Home Address Given To Creditor By Third Party

[Rabbit73]

A limited company I was a director of recently ceased to trade. The company has not yet been formally liquidated and is unlikely to be as it has no assets.

My accountant is in the process of applying to have it struck off at companies house and has written to all creditors advising them of the situation.

I recently discovered through a third party that one creditor recently made an attempt to track down my home address via an individual who works for a company who I used to freelance for. This individual has access to what is actually my parents address via the invoices which I submitted for freelance work carried out earlier this year. My parents address appears on here as this is where I registered this particular business.

A letter from the creditor in qusetion has now appeared at my parents address and I have very strong evidence to indicate that they got this address from the individual who has access to my invoices. She is a member of senior management for the company I freelanced for.

Clearly I am very angry about this and want to pursue the matter. I'm sure there must be Data Protection issues as well as the obvious security issues of giving out a home address to a creditor.

Any advice on the likeliehood of pursuing this sucessfully? I can go into more detail about the evidence I have which indicates exactly how I know that the information came from this individual if you require it.

Thanks in advance.

[sam82]

<DIV>i know nothing about being a director and such things, but the company i worked for had a freelance worker who's company he was a director for went under. like your story, i was approached for details on this man.

[stevie21]

kempie - at the risk of repeating myself I'll say this...

If someone asks me for your phone number "you must have it, stevie, he's your employee" and I think to myself
"maybe I do have it, maybe I don't. I'll put the chap on hold, check with 118118 and get back to him with the number that they provide" then that's not illegal. I don't need to explain at length that I got the info from 118118 rather than my own company's confidential records - I just supply the info using the surname and address that *you gave me when asking for the phone number*

We'd have to prove that this company didn't rely on a public source for the information, in my example, for it to be illegal. If a public source does indeed exist then I assume that no-one (the proper authorities, that is) would even attempt to prosecute.

I can see your line of thought but I think you're possibly talking in general terms (personal data is not to be disclosed) and I'm talking of one VERY specific situation.

[kempie]

...and at the risk of me writing this for a third time;

in the example you give above, the most prudent course of action would be for you to say

"well mate, I do have his number but it forms part of his personal data record and since my company is not in the business of Directory Enquiries it would be a breach of the DPA to divulge this information, so it is up to you to call 118118 yourself"

and that is one very specific situation.

[stevie21]

So you think if I checked with Directory Enquiries (or Companies House) on someone's behalf and gave out the number that they provided that I'd be breaching the DPA?

I'll not beat about the bush, you're wrong.

[Rabbit73]

Ho hum�.I�m not prepared to repeat myself. I came hear looking to tap into someone with knowledge of the DPA, not a moral lecture from a �keyboard warrior�. Incidentally Loosemouth, you managed to duck the question of exactly what it is you do (and if you�re not a bored, under-achieving, pen pusher I�ll eat my hat!). I�m fortunate enough to be involved with companies who provide full time employment and salaries to over 60 staff in one of the most competitive and hard to break into industries around. Not bad for a �plonker� eh? What�s your great contribution to society been? Pushing paper about your desk for 30 years?

Subject closed. Now onto why I came here in the first place. I spoke briefly to my lawyer towards the close of play today. As I suspected, the DPA is a very specialised field and he was unable to provide any definitive answers. I�ve an appointment with a partner more knowledgeable on Friday. What he did confirm was this.

Whether the information is already in the public domain or not is irrelevant. The issue relates to the legitimacy of the means used to source this information. If it can be proved that the information was sourced via illegitimate means (ie means which contravene the DPA) then the provider of this information is subject to action. The downside is that this action would be rather toothless. The individual and the company could not be sued. The worst that could happen is that the agencies which monitor the application of the DPA could withdraw their license (unlikely) or that the employee would be disciplined by her employers for breaching internal codes and practices ( more likely).

Having discussed in detail the circumstances of how this information was retrieved and the evidence that exists to prove it he confirmed to me that in all likelihood the means used were illegitimate. It�s now a question of having this confirmed and deciding on whether or not to pursue it.

[kempie]

No, what I am asking you to consider is this:

Why are you allowing yourself to act as a proxy for somebody seeking information about your employee, which puts you in a position where it looks like you have divulged personal data, when you can remove yourself from all apparent impropriety by politely suggesting that they seek the information for themselves elsewhere?

As an employer your primary duty of care would be to your employees (and their right to privacy as enshrined by the DPA) NOT to a friend/customer who telephones you for info about your employees.

The other option is to ask the employee for their consent to use the information.

[kempie]

...oops.

Rabbit73 - your post sneaked infront of my response to stevie21

[Loosehead]

Glad you got that off your chest, I have not divulged what I do because you are clearly the sort of inadequate that will just attack it regardless. Admit it you've been found out as a dishonourable idiot. You do not have the capacity to admit you are wrong. You have no idea what I do and it's not relevant in any case. Start eating your hat though!

