FGW Customer Service - Can anybody help?

[whole diary]

[thornebt]

Following a car accident in a station car park I have been trying to obtain CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) footage from FGW^▸ (First Great Western).  I first phoned FGW (0345 7000125) on 4th November to log the request.  They told me on the 11th November that they have the footage but need to download it.  They said when they have done this they will phone me to take the ^10 fee for providing it.  I have phoned them twelve times in all and always get the response that it is in hand and they will contact me shortly.  As it has been over two months now I'm keen to resolve the issue.

The Helpdesk told me that the case is under 'specialised review' by the Customer Relations Manager Jason Ness, although the next FGW person I spoke to wasn't familiar with this term and said it was 'under investigation'.

I've also emailed Mark Hopwood several times but have only received one response from him signed off by Nicole Black.  She said she would respond asap but never has.

I'm hoping that members of this forum might be able to give me an idea of how I get this matter resolved.  Is anyone familiar with the FGW 'specialised review' process, i.e. what triggers it and how long it might take?  Is there anyone in the Customer Service area that might be able to help me?  Elsewhere on this forum a member said to copy complaint emails to Moir Lockhead who is Head of First Group.  Would this be a good idea?  Perhaps the complaints route might be the best way forward?

There must be a way of getting some progress but it has eluded me until now.   

[ChrisB]

Firstly, Moir retired some while ago.....

It shouldn't be too difficult to work out Jason Ness's email address if you have/know Nicole Black's. They all take the same form. Try him direct, quoting any/all reference numbers they may have given you.

[thornebt]

Thank you.  I found Jason Ness' email address on his Twitter account so have just emailed him.  From Twitter I can see that he is travelling by train today but from the posts he seems like an amiable helpful type of fellow so I'm optimistic that I might obtain a response to my direct approach.  I think I will open a Twitter account as perhaps asking questions in this public domain will at least get some response.  Jason certainly seems very responsive on Twitter.

[JayMac]

You've made a subject access request for data (yes CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) coverage counts as data) about you, and the data holder has acknowledged they have said data. The request you made is subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

That states that a data holder has to provide the data promptly, and in any event within 40 days from the date of request. You made the request on 4th November 2011, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have acknowledged they hold the data, so it should have been provided by 14th December 2014.

FGW are in breach of the Data Protection Act and you should point this out to them. If the data is not forthcoming within a further period set by you, (I suggest formally telling them, in writing, that you are giving them a further 7 days to comply with the provisions of section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1988) then you should escalate the matter to the Information Commissioners Office.

You made the initial request verbally (i.e. by phone), and that would not normally count as a valid subject access request. They should be in writing - letter, email, fax, even social media. However, as the data holder has acknowledged they hold the relevant data about you then the timescales should apply. That you have subsequently emailed is good. Keep copies of that correspondence.

I suggest all further correspondence is in writing (letter, email, fax, social media) with copies kept.

Finally, this is my reading of the situation. I am not a lawyer.

[thornebt]

Thanks very much.  My understanding is that the forty day limit applies following payment of the ^10 fee.  I have not been able to pay this as they say they will contact me to take my payment when they have downloaded the footage.  I have offered to pay but they are not interested in taking payment.

I am going to write to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) asap.  I guess that Mark Hopwood, Managing Director, is as good a person to write to as any.  I'll send it by recorded delivery.

It may be that FGW will not take kindly to being threatened with legal action and might just delete my CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) footage but that is a chance I must take.

[ChrisB]

Personally, rather than put their backs up, or take that chance, simply email Jason & ask him to progress your request and advise you how long it will take, or to provide you with a reason why FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't.

*Then* go to Mark Hopwood if no success.

[JayMac]

The 40 days can indeed apply from the date you pay the fee. In your case though it appears that company bureaucracy has prevented you paying it despite offering. That is something that the ICO will take a dim view of.

Still put FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to task over compliance with section 7 of the Data Protection Act. They can't delay actioning the request simply because they've not taken the fee. Even more so considering you've offered to pay.


A handy tip for anyone else making DPA Subject Access Requests. Do so in writing by letter and include a cheque/postal order for ^10. Post the letter at a Post Office counter and get a free proof of posting. Clock starts once that letter and fee are received. This should be, unless proved to the contrary, "to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post" (Interpretation Act 1978).

Personally, rather than put their backs up, or take that chance, simply email Jason & ask him to progress your request and advise you how long it will take, or to provide you with a reason why FGW can't.

*Then* go to Mark Hopwood if no success.

They can feel their backs are being put up to their hearts content. That doesn't abrogate responsibility to comply with legislation.

