No.
I remember and felt sorry for your family at the time.
Whilst routine gossip forms part of the privacy paradigm, which
includes naming and shaming, that is most effective when it has the
completed and true facts in which to deal and should be distilled, in
my opinion, without malice. The situation is still to close and active
for that to be so from any viewpoint. I am awaiting the outcome of the
complaint procedure before carefully considering what if any further
action may be necessary.
The delayed by two hours after the webmail was sent (and received as
badly formatted) email from myself was more a timely plea for DP
practitioners to consider this issue when looking at processes within
their own organisations. That way increasing grief can be easily
avoided.
Because everybody dies, some organisations will eventually fail as a
result of poor administration determining their brand name and image.
Until that time comes those organisations are likely to survive by
painting a jolly picture, making light of the situations they created
as a way of reconciling individual feelings about the issues, or
perhaps trying to defuse a situation. Humour can be a useful active
ingredient but needs to be correctly applied in a focused way.
N.B. The humour paragraph was not aimed at you Tim. (And yes list, I
agree I frequently humourously fail myself! :-)
Ian W
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tim Trent
Sent: 28 November 2008 17:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] You must be joking... Food for thought
on a quite Friday.
Just hope you don't get a selling letter from the crematorium or
cemetery!
I had very similar experiences this time last year after my mothers
death. Most organisations of any stature have a "Recently deceased"
team with expertise in handling the issues you raise.
Would you care to name and shame?
[log in to unmask] wrote:
A brief example of how not to do it.
1. 18.10.2008 a death in the family:
2. 20.10.2008 Checked online with one company to see if it was
possible to cancel a service provision - nothing available
online (possibly understandably).
3. Telephoned the premium rate customer service line, explained the
situation and asked them to cancel the account in early
November and if they could produce a final bill for the end of that
billing in early November period which would facilitate
their bank direct debit payment, simplifying the process for them and
the executors. Was asked to post a copy of the death
certificate to the company.
4. 20-21/10/2008 access to the on-line billing information part of the
service terminated so was unable to properly validate
costs.
5. 22/10/2008 Obtained death certificates. Posted covering letter copy
of death certificate to the company providing a date for the complete
cessation of the service and to facilitate finalisation of the estate
of the deceased.
6. Received by registered mail the covering letter and copy of the
death certificate (no compliments slip or anything else included) at
the home address of the executor to the deceased.
7. 5/11/2008 Received at the home address of the executor a
standardised condolence letter asking if the account needed to be
cancelled to call and cancel. (Took no action as already cancelled).
8. 24/11/2008. Received standard correspondence addressed to the
deceased (and redirected by the post office)
(a) Advising that part of the service provision was being transferred
and stating the deceased should contact the company to stop that
transfer if they had not arranged for it (We assume the new occupants
(who are known to us) of the house were doing that) and that it was
possible the deceased could accrue additional costs.
(b) Red reminder for an outstanding account balance showing the total
amount but no detail.
9. 24/11/2008. Acting on behalf of executor (who was rather upset
again) contacted the premium rate number provided by the company to
find out the details of the outstanding balance and to arrange
payment.
Call centre - I am sorry but due to the data protection act I cannot
speak to you about this account.
Caller - Would you please note that on the account or details of this
call. Would you also tell me what time it is at the
moment.
Call centre - Gave the time.
Caller - Can I confirm your are aware the account holder is
dead?
Call centre - Just a moment please. A pause of some moments/a
minute. Yes there is a note on the record.
Caller - I have received two letters today, one of which is an unpaid
outstanding balance billing reminder. But the details of the bill are
unknown could your clarify the detai?
Call centre - Clarified some of the detail but unable to fully
clarify as the figures did not make sense.
Caller - Thank you.
24/11/2008 - Contacted the premium rate customer service line.
Caller - I wish to make a complaint. Details of the process to date
explained and asked for clarification of the total amount.
Call centre - That amount explained in more detail, but would/could
not provide writted copy
Caller - Started to pay the bill and asked for assurance that this was
the finalised outstanding balance and that all correspondence with the
deceased would cease.
Call centre - No, a further amount is due next month for further
outstanding costs.
Those costs added to the current amount and paid.
Call centre - To sort this out I have had to re-enable the account.
Would you please call back in 3 days to disable it again.
Caller - No. Sorting this out to this stage has already cost a minimum
of £3.90 in call charges. This is precisely the type of poor and
inflexible organisational administrative process the complaint is about
and I see no reason why the estate should be burdened with further
costs in improving your organisational processes. The organisation has
been made aware of the death of the account holder a number of
times.
Would you please let me know how my complaint is finalised.
A plea to the group. Look to your organisations processes to attempt
to limit this type of distress, if only to stop your own organisation
from incurring ongoing costs in servicing deceased persons, which I
thought was the remit of whichever god people prefer to defer to!
Also, the organisation is arguably still liable under DP, the executor,
whose details were somewhere in the deceased computer file, continues
as a living individual, and is the person the organisation would no
doubt
eventually chase through the courts for billing purpose, if anybody
ever gets to that stage. Their data is not being processed in
accordance with the principles. Food for thought maybe.
Whilst this was the worst computer/organisationally generated example
experienced during this time it was not the most insensitive. That one
was purely person generated, so remember when reveiwing processes that
human error can also damage organisations and an appropriate level of
training is required.
Meanwhile my own experiences have merely served to increase the
strength of my personal belief that notwithstanding the difficulties,
DP should continue to cover the data of deceased for an appropriately
specified period following death.
Ian W
Games for all the family from Tiscali - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play
__________________________________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|