[Gibbon]

Anyone else noticed the change of stance from the Information Commissioner’s Office?
Previously any corporate failed to comply with subject access requests would ultimately get a stern letter from the ICO, and threatened with prosecution by the ICO if they did not comply.
Now I notice the ICO response is just to “We have told them they should now review your subject access request and ensure that they provide you with the appropriate response as soon as possible or within 14 calendar days. Should Big Corporate PLC not provide you with the personal data to which you are entitled, you have the right to approach the courts for an order for your data to be released. Legal action of this nature is not something that the ICO can assist with.”
So, the whole regime has gone from ICO pretending that they would ultimately enforce in the courts (which granted they rarely did, and they were pretty bad at) to one where the complainant is responsible now for enforcement action. Which leads to the question… what exactly is the point of the ICO now then?
Another part of the public sector which completely fails in its basic day job.

Fook me sideways, YES YES YES. This has just happened to my other half at work where they (work) falsified a witness statement in a greivance and we asked for the original word doc of the PDF to see the meta data. The ICO was going for it then suddenly backed out with the second statement above.

[CoolCat]

Anyone else noticed the change of stance from the Information Commissioner’s Office?
Previously any corporate failed to comply with subject access requests would ultimately get a stern letter from the ICO, and threatened with prosecution by the ICO if they did not comply.
Now I notice the ICO response is just to “We have told them they should now review your subject access request and ensure that they provide you with the appropriate response as soon as possible or within 14 calendar days. Should Big Corporate PLC not provide you with the personal data to which you are entitled, you have the right to approach the courts for an order for your data to be released. Legal action of this nature is not something that the ICO can assist with.”
So, the whole regime has gone from ICO pretending that they would ultimately enforce in the courts (which granted they rarely did, and they were pretty bad at) to one where the complainant is responsible now for enforcement action. Which leads to the question… what exactly is the point of the ICO now then?
Another part of the public sector which completely fails in its basic day job.