Scanned copy of the Experian letter - pp1 & 2

[SurlyBonds]

"There you go Fawlty...they were hiding there all the time"..

 

Reposted now that everyone's all loved up and friends again...

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To save having to email them to every request...

 

(You don't need to send these to the I.C.O. as they now have them as part of their 'test' case [ho hum] ... just include them to any bank, lender, DCA, or other half-witted bunch of Muppets who quote "The CRAs say six years, so there" with a letter that says:

"No actually, they've thrown the towel in on that one.... so there!":p

 

 

Enjoy!

 

The email from me that preceeded this response (following one of their typical SodOff Letters) was:

 

To Mr ***********,

 

I have done just what you suggested...already spoken to the Information Commissioners Office, and in their considered opinion there is more than enough to warrant an official complaint against Experian. They have seen a copy of your letter, and were (in their words) "rather surprised" by some of the claims that you make in your response.

 

 

By the way, don't try scaring me off with the usual "Go away little man, because our lawyers cost more than yours" attitude, as it doesn't cut any ice with me - I have more than enough legal backing that won't cost me a penny. This is the typical bullying mentality that one sees in the playground from children who are, in reality, nothing more than weakling cowards, and try the My-Dad's-Bigger-Than-Yours mentality when they realise that they are out of their depth.

 

 

I am, frankly, disgusted by the obvious pontificating attitude within your letter, and that you have not actually answered a single point that I've questioned - this was also noted by the Information Commissioners Office.

 

 

What you need to realise is that you are not dealing with some uneducated Muppet from the realms of the great unwashed - I'm educated to Doctrine level, and have a verified IQ in the 160s, so it is not difficult to see that your responses amount to nothing more than unintelligent and illogical argument - indeed, you have even contradicted your own argument in several places.

 

 

Anyway, a more detailed letter than this response will be sent in due course, including a final demand for you to remove all outdated and expired credit data (a course of action recommended by the Information Commissioners Office). They have sent me the official complaint forms, and these will be submitted anyway, regardless of how you respond to my data subject requests. These will be in the form of official criminal complaints under the Data Protection Act and not as an aide memoir seeking the Information Commissioners Office's advice - I don’t need the Information Commissioner's interpretation on the Act, I need a judge's decision on the Act.

 

 

Additionally, if you fail to process the data subject notice, then I will proceed in the Poole County Court for jurisdiction on your incompetence as a Data Controller, and your wilful suppression of my rights under the Act. I have more faith in an independent judge's reading of the Act than a so-called "recommendation" paper dreamt up at one of your industry's cosy little beanos. By the way, you will be expected to provide this co-called document (the one you have refused to suppy to date) listed as a required document of defence within the Allocation Questionnaire when I take you to Court.

 

 

Yours, in disgust,

 

 

lil' ol' me

 

 

me----->

[countrybake]

nice one surly and good to see your posts again

it seems so long ago

[SurlyBonds]

nice one surly and good to see your posts again

it seems so long ago

 

Just nice to be able to scrub that stupid Darth makeup off

 

Mind you, there hasn't exactly been a dearth of posts since, has there?

 

Anyway, must go to Zzzzzzz's...big day tomorrow on the CRA front.

 

[dayglo]

well that should free up my PMs!!!

[jimfishybob]

Oh yeah, Good luck for today. Let us know.

[sarahpp]

Great to have you back S.B.

The Old Homestead wasn't the same without you

Good luck today - not that you will need it with your research/hard work

[deemacperth]

Good to have you back SB. The fountain of knowledge is back open to drink. Beware the bitter taste though all thee that are not used to it.

 

[RileyQC]

Oh yeah, Good luck for today. Let us know.

 

Surly is off to London today to take the Credit Agency issues to a higher audience.

 

He only has his pocket PCphone with him so I doubt that he will post until later. H e cannot type very quickly on this unit as it is touch screen device.

He's asked me to keep the fort today so I will update if I know anything.

Having said that, I thought that I would add a few notes of my own.

 

Although I help him with the legal precedent work, all this is off his own back and passion to seek a more fairly regulated industry. He devotes a great deal of time and energy into this campaign despite having a young family and running a successful business. He has funded his own campaign personally. He has read every related Act himself and I assure that he does understand them. I have not seen such dedication to education even from most Law students that I come across. For that he deserves his own credit. I simply advise as to how I think a judge would interpret it based on my experience.

 

Having read some of the recent postings from some people, it surprises me that some who claim to support this same ideal have been so aggressive. In my book, this was not necessary. They perhaps need to appreciate just how much work he puts in. For that work he seeks nothing but the satisfaction of redressing people's rights.

I agree that he can be a bit abrasive sometimes and his postings might not be everyone's cup of tea.But, his sarcastic humour is simply a release mechanism for the frustration that he encounters with the muppetts as he calls them. Having worked with him for nearly a year on these issues his wit and humour has been a Godsend. We have often got tired or come up against cantankerous obstruction. Some wit, no matter how dry,sometimes puts the whole thing into perspective.