I have a lot of answers here and I never throw my personal info in and I'm not going to start now, even to correct an a$$h0le like you, so happy swindling, seen you on watchdog probably.

[Rabbit73]

So when you're argument has run out of steam resort to name calling. You haven't adressed any of the points I've made in any previous posts so why bother now I suppose. Does moralising from behind anonymity of the net make you feel like the big man? Calling someone ******* with no comeback? Say it to my face and you'd be picking yourself up off your arse pal, that's for sure. But I won't stoop to your level...

To Kempie and Steve. Interesting points. Something I forgot to mention previously, the address that was divulged was defineately not in the public domain. Certainly not in relation to the company in question or even to my name. This was also confirmed to me today.

[Loosehead]

I believe you started the name calling. Look back at the thread, you'll see it's you that start each escalation. My argument hasn't "run out of steam" it's still there, as it was at the start, the fact remains you are hiding from someone you owe money simple!

We are all anonymous, they are the rules of this site.

You won't stoop to my level and then threaten violience, a slight contradiction perhaps, are you the "big man"? mmm

[Rabbit73]

So what exactly is your argument? Where is the evidence that I'm "running" from someone? Do I have to explain the nature of business and limited companies to you for a third time? What gives you the right to moralise without being aware of the facts?

Answer each of these points and I may consider you slightly above the image your creating for yourself as a self-righteous inadequate little man who is clearly unhappy with the cards life has dealt him. Get over it! Go out, have a beer, chat up a girl. Lose the anger my brother, life's too short.

[Loosehead]

I've spelt it out above but here goes:

What is my argument? You are angry that a creditor found out your address and presumably asked for what you owed them. Instead of being angry about that why not pay them. Yes I know it's the company that owes them and not you personally but it's your company right, do the decent thing.

Do you have to explain the nature of limited companies....? No I have ran a limited company myself I am fully aware of the nature of companies including limited liability etc.

What gives me the right to moralise without knowing the facts? Well assuming the word creditor is correctly used I know that you owe someone money and are angry that they have found you and presumably asked for what is owed. I do not know the details but I can see the general situation.

As acknowledged above you are technically correct and legal. But are you not just using technicality to avoid paying a creditor?. That's the point I've been making.

You seem to be very angry at my evaluation of the situation and as such have made all sorts of judgements about me without knowing any facts, do you do that to everyone who disagrees with your methods?

[Rabbit73]

"yes I know it's the company that owes them money"

Well done. That's where it ends. Anything beyond that statement is moralising. Not what I came here for. Save it for chapel. Or the Daily Mail Letters Page.

And you're upset that I've passed judgement on you!!!! Go back and read every one of your posts from the very first and talk to me about passing judgement.

I know your type Loosemouth. The internet is where you can be the person you would love to be in real life. So I'll let you have your moment. You can have the last word. I wont respond. Right now I've got a greetin' 8 month old daughter needing fed (again). That's more important.

Insert your last post below. Make it a good 'un big guy. And take my advice about getting rid of all that angry baggage. You'll be a nicer person for it.

[MrsT]

Calm down dear, it's only a commercial!

[sandbach99]

If you do not live at your parents address I am more concerned as to what your creditor will do if he does not get his money. Has the letter been opened? if not ask your parents to write on it ' does not live at this address' and return it to the Royal Mail to return to sender, I assume your parents have nothing to do with your business, therefore you do not want 'people' turning up at your parents doorstep. If you live at your parents please ignore this post.

You can ring the Data Protection Agency they are in Wilmslow Cheshire I have rung in the past but have not got the number now.

[lilyfrog]

I am sorry to say this Rabbit73 but you have attacked everyone on Looseheads responses from the word go in this discussion and have come accross as very aggressive from the start.

I am sure you are about to shoot me down in f lames, make assuptions about my career, offer me out for a fight, tell me how moral you are and make presumptions about my sex or size but I felt I needed to teall you that Loosehead comes across as the "bigger man" and is my hero of the day!

[EuanC]

Too right lilyfrog - well said.

This Rabbit73 sounds like a bit of a knob if you ask me.

[kempie]

...whereas Loosehead started off with a presumption that he knew the facts of this case where none were evident.

"Bigger men" wouldn't mouth off about things they know nothing of.

[MrsT]

What planet are you on Kempie? LH correctly identified that Rabbit was hiding from a creditor, the whole discussion was about that really, I didn't think he used any other "facts".

I agree with Euan

[kempie]

MrsT - I'm from the planet that allows me to read the words in the question (which would constitute "the facts") and not the planet that allows me to presume other things which are not mentioned.

BTW Rabbit73 cannot hide from a creditor because all relevant information is available from Companies House and that is from where said creditor should have sought the information, not via the 'back door', in a most underhand manner which led to the wrong information being disclosed.