Prime those missiles Reenie, that looks like a corporate response letter to me

_________________
"Everywhere I go I hear what' going on,
And the more I hear the less I know"

Latest update:

I have received a reply in response to my letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Prudential, Mark Tucker.

It comes from one Tim Wilson, Head of Group Customer Relations. In essence, it is nothing more than the letter I received from Tracy Harris, Head of Complaints at Prudential.

Tim Wilson, of Prudential wrote:

26 October 2007 Dear Miss Bujman Following my acknowledgement letter of 22 October 2007, I have now had the opportunity to investigate the issues you raised. I am sorry for the upset we have caused and also for the difficulty you have experienced in contacting us recently. Having looked into your concerns, can I assure you that is [sic] has not been our intention to make you feel discriminated against in any way when corresponding with us recently. We expect to provide our customers with the highest standard of service and I regret this is not your current impression of Prudential. I understand you first contacted us in 2006 to inform us of your name change. We updated our records and explained at that time we were unable to update your gender until we had received the Gender Recognition Certificate. Under the Gender Recognition Act, we are unable to alter our pension records to show your gender as female, until we have seen the aforementioned certificate. I accept that at this point you are requesting for your title to be altered. Although we are unable to change the title without also updating your gender, we will ensure any manual correspondence sent to you shows your correct title. However, I regret we are unable to reflect this for any automatically produced correspondence sent to you, until we receive the certificate in question. Again, I apologise for the distress and inconvenience you have encountered recently and trust that my letter has been constructive. I am required to remind you of your right to refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, details of which we have previously provided. If I can be of any further help, my direct line is [withheld] Your sincerely Tim Wilson Head of Group Customer Relations

I have the man's phone number and really, I think I ought to have a quiet chat with him. He's missed the point completely.

I have asked them to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Gender Recognition Act has no bearing on this matter.

For completeness, I sent two letters. One was addressed to Tracy Harris, Head of Complaints and copied to Mark Tucker, Chief Executive. The latter was accompanied by a letter addressed directly to him.

To Tracy Harris, head of Complaints:

Reenie wrote:

Dear Tracy Harris I have read your letter dated 26th September 2007 and it won't do. 1. I am entitled to assume the title "Miss" since there is no law preventing me from doing so. 2. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 has no bearing on this matter. Further, according to the Data Protection Act 1998: 3. You are obliged to record my title correctly. 4. You are obliged to process my title correctly. 5. You are liable for compensation if you cause me distress by incorrect processing. I demand that: 1. you modify your data processing system so that it correctly stores, retrieves and processes my title. 2. with immediate effect you desist from generating any correspondence addressed to me with the title "Mr" or in any way treat me as though I am male. 3. you will not resume automatic processing of my data until your data processing system is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998. I will suffer no more prevarication. I bid you do your duty or my legal team will most certainly do theirs. Yours sincerely Irene Bujman (Miss)

To Mark Tucker, Chief Executive Officer:

Quote:

Dear Mark Tucker I have been experiencing some considerable difficulty with certain Prudential staff regarding the matter of my gender transition. Three points to consider before we go any further: 1. The titles "Miss", "Mr", "Mrs" and "Ms" have no binding legal status. 2. There being no legal impediment, I adopted the title "Miss" late last year and informed Prudential of such whilst recording a recent change of address. 3. The Data Protection Act 1998 requires that Prudential record, process and present my details correctly, and without causing distress. In particular, I dislike being addressed as "Mr"; I find it offensive. Having complained about correspondence addressed to me as "Mr" Bujman, your "Head of Complaints", Tracy Harris, claims to be "unable to intervene with system generated correspondence" (26th September 2007, ref: CRU/CRS/CD/796363702). I have replied to her with specific demands in accordance with my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (copy enclosed). Prudential has no remit beyond the administration of my pension and is certainly not the arbiter of my gender. You may therefore treat me as male for pension purposes only until I present my GRC. This requirement for presentation of a GRC certainly does not entitle the likes of Subroto Choudhury to write such a disgraceful rebuff as I received in a letter dated 5th September 2007 (ref: WF 795948673). I have dealt with its like before, with Avon and Somerset Constabulary as my enforcer. The existence of transgendered people is an established fact and we use titles seemingly at odds with our birth-assigned gender. Most organisations now accept this and banks provide debit cards and the like with the correct titles. I have a driving license that proclaims my gender as female. It is official ID. There is an opportunity here to bring Prudential into line with other prominent financial institutions and afford Prudential's transgender customers and staff the dignity that they enjoy elsewhere. I have not yet notified the Financial Ombudsman, nor the Office of the Controller of Information. You will save yourself and Prudential a good deal of inconvenience by implementing the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 before you find it forced upon you. Yours sincerely Irene Bujman (Miss)

I know that my manner can come across as righteous and overbearing sometimes, but I think I've been reasonable if firm. In my letter to the CEO I've left the door open for reasonable discussion, yet they've not taken the opportunity.

All I've done is ask them to comply with the law (which they will have to do anyway) and made it clear that I will refrain from taking any action if they will comply quietly. There need be no more fuss. When all is said and done, they're looking after my pension, and anything that costs them money will be to the detriment of my pension fund. It's in my interest to have this resolved quietly.

My pension fund is modest: maybe 5,000 pounds. I could probably sue them for distress and time spent researching law to that amount.

At the heart of this is a simple software problem. I would estimate the cost of remedying it to be three man-days: less than a thousand pounds even at consultancy rates.

I'm presented with an open goal, surely? I can't believe it.

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

I think for you, these letters are fairly restrained!

It's really quite pathetic that their excuse is basically 'the computer does not allow us to do this'. No need for AI, computers are already apparently in control.

_________________
Check out the Tzone team bios (including mine!) at: http://www.transgenderzone.com/bio.htm

Supporting the family, friends and partners of trans people in the UK: http://www.depend.org.uk/support.html
If you are struggling we will support you
If you are celebrating we will join you

Excellent letters Reenie, and I reckon that since he's been so kind as to furnish you with his direct line, a word in his shell-like wouldn't go amiss...

<Ricki Lake Audience>Go Reenie! Go Reenie! Go Reenie!</Ricki Lake Audience>

Dave

Thank you both. I have my grandfather in mind, whose diplomacy was fettled before I was born. The previous generation, I'm told, knew some vigorous action, so he certainly meant what he said.

I shall approach the gentleman in question with a mixture of wisdom handed from Grampy and a determination, if needed, from Great Aunt Reen.

Computer says no... Let's see.

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

After a long chat with Mum this morning, a conversation in which we talked at length about Grampy and his diplomacy, I felt in the right frame of mind to phone Prudential.

Our man Tim was out of the country, but a deputy listened to my discourse. I explained, in gentle terms, the thrust of my letter to the CEO. I met with the inevitable lack of understanding and the GRA as a defence. This is a matter that has as its core, the Data Protection Act. I explained that, even if I did not exist, Prudential would still be operating unlawfully.

I offered that it was in our best interest to resolve the matter quietly. I made no secret of the fact that I've called on the best advice available (Cambridge et al) and that I'm certain of my facts.

The call may best be described as professional and good-natured.

The ball is in their court with a plea to their better nature and common sense.

They'll get back to me, they say.

I'll assume nothing until they make their move. I don't need to. I have a clear view of the chess board, so to speak.

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

Well done Reenie! I think you're doing great with this. I don't think I'd deal with it anywhere near as well, but from your letters and that call I'd be willing to bet you're on the winning side here! Keep it up! =D

Aly. x

Thank you for your encouraging words, Alyson.

I try to read up on history when the opportunity presents itself. I've read a good deal of Winston Churchill, both his writings and the opnions and observations of others who watched him go about his business.