[ChrisB]

What I meant was that Jason might well simply say "whoops, sorry", and contact you for yoyr payment & produce the CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) you are after.

Or you can go down BNM's route which would take longer and may involve the Information Commissuioners Office before getting your CCTV. I know which I would follow, simply coz it would get what I want quicker - and if it doesn't, it'll only take a couple of days to find out.

[JayMac]

Which is why I suggested formally putting FGW^▸ (First Great Western) on notice that they are not complying with the DPA.

Keeping it informal may elicit action, but you then don't have a paper/email trail with specifics to take further. 

[ChrisB]

You do when Mr Ness responds....if he doesn't - and that I'll find very surprising - you can forward to Mr Hopwood...

[JayMac]

I am going to write to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) asap.  I guess that Mark Hopwood, Managing Director, is as good a person to write to as any.  I'll send it by recorded delivery.

Sent to the normal Customer Relations address is fine and no need to pay for Recorded Delivery. A free proof of posting from a Post Office is sufficient.

[JayMac]

You do when Mr Ness responds....if he doesn't - and that I'll find very surprising - you can forward to Mr Hopwood...

Way past 40 days already. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have had more than enough time to comply with section 7 of the Data Protection Act. They acknowledged the request on 11th November. That's now 56 days and counting. 63 days from the original request by phone on 4th November. 12 subsequent calls have been made to chase up the request and to offer payment of the SAR fee.

Each to their own, but not putting the data holder formally on notice after such a long time past the legislated period, and after numerous follow up calls, is just asking for the process to grind interminably on.

[ChrisB]

They told me on the 11th November that they have the footage but need to download it.

Was that verbally or in writing (email etc)
If verbally on the phone, you have no written instructions/request/acknowledgement from them that you have mentioned. Strictly speaking, as BNM agrees, it needs to be in writing. If it's all verbal, you may as well email Jason than threaten Mark H with the DPA, coxz they'll know as well as BNM does, that they won't act without it being in writing.

I plead my case. You'll be better off emailing Jason. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) aren't strictly in breach of the DPA, and they'll know it.

[JayMac]

Several emails also sent by the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter). The date of the first of those can be taken as the initial request, even if they are complaining about inaction following phone calls and a (if it's the case in this instance) verbal acknowledgement.

Wording is not important. If it looks like a SAR, and smells like a SAR, it is a SAR. So an email enquiring as to the progress of a verbally requested, and, let's not forget, acknowledged SAR could easily be seen as a written request.

Good practice is to comply with a request regardless. If a data holder has responded and acknowledged a verbal SAR then it should be processed according to legislation. 63 days and numerous calls and emails later with the data still not processed and sent is not good practice. That is something the ICO can rule on.

And I plead my case. Formally put the data holder on notice.

[thetrout]

I agree with more or less everything that is said here. You have requested information from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) that they hold about you for which they have confirmed they indeed hold.

Personally I would put a SAR (Subject Access Request) in writing to FGW by letter. I would send Recorded Delivery - But that is purely my own personal preference - so you can prove receipt at a later date. With the request then include payment. Keep all correspondence in writing / email ideally as you can refer back to this at a later date again if needed.

Include a Cheque or Postal Order made payable to "First Greater Western Ltd" (NOT First Great Western). Once FGW have received the request. Take a print out of the Recorded Delivery from Royal Mail. Or a copy of the Postal Order / Cheque statement to make sure it has been cashed. This is why I use recorded delivery. I've had organisations play funny games in the past saying requests not received etc.

If after 40 days FGW have not yielded any results or reached out to you. Contact the Information Commissioners Office and Passenger Focus with formal complaints. You can do this without any further notice to FGW and from day 41 if you felt so inclined. Supply detailed reports and supporting correspondence in both complaints. Feel free to CC FGW into said complaints if you wish.

I agree that 63 days for information is poor practice. But considering I have 3 complaints from August 2014 still outstanding I cannot say I am 'that' surprised to see this...

It may be that FGW will not take kindly to being threatened with legal action and might just delete my CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) footage but that is a chance I must take.

If FGW were to even try doing this... Well it's extremely dodgy ground. Falsifying information or destroying information for malicious purposes because you upheld your rights against them under Civil Legislation... Hefty reprimands could come FGWs way if it were proved...


My comments here are based through my interpretation and own experiences of using the legislation in question. I am not in any way a Solicitor or Legally Qualified. Anything I've said should be cross checked against a Legal Professional if in any doubts.

thornebt - I wish you the best of luck with resolving this. Do please let us know how you get on or you have further questions