Wife Can't Report Fault as not authorised!

[#1]

I disagree.
The legal definition if still clear cut about personal data (Data Protection Act 1998):

Quote

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified— (a)from those data, or (b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

A name is personal data, unless it's a very common name (Edem v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2014]):

Quote

A name is personal data unless it is so common that without further information, such as its use in a work context, a person would remain unidentifiable despite its disclosure.

This whole situation is an issue with the DPA 1998. Unless an account holder gives permission for someone to deal with their account on their behalf, there is a risk that personal data might be disclosed. Telephone staff at Plusnet are unlikely to be trained in any great depth about personal data and what it constitutes.
It might even be an issue where telephone staff access your information without your permission. I know some companies require the verification checks before even they can see your account details.

[#2]

I agree this is no clear cut situation which is why I suggested Capvermell discuss the issue with the ICO, however the issue of just reporting a fault is clear cut.

[#3]

The ICO (telephone helpline) are unlikely to be of much help.
It's not a clear cut issue reporting a fault, because the staff have access to your personal information. If they are not trained in handling that information (i.e. what they can/cannot say), then there is a risk of a data breach. This would be unacceptable in the eyes of the ICO.
This is not an uncommon issue, as it's one that people can encounter day in, day out. Anywhere that you have an account in an individual's name, it will be an issue for someone else to talk about that account without permission.

[#4]

AndyH,
You appear to be suggesting that this ls all down to the adequacy of training of call centre staff - that is the ability to know what are the boundaries of what account information may and may not be referred to?
In an earlier post I suggesed that this can be addressed by the service agent simply LISTENING to the caller and not disclosing any information at all.  The fault gets reported and progressed, DPA is not violated., everyone is happy.    Simples!
Kevin

[#5]

Depending on the type of fault reported (phone faults, no engineer required) we do allow a fault to be raised. We can't provide information about the location of the fault, nor the address etc. Our internal policy states that 'other users may report a telephony fault if an engineer appointment is not required'.

[#6]

Hi Chris,
That is useful to know - thank you.  By 'location' do you simply mean 'external or internal' or something more refined?
Surely the right answers are...
1. It is external, we will have it investigated, there is no need for BTOR to attend the premises
2. This looks like an internal EU equipment issue, please go check A, B, C and raise an on-line fault report or phone back, note the account holder or authorised user might be required so that we can arrange an engineer appointment because a charge could be levied in certain circumstances
3. An engineer visit is required, we can only book that with the account holder or an authorised user because a charge could be levied in certain circumstances
Surely the same applies for a BB fault?
Kevin

[#7]

By location I mean the customer's address rather than the location of the fault. But generally at the point of reporting the internal/external nature of the fault may not be known anyway.
Our processes do not have the same allowances for a bb fault currently. That is something we're flagging up, but I think that due to the equipment on the customer premises side for a broadband fault this isn't as cut and dried.

[#8]

@AndyH, I don't agree with you, it's obvious you have never contacted the ICO, I found the ICO to be extremely helpful with advice when I contacted them and spoke to them a short while ago.
Let's get this clear, and stop being argumentative, because staff have access to personal information they MUST be trained in the basics of handling that information anything less is a major failing by Plusnet, and reporting a fault is NOT talking about the account in the context in which you are referring.
@Chris
Thanks for your responses, lets look forward to some common sense being applied.

[#9]

The ICO is unlikely to be of much assistance in this situation. They're not overly concerned about organisations being too reluctant to discuss anything that may involve the disclosure of personal data, and they aren't going to take an organisation to task over (rightly or wrongly) quoting the DPA as the reason for not speaking to someone other than the account holder.
However, it does appear that PlusNet are taking quite a strict interpretation of the DPA. While it is important to keep people's personal data secure, this has to be looked at in a common sense fashion. If someone rings up with the account username, password, phone number, address where the service is installed, date of birth of account holder etc, it's probably safe to assume they already have access to most, if not all, of the info the call centre will be looking at. Obviously where an action is required that will incur some cost to the account holder, whether it be financial or simply needing to be at home for an engineer to visit, they should get consent from the account holder (or have had the account holder authorise the third party to act on their behalf). But for the vast majority of calls relating to faults, especially in the initial stages, it does seem the current policy is overkill and unnecessary to comply with DPA requirements.

