To think this email was patronising

[christineso]

I believe my landlord has leaked my information to a third party.
I emailed a manager of the landlord to say "as my information has been leaked which is a breach of data protection, I have seeked legal advice and will be taking civil action"

she replied saying
"Thanks for your email, I look forward to receiving a letter from your solicitor"

is this not patronizing and unprofessional?

[nutellacrumpet]

No. YABU. What did you expect them to say?

[VimFuego101]

Who was the 3rd party and what were the circumstances? Presumably if you'd sought (not seeked) legal advice then yes, communication from a solicitor would be the next step.

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Not really, I suppose "looking forward" could be read as being sarcastic, but I don't think it's supposed to be - I'm not sure how else you'd write it, other than maybe "I'll await a letter...".

Btw, it should be 'sought' not 'seeked', just in case you have to use it again

[ChristineDePisan]

Well, she can't say anything else because if it is turning into a legal dispute - which you have said it is - the first thing her lawyer would advise is that all communication comes through them and is properly drafted so as not to open them up to liability unintentionally...

[AbbyCadabra]

I don't think it's either. You've threatened legal action and she has accepted that you have.
Are you very sure about the circumstances? Taking legal action can be time consuming and costly.

[christineso]

The third party was another tenant.
Another tenant who has made a claim against me with no proof and my maiden name has been given which i dont even use but the landlord have and the tenant has been informed i am still a tenant with the landlord.

I expect her to say nothing because she shouldnt be contacting me in the first place, that manager (who i hate btw) is nothing to do with me but is to do with the accuser.
That manager should have contacted my manager and my manager can inform me.

(im trying to be brief for reasons)

[christineso]

polkadots, thats what i felt like it was sarcastic.

[yakari]

I suspect she doubts you've actually taken legal advice and yes was being sarcastic. But unfortunately some people do throw about the phrase 'taking legal advice' (not saying you do - but it is pretty common) and as it sounds like you have a bad relationship
(You say you hate her) then she's possibly calling your bluff.
Either way I think the issue is not the email or her tone - if you genuinely do think she has acted unlawfully and genuinely will bring legal action focus on that - and put the bad manners aside.

[WaitingForSnow]

It dies read a little sneery?

[christineso]

yakari, you know you are right.
I have been letting this get to me all day. I will just do what i have to do.

[Dipankrispaneven]

What do you mean by your manager? If there's someone managing the property, it's usually just the landlord's representative.

If you write direct to the landlord you can't possibly say that it's wrong for her to reply directly to you. In fact, it's good practice to acknowledge your letter.

[Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost]

No ynbu. I'm with you, but I wouldn't see it as patronising I'd see it as them saying. I'm looking forward to hearing from your solicitor because they believe you don't have a cat in hells chance of winning the case, but. Please try not to take heed of what I say. I'm naturally very suspicioius. The sort of person that doesn't trust you until ive known you 20 years.

[kikidee2015]

It's not patronising. If you say you're getting legal advice they will respond in a particular way. Not personal - take the emotion out of it. It's actually a very professional response IMHO

[Shutthatdoor]

It'seems not patronising. It is actually a commonly used paragraph after threatening legal action.

[Senpai]

I wouldn't say patronizing so much as brushing you off and calling your bluff.

[LiviaDrusillaAugusta]

It's an absolutely standard reply - it's supposed to be non commital, not denying or admitting anything.

[steff13]

I don't think it's patronizing; I think it's a standard reply. I think you are unreasonable to think she shouldn't have contacted you when you initiated the contact. It would probably be best to allow your attorney to handle correspondence from this point forward.

[Sighing]

I don't think it is patronising. It's a response/ acknowledgement on the basis that communication will, going forwards, be through a Solicitor.
Do seek advice, stay detatched in your dealings.

[aurynne]

I think what probably happens is you are a bit miffed she did not sound shocked and started apologising straight away... instead she called your bluff.

[BitOutOfPractice]

She's just acknowledging what you wrote.

I'm a bit confused by the scenario but why are you saying she shouldn't contact you when you emailed her?

[Janeymoo50]

Not patronising as such but she's sort of saying..."go on then, do it, I'm not scared of your threat". She's also acknowledging your stated intention formally.

[steff13]

The email from the OP does feel a bit like a threat. Personally, I would have left it to my attorney to make any necessary contact. I'm a bit surprised that the OP's attorney didn't advise her not to initiate any contact.

[Choughed]

The person who sent the email has probably actually read the Data Protection act and knows what recourse you have for not keeping it secure. You can't take legal action against them you can only report them to the ICO. You can do that on-line, no need for a solicitor. Extract from the ICO's website:

How your information has been handled
If you have a concern about the way an organisation is handling your personal information – perhaps they hold information about you that is incorrect, they have held it for too long, or they are not keeping it secure – we may be able to help you do something about it.
What can I expect?
If we think the organisation has not complied with its obligations we can give the organisation advice and ask it to solve the problem. We cannot award you compensation. Our main aim is to improve the information rights practices of organisations, where there is an opportunity for us to do so.

[Choughed]

Sorry, posted too soon. If, after the ICO finds them in breach of the DPA, a court will decide if and how much compensation should be awarded, but compensation for distress is a relatively new and contested area.

So yeah, if I had received that email I might have been tempted to be a bit sneery too.

[Domino777]

It's a standard response but does sound tongue in cheek. Choose not to let it wind you up