BMW warranty voided due to immobiliser
Discussion
Update
I’ve made a GDPR request to head office to get all of my documents, I want to see if my other job cards also have fraudulent signatures on them.
This was denied by head office. I have no other choice but to hand the case over to solicitors, I can’t take this mental strain any more. Absolutely shocking how lacklustre they are when they know fraud has been committed.
I’ve made a GDPR request to head office to get all of my documents, I want to see if my other job cards also have fraudulent signatures on them.
This was denied by head office. I have no other choice but to hand the case over to solicitors, I can’t take this mental strain any more. Absolutely shocking how lacklustre they are when they know fraud has been committed.
That's a bit of a catch-all which (from my limited commercial experience with relation with a Subject Access Request for employment) is open to interpretation and also, to challenge. I'd ask my solicitors or the ICO directly.
R35 Boxer said:
“…exempt due to legal privilege as this information could prejudice the outcome of an ongoing case.”
They’ve got one thing right, it will prejudice the outcome, but against them.
So they just need to provide them under disclosure then, it's not really going to change anything for them.They’ve got one thing right, it will prejudice the outcome, but against them.
CharlesElliott said:
R35 Boxer said:
“…exempt due to legal privilege as this information could prejudice the outcome of an ongoing case.”
They’ve got one thing right, it will prejudice the outcome, but against them.
So they just need to provide them under disclosure then, it's not really going to change anything for them.They’ve got one thing right, it will prejudice the outcome, but against them.
OK, let me rephrase that having read it again. [IANAL]
If there is communication between the dealer and their legal representative then that could be under legal privilege and not required to be disclosed and can be excluded from a SAR.
However, a job sheet can not be under legal privilege and so is eligible for disclosure if there is a legal case.
I don't know exacty what was asked for under the SAR, but if a job sheet has details about the requestor on them, then I cannot see any exemption given by the ICO as to why they should not be provided. If they don't have details about the requestor on them, then they are probably not in scope of the SAR. But in any event, a job sheet cannot be witheld from an SAR on the basis of legal privilege. Perhaps a discussion about the job sheet can be, but not the document itself.
As per the ICO:
If your personal information is discussed or included in confidential communications between the organisation and their legal advisors (including in-house legal teams), they don’t have to give it to you as part of your request. This information is considered ‘privileged’, which means it should remain confidential between the organisation and the legal team.
If there is communication between the dealer and their legal representative then that could be under legal privilege and not required to be disclosed and can be excluded from a SAR.
However, a job sheet can not be under legal privilege and so is eligible for disclosure if there is a legal case.
I don't know exacty what was asked for under the SAR, but if a job sheet has details about the requestor on them, then I cannot see any exemption given by the ICO as to why they should not be provided. If they don't have details about the requestor on them, then they are probably not in scope of the SAR. But in any event, a job sheet cannot be witheld from an SAR on the basis of legal privilege. Perhaps a discussion about the job sheet can be, but not the document itself.
As per the ICO:
If your personal information is discussed or included in confidential communications between the organisation and their legal advisors (including in-house legal teams), they don’t have to give it to you as part of your request. This information is considered ‘privileged’, which means it should remain confidential between the organisation and the legal team.
CharlesElliott said:
OK, let me rephrase that having read it again. [IANAL]
If there is communication between the dealer and their legal representative then that could be under legal privilege and not required to be disclosed and can be excluded from a SAR.
However, a job sheet can not be under legal privilege and so is eligible for disclosure if there is a legal case.
I don't know exacty what was asked for under the SAR, but if a job sheet has details about the requestor on them, then I cannot see any exemption given by the ICO as to why they should not be provided. If they don't have details about the requestor on them, then they are probably not in scope of the SAR. But in any event, a job sheet cannot be witheld from an SAR on the basis of legal privilege. Perhaps a discussion about the job sheet can be, but not the document itself.
As per the ICO:
If your personal information is discussed or included in confidential communications between the organisation and their legal advisors (including in-house legal teams), they don’t have to give it to you as part of your request. This information is considered ‘privileged’, which means it should remain confidential between the organisation and the legal team.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, the job sheet does not come under legal privilege.If there is communication between the dealer and their legal representative then that could be under legal privilege and not required to be disclosed and can be excluded from a SAR.
However, a job sheet can not be under legal privilege and so is eligible for disclosure if there is a legal case.
I don't know exacty what was asked for under the SAR, but if a job sheet has details about the requestor on them, then I cannot see any exemption given by the ICO as to why they should not be provided. If they don't have details about the requestor on them, then they are probably not in scope of the SAR. But in any event, a job sheet cannot be witheld from an SAR on the basis of legal privilege. Perhaps a discussion about the job sheet can be, but not the document itself.
As per the ICO:
If your personal information is discussed or included in confidential communications between the organisation and their legal advisors (including in-house legal teams), they don’t have to give it to you as part of your request. This information is considered ‘privileged’, which means it should remain confidential between the organisation and the legal team.
The only reason I’m requesting the job cards is that I have found the one they have sent to the ombudsman to include a fraudulent signature.
I’ve been told by employees of this dealership (which belongs to the largest franchise group of BMW) that when they have been on service advisor training, the one thing that is hammered into you is that you get the job cards signed by the customer. Without this, the work cannot be authorised.
So, when I’ve made a SAR to head office to obtain these, I was first given the run around to ask the dealership itself. Then a week later I was given the above reply. My feeling is that the other job cards customer signature (my car probably has 5/6 job cards from the last 4 years) are all either A: completely blank therefore not valid or B: they are all signed fraudulently.
I wouldn’t want to be that dealership group right now. I’m sure withholding GDPR/SAR documents is also punishable by the ICO, especially if those documents pertain to fraud.
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff