Constant 192.com DPA Violations

[adridude]

Hi,

 

I've spoken to the ICO about this a few times, but they've told me that they don't deal with individual complaints when it comes to "Internet Media".

 

192.com persist to put my personal information up on their site publicly, despite having written to them on several occasions to request that my name isn't used to promote their company.

 

 

Anyhow, I'm sat here, another year later, another release of the Voter Role and voila... There I am again...

 

What do I do with these email exchanges I have between myself and them getting my name removed. What do I do about the ICO.

 

Despite filling in their form here:

 

1) http://statics.192.com/rel-4b316/downloads/C01.pdf

2) The emails which are obviously automated i.e. 10 in a row (spaced out over a week last year when I had the same issue), all reading the exact same (yet with different fonts).

 

 

I've had a thought about this. Never once did I give them permission to sue my details to promote their business. As a director of a company, I'm in two minds whether to pop them a surprise "consultancy invoice" in place of the usually yearly opt out (which I didn't even opt in to).

 

Any thoughts on that?

 

This is driving me moggy.

 

Cheers,

 

A

[BankFodder]

I understand that it is your personal details which they are publishing – nothing to do with your business.

 

Their registered office seems to be in London. Are you based?

 

If you are up for a little mischief then I think I can see a way forward on this which at least would produce a little fun.

 

I would suggest that you sue them for breach of contract. The contract is that you took them up on their offer to remove your details if you filled in their form.

 

You took the trouble to do that and it seems to me that this would be good consideration for their offer.

 

Now they have failed to do as they have promised and so you have suffered loss – in that you have had to put up with contacts from unwanted persons.

 

I would suggest that you sue them for a modest amount of say, £100.

 

If you are nice and far away from London then suing your personal capacity will mean that the case has to be transferred to your local court.

 

I can't imagine that they would want to deal with it given the expense and time involved. Also the risk that you would win and they would have then very serious problems with all the other people whose details they publish.

 

It might make you a little bit of money and of course it would deliver the slap that you want to give.

[ericsbrother]

are you on the edited version of the electoral roll? They are entitled to publish what is a public record and will do so unless you tick the no publicity box when you fill in the return to your local council each year.

[adridude]

I understand that it is your personal details which they are publishing – nothing to do with your business.

 

Their registered office seems to be in London. Are you based?

 

If you are up for a little mischief then I think I can see a way forward on this which at least would produce a little fun.

 

I would suggest that you sue them for breach of contract. The contract is that you took them up on their offer to remove your details if you filled in their form.

 

You took the trouble to do that and it seems to me that this would be good consideration for their offer.

 

Now they have failed to do as they have promised and so you have suffered loss – in that you have had to put up with contacts from unwanted persons.

 

I would suggest that you sue them for a modest amount of say, £100.

 

If you are nice and far away from London then suing your personal capacity will mean that the case has to be transferred to your local court.

 

I can't imagine that they would want to deal with it given the expense and time involved. Also the risk that you would win and they would have then very serious problems with all the other people whose details they publish.

 

It might make you a little bit of money and of course it would deliver the slap that you want to give.

 

 

I double checked and they've got my director info (as the company address dismay home address).

 

I do understand that director details are public (and so they should stay) on the companies house website, but at no point in time did I give 192 or yell (yell is the other one I've noticed flogging my name).

[ericsbrother]

trouble is it is PUBLIC information and they can use it in the way described and in reality there is nothing you can do. They would argue that they charge for it as it helps lazy people find the info and they only cover their costs (yell make a massive loss) so not profiting from public domain or personal info.

[Ethel Street]

I think ericsbrother has identified the key point here, that if information is officially published by the government it's public information and anyone can harvest it, aggregate it, republish it in any form and charge for it (and make a profit from that 'service'). It appears that 192 are only publishing details that are available from Companies House. In which case I don't think there's anything you can do about it.

 

Are you still associated with the company? Some of the sites that publish company directors information will agree to remove old information if you haven't been connected with it for 'x' years or if the company has been dissolved.

[Ganymede]

I would suggest that you sue them for breach of contract.

I wouldn't as there is no contract.

[adridude]

Indeed it is public info, but I never gave them permission to use it for commercial purposes. They're welcome to use it as they wish, but if they are going to profit off of my name I either want a cut or have my name removed. Surely, I've got the right to state how my own name should and shouldn't be used.

[spalding78]

Surely, you don't.

[Ganymede]

Indeed it is public info, but I never gave them permission to use it for commercial purposes. They're welcome to use it as they wish, but if they are going to profit off of my name I either want a cut or have my name removed. Surely, I've got the right to state how my own name should and shouldn't be used.

 

How are they profiting?

[Ethel Street]

Indeed it is public info, but I never gave them permission to use it for commercial purposes. They're welcome to use it as they wish, but if they are going to profit off of my name I either want a cut or have my name removed. Surely, I've got the right to state how my own name should and shouldn't be used.

 

You didn't publish the information in the first place though. It was published by a government organisation carrying out its statutory duties wasn't it - Companies House presumably? So 192 don't need your permission. And the law allows them to republish Companies House information and make a profit from it. They don't need your permission for that either. So they're not going to give you a cut!

[adridude]

The government published my information for reference purposes.

 

And Ethel, are you telling me now that I can advertise on my companies website something that reads:

 

"My Company Ltd... The company that made 192.com possible" and get away with it?

[Ethel Street]

Your original question asked people's thoughts on it and I've given you mine but it isn't up to me whether 192 share their revenue with you so I'm not going to get into an argument about it. When you get a response from them come back and let us know.

 

And Ethel, are you telling me now that I can advertise on my companies website something that reads:

 

"My Company Ltd... The company that made 192.com possible" and get away with it?

 

No I am not telling you that. That is unrelated to anything I have posted and I have no opinion on it.

[adridude]

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was putting words in your mouth. Sorry... But in general, if they can do what they like with my name, I might as well do what I like with theirs

[spalding78]

Nobody said they can do what they like with your name. And if you didn't mean to sound like you were putting words into Ethel Street's mouth, why did you imply he/she was stating something that they very clearly and obviously weren't?

 

I'm sorry you don't like the answers you're getting on this thread. Sometimes that's just life.