Those who do not learn of the mistakes made in the past are doomed to repeat them. Chamberlain came back with a piece of paper which promised "peace for our time".

Churchill had seen it coming for years.

No appeasement: compliance with the law at Reenie's behest is the only resolution that is acceptable.

I'm not above the law and neither are they.

All that need happen is a quiet change to their software and on we go. onwards and upwards...

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

Another letter from Prudential this morning...

Quote:

02 November 2007 Dear Miss Bujman Thank you for your telephone call on 29 October 2007. I am sorry you are unhappy with the content of my letter dated 26 October and that you feel your concerns have not been answered in full. Having revisited the issues you raised, we do adhere to the Data Protection Act and as you have correctly stated, we must comply with the details of the Act and ensure the information we hold is correct. To do this however we must have evidence that the information is correct. To therefore allow us to hold your correct title on our records and to again comply with the Data Protection Act, we need to receive the Gender Recognition Certificate. This will provide the evidence and confirmation to allow us to legally reflect the change of gender. There is no legal requirement that states and individual cannot alter their title within their gender, for example from 'Miss' to 'Mrs'. However, when altering a title to reflect a change of gender, we are legally obliged under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to obtain such evidence as detailed above. I trust I have explained our position in connection with the Data Protection Act. If I can be of any further assistance however, please contact me again, my direct line being [withheld]. Yours sincerely Tim Wilson Head of Group Customer Relations

He's closed the gap a little and he's given his phone number again. I think I should phone him on Monday. Well, I was going to anyway...

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

It is Monday. I have spoken to Prudential. They have "taken legal advice" and are defending there assertion that:

Quote:

However, when altering a title to reflect a change of gender, we are legally obliged under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to obtain such evidence as detailed above.

Quite where Prudential's legal advice came from (if at all) I do not know, but I suggested to them that they might wish to check the credentials of their advisors. I also suggested that they should check with their data controller to see if the matter might be resolved with a simple software change.

They did not agree to my offer of a week's grace but said that they would look into it.

Until next Monday, then, it is "peace for our time..."

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

Couple of things I was wondering about this:

1) I think I'm right in thinking that you have a legal right to choose any title you please, including a made up one (apart from Dr, Prof, PM, etc as mentioned above)? Assuming that's correct my question is are other people legally obliged to actually use that title?

2) Not all titles are gendered, for example Dr is the same for male and female doctors. They could add Mrs, Ms, Miss, etc to the list of selectable titles for males and I imagine this would require very little time for a programmer to implement and not require extensive regression testing so is a relatively cheap technical solution to the problem. If the titles are in a database rather than hard-coded then it would be even easier. They are being lazy and illogical, as I assume their technical solution is to change your gender to F to be able to select Miss, which is not what you are asking them to do. You asked them to change your title and they are saying they can't change your gender. They are responding to one request with the answer to a different one.

3) As you are legally entitled to use any title you like, suppose you decided you would invent a new title, e.g. Kwz? I mean it's not gendered so the whole 'trans' element (and therefore GRC) is removed from the argument. Would they be legally obliged to use that title?

G'luck with ur mission

GQ

1) There is no legal "right" as such, it's just that there is no legislation preventing it.

2) Quite. I could be an Air Vice-Marshall and their system would (presumably) deal with it. I presume that it's not so much laziness as a desire to avoid a potentially expensive software change. You have assumed that their system is well-ordered, but I suspect otherwise. This is Prudential, after all.

Their system actually stores my title as Miss. It just doesn't put it on my correspondence.

3) I believe you a right. I could try Mx and see what happens, but I think this has gone far enough.

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering

_________________
"Everywhere I go I hear what' going on,
And the more I hear the less I know"

_________________
Check out the Tzone team bios (including mine!) at: http://www.transgenderzone.com/bio.htm

Supporting the family, friends and partners of trans people in the UK: http://www.depend.org.uk/support.html
If you are struggling we will support you
If you are celebrating we will join you

_________________
If music be the food of love, stand by for a good rogering