- Unlawfully junk mail me to my personal (individual subscriber) email address.
- Ignore my notice before action replying that I obviously have too much time on my hands
- Get sued by me for £200
- Ignore that and get judgement against by default
- Ignore that and get bailiffs knocking on the door
- Pay a total of £295 including court and bailiff fees
- Then... Get this... JUNK MAIL ME AGAIN to same email address
2015-01-28
Reach Recruitment Services Ltd
How dumb can you be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fencing
Bit of fun... We usually put up some Christmas lights on the house - some fairy lights on the metal fencing at the front, but a pain as mean...
-
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us... -
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo... -
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
Now you've had business dealing with them
ReplyDeleteThey've paid you some money
LOL, even if true it would not help them. They have added Harassment and Data Protection issues now.
DeleteData Protection? They're not required to remove your data, just make sure it's accurate.
DeleteThey are if they have no use for holding it and I have asked them to.
DeleteBut they do have a use for your data - spamming you. Would that be enough to get them off the Data Protection issues?
DeleteMy understanding is not.
DeleteDid you send them a s10 notice, Adrian, as part of your previous letter before action? If so, did they comply with the requirements under s10(3)? If not, you could also seek an order under s10(4) for them to cease processing.
DeleteMy feeling is that it might be a stretch to argue that their processing amounts to *substantial* damage, but it would be for them to make that case, within the requisite timescale.
Even if they did have a legitimate use — which I would probably argue against anyway — it is not clear how they could be complying with the first data protection principle. In particular, compliance with Schedule 2. None of the bases would seem to apply here. Certainly not consent, and it would be challenging to argue that spamming someone, particularly someone who has already obtainined damages from that very company for the same thing, falls within "legitimate interests", in my view.
DeleteSorry, being a wally — s11 DPA is far less burdensome on you, and without the requirement of substantial damage. Oops.
Delete*Popcorn* This should be good, I imagine this will not end well for them :)
ReplyDeleteThey clearly need to employ someone with a clue, now maybe if they could find a good recruitment company ...
ReplyDeleteYou mention on another post that "What I have not found is a way to put a price on intangible losses."
ReplyDeleteJust to throw around a real silly idea. Getting the email provider to provide proof of the loss.
A special email service, the terms of the contract for the service to be something along the lines of "only to be used for private communications with friends and family, and a subscriber must not give the email out to any business or receive communications from any UK business (although you may publish it freely on the web along with the notification that it only for friends and family)"
Then, any time a subscriber receives communications from a UK based company, they will have breached the contract, and will have to notify the company as such of your breach of contract and have to pay a standard fee (e.g.£200).
Then you have a provable loss in the contract for the subscriber.
Then having some separate term regarding a payment to to the subscriber of a reward (e.g.£200) for another act - perhaps related to the taking to court of the company that emailed or deleting a communication from the UK based company and then notifying the company?
Obviously would have to be worded properly, and may not be a usable idea - but a fun thought.
Indeed, and something we did thing of. I want to try and get in front of a judge first if I can, if they say "you have no losses", maybe even ask then "OK, but if my email provider charged me for 'dealing with' spam like this on a case by case basis, would that be a valid damages claim". Then, notifying the provider, who blacklists the sender manually, and contacts the sender with details of the breach and so on, could have a reasonable cost for doing so maybe...
DeleteI could almost have a personal assistant service that sorts through my emails and deals with spam, but the amount paid is extra for spam handling by a large sum per spam? I am not sure a third party could really argue that a contract to which they are not a party is an unfair one. No idea.
DeleteIf you make a service, you could use email addresses ending @individual-subscriber.uk or some such so no need to put notices when publishing it. Not as nice though.
DeleteI like that, I'm tempted to make a service for email addresses using firstname.lastname@I-am-an-individual-subscriber-as-per-the-privacy-and-electronic-communications-regulations-2003.uk :)
DeleteTrouble is, the spammers may just blacklist that domain after a few wins and just carry on regardless. (I don't think that's a 'win' really)
How about someone setting up "Report Unsolicited Email Ltd" which charges you £250 to submit an email which then add to a "bad people" list?
DeleteThat is pretty... special. As I mentioned on faceache, it must be possible to obtain an injunction against such a company from marketing via email in breach of the PECR, but I wonder if you can also ask for an injunction against the company from sending email to you in the future, selling your data to any other companies, and to disclose who they have sold it to in the past...
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I am not sure that there is a power within PECR for a court to order an injunction for breach of regulation 22? There is within ss10 and 11 DPA, and so that might be a better basis, if looking for injunctive relief.
DeleteHowever, a couple of notes of caution, perhaps:
- injunctions are generally granted where damages would be an insufficient remedy for the harm. As Adrian has made the case (successfully) for damages, this might make trying to claim that he should be entitled to injunctive relief more difficult
- I am not sure whether a small claims court is likely to grant a final injunction as a remedy. I would have thought that such a request would be more likely to put the case onto one of the other tracks, which probably increases cost and risk?
Interesting Neil, I did wonder if it would be something outside the small claims court's jurisdiction though!
DeleteAnother NBA... another £200.
ReplyDeleteThey will work it out eventually.
Let's hope so - oddly, this time no reply to NBA by email, but as they have replied before, and if I can confirm was really sent to their server, I see not reason not to proceed for a claim if they don't reply.
Delete