Complaint sent to IPW & ICO
I recently had an extremely disappointing experience with this company. Not only did the services provided in my view fall significantly below expectations, but more concerning for me was the conduct of Jim Elmsey, the Managing Director. He disregarded the company’s own complaints process, failed to respond within required timelines so it was then referred to the IPW the regulator, and also ignored the initial Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) which was then referred to the ICO. In my view, his handling of the complaint demonstrated clear bias and a lack of impartiality. If this is the standard set by someone in his position, it raises serious concerns about the conduct and accountability of the wider team under his leadership. One of the team members I dealt with came across as inexperienced—comparable to an apprentice—making unsolicited amendments to sections of the draft that I had not requested. Basic information was repeatedly missed or recorded incorrectly, which further undermined my confidence in the competence and attention to detail of the service provided. I felt—and the IPW appeared to agree—that the company demonstrated a dismissive approach, which is deeply concerning given they deal with highly sensitive and critical matters of life and death. For an organisation that has chosen to serve the public in such a serious capacity, investing in professional training in customer service and complaint handling would, in my view, be highly beneficial. I strongly recommend that anyone engaging with this company independently records all calls for their own protection. During a call in which I provided will instructions, I was explicitly informed that the conversation was being recorded. However, when the ICO contacted the company as part of a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR), I was told that no such recording existed. While this raises questions, I will accept the company’s position that the call was ‘never recorded’. Nonetheless, it’s difficult not to suspect that, had the recording been available, it may have supported the concerns I originally raised. IPW Findings of failures of ELM. Errors in Drafting: Comments made between the Complainant and the Firm while draft documents were being processed imply that content which was correct was changed to being incorrect during the process of changing content that was incorrect to being correct. Failure to Accept Responsibility: The Firm appear to have made a ‘mountain out of a mole hill’ with this transaction Dismissive Approach: I accept this point. I have picked up the same ‘vibe’ in the responses made by the Firm to the Complainant and in the responses made by the Firm during the information exchange part of this Complainant. I find that the Firm was wrong to require a fee to make further amendments within the 30 day period after the original document was sent to the Complainant Conclusion I find that the Complainant should receive a full refund.
