Restrictions -

The access request asks for staff communications; Steve narrows the response

The actual July 29 email states what Steve says he has, what he will provide and when.

In this entry: Tyler, Steve Long

What the record shows

  1. Tyler requests the information shared about him, including staff communications, chats and account information. The request is broader than the emails exchanged directly with Steve.
  2. Steve says Tyler already has the emails and that he has nothing other than what Tyler sent and what he replied to. He says he does not keep emails once resolved, promises POS information, offers deletion after the account and orders are cleared, and says it is time to end the relationship.
  3. After Tyler disputes that account and says an OPC complaint is filed, Steve says he has noticed the 30-day reply period and will reply by then. The preserved form records the access/use/disclosure complaint; it is not itself an OPC finding.
  4. The scope conflict is concrete: the request asks for communications about the customer, while Steve’s initial answer limits the email category to their direct exchange. Jason’s email, Adam’s transcript and Steve’s July 27 reply already describe management exchanges concerning the complaint.

Sources (6)

  • screenshot: May 25: Jason confirms the technician's finding ()
  • transcript: July 15: Adam call transcript sent to Steve and Jason ()
  • email: July 27: Steve's response to service of the order ()
  • regulator: July 29: access request and reply ()
  • regulator: July 29: preserved privacy complaint form ()
  • email: July 29: Tyler and Steve on cradled_filth's protection-order application ()