On Friday, Jimmy was taking a nap in order to be rested for the evening.
The phone rang and, as it was in my hand, I answered it. It was from HSBC (with whom he banks) and the caller asked to speak to 'Jimmy's official legal first name, which isn't James'. I said he was not available; could I take a message? The message was tell him Chris called. I asked whether there was a number to call back on, or whether he should call his branch. The caller said he was not able to discuss any aspect of his acocunt. I explained that I was not asking him to. "Chris" said he would call back. I tried to explain that 'Jimmy's real name' was not in the habit of answering the phone. I'm the householder and the phone is in my name.
He kept saying he was not able to discuss details of (Jimmy's) bank account, I kept saying I wasn't asking him to. And every phrase was ended with "Thank you madam, good bye". I wasn't being abusive or difficult, just trying to establish a number that Jimmy should call back.
I would be angry if they did try and discuss details of the account. As far as the caller was concerned, I could be his landlady, tenant, housekeeper, gardener, nanny, or weekend guest. Even a burglar! If I am not permitted to take a message such as "Phone your branch" surely I should not be privy to which company he banks with. By their own logic, HSBC have broken their own rules by revealing this information to an unnamed unknown person who answer the phones. And yes, he reveals who he banks with every time he makes a payment, but on each occasion that is his decision. If he wished to withhold the information he would be within his rights to do so - he could pay by cash, postal order or by the account of AN Other.
I fully support the Data Protection Act and I get very annoyed by idiots who try to misinterpret it to the inconvenience of their customers.