[#10]

Quote from: Krazeh

The ICO is unlikely to be of much assistance in this situation. They're not overly concerned about organisations being too reluctant to discuss anything that may involve the disclosure of personal data, and they aren't going to take an organisation to task over (rightly or wrongly) quoting the DPA as the reason for not speaking to someone other than the account holder.

As I've already posted I found the ICO to be extremely helpful with advice when I contacted them and spoke to them a short while ago.

[#11]

Quote from: Anotherone

As I've already posted I found the ICO to be extremely helpful with advice when I contacted them and spoke to them a short while ago.

About this issue? If so, what was this extremely helpful advice they gave you about internal company policies?

[#12]

About a similar issue which I am certainly not going to discuss here. And what's more without any knowledge, provocation or suggestion from me, they actually contacted the company concerned and I then had a prompt written response from the company.
In any event it's up to Capvermell to contact the ICO, and not for you or anyone else to say they won't be of any or much help.

[#13]

Quote from: Anotherone

In any event it's up to Capvermell to contact the ICO, and not for you or anyone else to say they won't be of any or much help.

While it is up to Capvermell to contact the ICO if he wishes to do so, that doesn't stop me, or anyone else, providing our opinion on whether they may be of much help. You aren't the only person who has experience of the ICO (and I'm willing to bet I've had a lot more) so what makes your opinion so special? At the end of the day, whether PlusNet may wish to dress this up as a DPA matter, it's not the DPA stopping call centre advisors talking to people other than the account holder in relation to faults and that limits the scope of the ICO in dealing with it. At the most, they could contact the company to ask them to stop claiming it's the DPA and instead tell customers it is an internal policy. However, the ICO have no scope to tell companies to alter their internal practices where they're not in potential breach of the DPA.

[#14]

I never said they did have scope to tell companies about their internal practises, so stop trying to make out more than I was saying. Chris has already said he will refer the matter of just reporting a broadband fault.
The point I was making was that having suggested Capvermell contact the ICO and discuss it to see what advice they could offer, it is not upto anyone else to say whether the ICO would be helpful or not. Your or my opinion on how helpful the ICO may be, has no bearing whatsoever on it. Endof.

[#15]

Quote from: AndyH

The ICO (telephone helpline) are unlikely to be of much help.

On that we can agree.  The ICO is largely a job creation scheme for the town of Wilmslow and virtually all their front line telephone staff are rude, bored, poorly skilled, sullen and completely uninterested in providing useful or meaningful advice to the caller.  It is because the ICO is such a useless and badly led organisation that the TPS register continues to be so deliberately and widely flouted.

Quote

It's not a clear cut issue reporting a fault, because the staff have access to your personal information. If they are not trained in handling that information (i.e. what they can/cannot say), then there is a risk of a data breach. This would be unacceptable in the eyes of the ICO.

Utter rubbish. Another household member can report a fault on a broadband line by simply giving the phone number and the name and address of the premises to the member of staff at Plusnet.  The member of staff at Plusnet does not have to give the caller back any personal information at all about the account holder in return.  Also if the staff are not properly trained in compliance with the Data Protection Act then they shouldn't be working on the phones and allowed access to customer data to begin with.  Its quite clear that you are simply just a professional forum nitpicker who enjoys nitpicking purely because you have nothing more exciting to be doing with your day.  Whereas I am someone who has a real and genuine grievance that Plusnet staff were obstructing an attempt to report a fault in either their equipment (Plusnet TG582n router) or Openreach's equipment (VDSL modem or wiring and equipment outside the house).

Quote

This is not an uncommon issue, as it's one that people can encounter day in, day out. Anywhere that you have an account in an individual's name, it will be an issue for someone else to talk about that account without permission.

Yet strangely if the power or water goes off at a house or the gas starts to leak all those utility suppliers will accept a report of the fault from any of the household members without raising any of your ridiculous pettyfogging and nitpicking objections that this in some way breaches the Data Protection Act.  Can I highly recommend that you take a job working in Plusnet's call centres since you clearly seem to take an active pride in trying to find reasons to endorse their staff being deliberately unhelpful to customers and other members of their households.