Name and Shame Insolvency abusers

21 posts Page 2 of 2
 
 

MelanieGiles

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 47612
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:42 am
Location:

Post by MelanieGiles » Wed May 07, 2008 7:10 pm
I would not even consider doing this Admin, as the information is never updated and I feel you would get a lot of unhappy customers and a lot of adverse PR.

As Ian says we have no requirement to update the register, a lot of the information is incorrect in any case due to poor data entry at the Insolvency Service, and I feel that as champions of the misuse of the register you open yourself open to criticism. It is widely known which firms are regular users of the register, and I feel that more effort ought to be made to lobby the Minister to get this removed from full public view.
Regards, Melanie Giles, Insolvency Practitioner
 
 

TheMatrix

User avatar
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by TheMatrix » Thu May 08, 2008 3:42 am
Even more reasons to get the register scraped. It falls foul of a number of legal obligations on the part of the data controllers under the Data Protection Act 1998, to not only secure the data, but ensure it is accurate and up to date - http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/dat ... tions.aspx
We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation.
 
 

ianmillington

User avatar
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by ianmillington » Thu May 08, 2008 9:53 am
The Government keeping data secure?

I agree with Melanie on this one, not only is there the cost issue but an unsolicited mailshot warning about unsolicited mailshots not strike the right chord with some folk, even though it's issued for the best of reasons.

I perceive that the campaign to restrict access to the data is gathering momentum and would hope that something would have to happen in the not too distant future.

Ian
Ian Millington
Insolvency Director
PDHL Ltd (formerly Personal Debt Helpline Ltd)
www.pdhl.co.uk
 
 

CoverItAll

User avatar
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by CoverItAll » Thu May 08, 2008 7:26 pm
The cost would be massive. There are 113,782 people in IVA's at present, even at the reduced rate for franked mail, the postage cost would still be £27,308, plus the cost of preparing the mailshot.
John Tegg
john.tegg@dms4asu.co.uk
http://www.paymentcover.co.uk
STANDARD TERMS for Forum Members for Home Insurance, Self Employed Tradesman's Public Liability, and Short Term Income Protection.
 
 

Cybus

User avatar
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:44 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Cybus » Thu May 08, 2008 9:05 pm
I'm in agreement with the majority on this particular point. If you were to mailshot the people, I think it would serve only to lower peoples opinions of you. The likes of the IVA Council use it to bleat on about how bad IP's and IVA's are. You know what people's opinions of them are, from reading this forum. I would not like to see you tarred with the same brush as them for using the EIIR, albeit for creating awareness as opposed to preaching your ideals.

The best way forward, in my opinion anyway, is to ensure that the presence of this forum is maintained and wherever possible word of it's existence spread by word of mouth instead of abusing the EIIR.
Tell it like it is.
 
 

MelanieGiles

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 47612
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:42 am
Location:

Post by MelanieGiles » Thu May 08, 2008 9:13 pm
Very well said Cybus. Hear Hear.
Regards, Melanie Giles, Insolvency Practitioner
21 posts Page 2 of 2
Return to “postings for may”