Is my court case still valid?

[The Omen]

First my apologies if this is in the wrong Forum, as it is to do with the Communication Ombudsman this one seemed appropriate.

 

OK, this is quite a long problems that I am going to try to summarise so my apologies if I haven’t included everything I needed and please ask questions if you need more information. BackgroundAround 3 years ago I had a problem with Three in which they broke the terms of my contract, they also stole £30 from my bank account after the contract was cancelled. Three refused to allow me to make a complaint and so I took the matter to the Ombudsman. I provided proof of the theft of the £30 by providing my bank statements that showed the money going out and never coming back in. I showed details of how Three had failed to uphold their end of the contract and I showed my repeated attempts to complain to Three and how I never got a reply.

 

My case

 

After waiting over a year for the Ombudsman to rule on the case I was informed that they were finding in favour of Three on all claims, I asked for a review as I knew for a fact that Three were in the wrong, I waited another month and was told that after the review they were still siding with Three, but that I had the option to take the matter to court if I wished.

 

I suspected at this point that my case had not been investigated properly – since simple matters like the theft of £30 from my account had been found in Threes favour. I decided that I would take the matter to court but realised that without proof that the matter was not investigated that Three could simply claim that the Ombudsman had already ruled on this matter and I would likely lose the case. To this end I requested a SAR report from the Ombudsman – to which they informed me I could only make payment via cheque which I was unhappy about but I sent them a cheque immediately. This was in August 2012.

 

Where the problems began

 

The required 40 days passed and I still had not received my SAR report, I contacted the Ombudsman again and they claimed to have never received the cheque. I sent a second cheque which they also claimed not to have received, I sent a third cheque, this time via recorded delivery – and this time I got a reply to my letter but still no SARS report, they claimed not to have received a cheque again. Now in February 2013, and having waited 7 months for a SAR report I decided to take the matter to the ICO

 

ICO ruling number 1

 

The ICO ruled that they could not say for a fact that the Ombudsman had received the cheque, and thus could not uphold my complaint. They did however order the Ombudsman to give me bank details I could make a BACS payment to, and that once that payment was made they would need to get a SAR report to me in 40 days. I did this and the Ombudsman confirmed receipt of my payment.

 

Further issues

 

40 days came and went and I received no SARS report. I contacted the Ombudsman and gave them an extra 10 days to get it to me but got no reply. After the 10 days I contacted the ICO again and they asked me to give the Ombudsman a 14 day ultimatum to get the SAR report to me. I did this, and copied the ICO into my communication to prove I was chasing this. The Ombudsman refused to reply.

ICO ruling number 2

 

The ICO, seeing that I had now waited 64 days for my SAR report (from the date they could confirm I sent payment) decided that I did have grounds to complain. They also advised that I could begin a court case for my financial loses and compensation for the Ombudsman breaking the law. I gave the Ombudsman an extra week to reply and then began the court proceedings.

 

Ombudsman finally replies

 

A few days after issuing the court case the Ombudsman finally replied saying that they had sent my SAR report to the wrong address and saying that they would send it out again. They claimed to have done nothing wrong (despite the fact that they admitted breeching section 4 and 6 of the DPA) and insisted that I end the court case as “they are not legally responsible for their rulings”. I replied that I have not begun the court case about their ruling but that it was instead about them breaking the law and is for compensation for my financial losses as a result of that – including the fact that I could not begin a claim against Three and expect to win in court without my SAR report.

 

SAR report finally arrives

 

My SAR report finally arrived and as I suspected proves that my case was not investigated. None of the questions I raised were actually asked of Three – and the “evidence” that the ombudsman accepted that Three had done things (like reply to my complaint and send me back the money they stole) amounted to nothing more than the notes on my Three account that said they had done this – they could provide no actual letter or emails to this end nor any proof of a payment actually being made, yet the Ombudsman still found in their favour. Once I have finished with my Ombudsman issues I shall begin my claim against Three.

 

ICO final ruling

 

The ICO has finally ruled that the Ombudsman did break section 4 and 6 of the DPA – but that at the moment they will not take the matter further, but will review this if they get further complaints.

 

Court case

 

And now we get to the crux of the matter – the Ombudsman are now again trying to get me to cancel the case as criminal charges are not being pursued against them and they have provided me with my SAR report. I maintain that they still broke the law and I should be allowed compensation for that fact. Whilst I accept that I can now begin my court case against Three, so no longer wish to claim for my financial losses for that, I still feel that their conduct in breaking the law in this case deserves to be punished. Do I still have a case for this in the courts, or will I now be ruled against since the ICO is not pursuing the criminal case and the Ombudsman has now sent me my SAR report, if 40 days too late? There is still the issue of the Ombudsman having provided my details to an unknown third party? When I raised the case everything that I claimed was true at the time (i.e. I had not received a SAR report) – and whilst I accept that their actions since then mean that I now have one surely I still have grounds to win most of my case against them?

Edited June 10, 2013 by The Omen

[ericsbrother]

It is possible to sue an Ombudsman but I believe that it is sent to the high court (unless they cough up beforehand) so I would make sure that you tick the small claims box and resolutely refuse to accept multitrack or anything else.

[The Omen]

Hi Ericsbrother, thanks for the reply.I already have a small claims court case open against the Ombudsman, I was actually wondering if it was still valid now that the ICO has ruled that they did break the law but that they will not pursue the matter. The Ombudsman are putting a lot of pressure on me to just cancel the case, but I still maintain that they are in the wrong and I should be compensated for that.

[locutus]

I would say if the ICO ruled they were in the wrong that your court case was stronger.

 

The OFT ruled credit card charges were unlawful but they would not pursue charges of £12 or under... Credit card companies charge £12 and they are quite easily reclaimed in the courts.

[The Omen]

Thanks Locutus - thats what I thought, but with the Ombudsman pushing quite hard that it should now be dropped I wasn;t sure if I was missing some legality

[locutus]

I'm no expert, but the closest similarity I could think of was the credit card fiasco... why is it whenever one of the government qangos gets involved the consumer seems to get a battering?