Do Baby’s Days customers have to pay Baby’s Days legal costs?

So from my last blog post, you can see that Sys IQ Ltd / Baby’s Days refused to process my subject access request and refused to return the data they hold about my son.  Obviously I’m taking this up with the ICO but I wanted to blog tonight about what this could potentially mean for Baby’s Days Customers.

The Information Commissioner has a statutory power to impose
a financial penalty on an organisation if they are satisfied that the
organisation has committed a serious breach of the DPA that is
likely to cause substantial damage or distress.

In theory, if the ICO were to impose a financial penalty on Baby’s Days / Sys IQ Ltd surely their customers wouldn’t have to fit the bill?  I know when I was their customer I never gave paying their legal bills a second thought.

When I started this blog my Facebook went crazy with lots of messages about, “did you know this…?” And one thing that kept coming up and has also been mentioned in the comments on the blog is that apparently within the T&Cs of Baby’s Days, their is a clause that says their customers pay Sys IQ Ltds legal bills.

EH?  WHAT?  Surely not?  Let’s have a look and see if we can reveal the truth behind this.

There is a part in the Terms and Conditions entitled “Indemnification”.  Indemnifications means, To compensate for loss or damage.  Here is what the whole section says….

Indemnification by You. You shall defend (or settle), indemnify and hold harmless Sys IQ Ltd, its officers, directors and employees, from and against any liabilities, losses, damages and expenses, including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in connection with any third-party claim that: (i) a third party has suffered injury, damage or loss resulting from the use by You or by any Authorised User of the Subscription Service, or (ii) the Customer Data, or the use by You or by any Authorised User of the Subscription Service in violation of this Agreement, infringes or violates the Intellectual Property Rights or other proprietary rights of a third party. Your obligations under this section are contingent upon: (a) Sys IQ Ltd providing You with prompt written notice of such claim; (b) Sys IQ Ltd providing reasonable cooperation to You, at Your expense, in the defence and settlement of such claim; and (c) You having sole authority to defend or settle such claim.

It’s all a little bit gobbledy gook to me sadly, and I’m still ill so I’m not 100% sure what it’s saying but I think it’s saying the indemnification by customers only applies in some circumstances?  It’s unclear to me if a (possible) financial penalty from the ICO would fall into one of these categories that customers have to indemnify?  Maybe one the readers can clarify for me?  Data Centre Worker, we haven’t seen you in a while, any thoughts on this?  Anyone else?

For the Baby’s Days ‘water treaders’, ‘lovers’ and the ‘haters’ this does need clarifying really.  Is this sort of T&Cs typical with EYFS Software providers?  Maybe we might hear from them directly on this?!  Especially if it’s not true, I’d imagine they’d want people to know the truth.

In other news I’m feeling much better, I’m still not right but now I have antibiotics I’m on the mend, so expect a blog post on Monday again.  Have a great weekend!

More underhand tactics? This time I am the target.

So, apologise for those expecting a blog about the data centre, that will have to wait until tomorrow as I have just received the following in my inbox.

So, you might not be able to read all that if you’re viewing on a phone, which most of you do.  So I’ll de-jargon it.  Google runs blogger, the site my blog is hosted on.  Someone has told blogger that 5 of my posts, “contains allegedly infringing content that may violate the rights of others and the laws of their country.”  The key words here are ALLEGEDLY and MAY.

Anyone that has read this blog knows that there is nothing libellous within it.  Google will remove all posts where people raise this concern, they do this without reviewing the information.  It does not mean I have done anything wrong, so anyone being told that is being lied to.  There is more info on this video if you want to have a nosey. 

I have requested that google put back the information back and Baby’s Days have been made aware of this, google will put it back within 10 days unless Baby’s Days/Sys IQ LTd take me to court in the meantime.

I am not sure why the complaint was made as the notice hasn’t been published yet, but each of the posts flagged refers to either the director of SYS IQ Ltd or the creator and Admin on Baby’s Day’s Official support group.  Other than the post about the possible bug, which refers to neither.  If this is the case I will remove the names.

It could also be because of a copyright issue, only Baby’s Days or someone acting on their behalf, like their solicitors, can requests the posts be removed.  Back on the 27th November, I sent Baby’s Days solicitors a letter, the letter asked: 

“Please could you explain what you mean about my application of the trademark to the blog as being detrimental? What it is your client believes I am using in my blog that infringes the companies Intellectual Property Rights? Under UK Copyright Law, I believe I am allowed to use a piece of copyrighted material, or have ‘fair dealing’ for the purpose of criticism and news reporting. Please could you clarify your clients stance on this.”

I have received no response to this and until then I remain of the opinion that any use of the name Baby’s Days is made in reference to the company and any publication of copyright data (such as emails that are not marked confidential) is done so under fair dealing and fair use terms for the purpose of review.  You can’t exactly write a review about a company and their actions without using their name can you?  It’s quite patently obvious that I am not trying to pass myself off as belonging to or working with or part of this company.

Everything is factual and documented, sure sometimes I publish a lot of email exchanges, this is to provide context, so that readers could see I wasn’t posting negative things for my benefit; they could see how they naturally occurred, I felt this was more fair to Baby’s Days.

If the company didn’t act like this, there would be nothing to write about, if they/their customers really want to stop me blogging then they should buck up their ideas when it comes to customer service.  Reporting the blog for spurious reasons in an attempt to silence me just gives me more things to blog about.  As does threatening to terminate customer accounts for speaking about my blog.

Tomorrow I am moving house, so unless my lovely mindess get a good kip in, I wont be blogging,  But over the weekend there will be a post about the Data Centre used by Baby’s Days, so make sure you pop back or join the other 843 subscribers by popping your email address in the bar at the top – if you’re on your phone you might have to go to desktop mode to see it.

PS.  for those asking Chilling Effects is: “As part of our efforts to remain transparent, a copy of each legal notice we receive may be sent to the Chilling Effects project for publication and annotation. Chilling Effects is a joint project among U.S. law schools that seeks to provide resources about free speech online and intellectual property law.” Source Here, In Transparency Section.

My Second legal response to Baby’s Days

Last night, at around 6.30pm, I had another email from Baby’s Days solicitors.  At the time I was getting ready to go out to celebrate a friends birthday, but the email was marked Urgent and ask that I reply by 8pm, giving me a 90 minute window of reply.  I managed to cobble something together quickly on my phone.In response to the letter I wrote them and which I blogged here, this second letter is also marked confidential so I can not publish it here.  The way in which I wrote the response basically means I am unsure if I can republish it here, and as my solicitor doesn’t work on Saturday, I will not publish my response until I have clarified if I am able to do so.

But the current situation is that there may be a resolution in site.  This blog was started with the aim of getting my system and my data back.  I will remove the blog, as I’ve said from the start, as soon as I have the system and data back.

But I also have to be sure, before I remove the blog, that any potential libellous comments about me have been removed from groups Baby’s Days are associated with and also that supporters of this blog who have spoken out publicly about my treatment do not get their accounts terminated.

Hopefully we will be able to find an amicable resolution suitable to both parties soon.  As a gesture of goodwill, I will not be updating the blog until Monday at 2pm.  If we have not resolved our issues by then I will be blogging about Baby’s Days claims that they have/will be training Ofsted inspectors on using the system.

Thank you so much to everyone for the continued and ongoing support, it means a lot.

Have Baby’s Days been in touch regarding the blog?

Yes they have!

Last night at 10pm I received my first communication from Baby’s Days (via their solicitor) regarding the blog, this is after the blog being live for 6 days.  You can obviously hazard a guess as to the letters contents, sadly I can’t republish them here as they are marked confidential, if I were to do so, I would be in breach of copyright.

What I can say is that obviously Baby’s Days are extremely unhappy about the blog and they want me to take it down.  I can’t publish their solicitors letters, but I can publish my response so please check back later this evening around 7pm if you would like to stay updated about this companies behaviour.

Don’t forget, you can always sign up for notifications using the email bat at the top of the page!