 

I am glad to see that the issues have been sorted. But I would urge that the site owners make every effort to control any cage-rattling against Surly.

I am sure that most people can now see that he does not suffer fools gladly.

 

Let us all continue to keep the real issues in focus.You have my legal experience available via Surly as I support his view that there is a considerable injustice here.

We will continue to support the aims of the Consumer Group and wish everyone the best in their individual cases.

 

Yours, in justice.

[Tinkerbelle]

 

Surly is off to London today to take the Credit Agency issues to a higher audience.

 

He only has his pocket PCphone with him so I doubt that he will post until later.

He's asked me to keep the fort today so I will update if I know anything.

Having said that, I thought that I would add a few notes of my own.

 

Although I help him with the legal precedent work, all this is off his own back and passion to seek a more fairly regulated industry. He devotes a great deal of time and energy into this campaign despite having a young family and running a successful business. He has funded his own campaign personally.

 

Having read some of the recent postings from some people, it surprises me that some who claim to support this same ideal have been so aggressive. In my book, this was not necessary. They perhaps need to appreciate just how much work he puts in. For that work he seeks nothing but the satisfaction of redressing people's rights.

I agree that he can be a bit abrasive sometimes and his postings might not be everyone's cup of tea.But, his sarcastic humour is simply a release mechanism for the frustration that he encounters with the muppetts as he calls them. Having worked with him for nearly a year on these issues his wit and humour has been a Godsend. We have often got tired or come up against cantankerous obstruction. Some wit, no matter how dry,sometimes puts the whole thing into perspective.

 

I am glad to see that the issues have been sorted. But I would urge that the site owners make every effort to control any cage-rattling against Surly.

I'm sure that most people can now see that he does not suffer fools gladly.

 

Let us all continue to keep the real issues in focus.You have my legal experience available via Surly as I support his view that there is a considerable injustice here.

We will continue to support the aims of the Consumer Group and wish everyone the best in their individual cases.

 

Yours, in justice.

 

Welcome and thank you for being here

[jimfishybob]

Hi. Nice to meet the man behind the legend.

[dayglo]

nice first post

[Number6]

Well, I for one am glad to see things back to normal.

 

Welcome RileyQC - it's a pleasure to meet you even if only electronically.

 

Pete

[sarahpp]

Thank you Riley QC - and well said

[countrybake]

sb how have you got on today

[Lizzy]

Fingers tapping, wine drinking, telly watching, doodling, I will keep checking although I know it will probably be tomorrow.

 

How exciting.................good luck SB

 

Lizzy

[Guest willowb]

Oooooh I can't stand the suspense! anyone heard?

 

Wxx

[SurlyBonds]

I agree that he can be a bit abrasive sometimes and his postings might not be everyone's cup of tea.

 

No s**t Sherlock!!!.

 

troll----->

 

P.S. Thanks unc, for blowing sunshine up my a**e you embarrassing old f**t

[Guest willowb]

SOB...these suspenders are killing me! :>,

 

Wxx

[SurlyBonds]

Oooooh I can't stand the suspense! anyone heard?

 

Wxx

 

Updates in in new thread... Developments

[Guest willowb]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/31098-developments.html a ha! I shall go and read it!!

 

Wxx

[meagain]

troll-----> Surly

 

On a more serious note, nice to see them finally concede that they do not, in fact, have a "legal right" to hold our information beyond CCJs (which when not satisfied in the usual 30 days are to be a matter of public record anyway).

[Robertxc]

I'm not so sure that the guy who wrote the Experian letter is definitely correct. The Data Protection Act says:

 

SCHEDULE 2

 

CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF ANY PERSONAL DATA

 

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

This seems to suggest that once your data has been passed to the CRA they're allowed to keep it because it is in their legitimate interests to do so. Since they're licensed as CRAs it stands to reason that processing default information is a legitimate part of their business. Also, although six years is an awfully long time, the DPA is sufficiently vague that they can rely on the fifth data protection principle to justify it:

 

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

 

In other words, your contract says that they will supply your data to the CRA. The CRA's reason for keeping your data is quite different from the bank's, and they feel that in order to fulfill their 'legitimate interests', they need to keep it for six years.

[jimfishybob]

That may be the case, BUT schedule 2 goes onto say that it is the Secretary of State who decides what would constitute a legitimate interest. The licensing argument is based on the assumption that this is OK and has not to date been challenged. There is no Statutory Instrument that expressly gives them this right and consequently they have made decisions that only the Secretary of State has the power to make.

[SurlyBonds]

I'm not so sure that the guy who wrote the Experian letter is definitely correct. The Data Protection Act says:

 

In other words, your contract says that they will supply your data to the CRA. The CRA's reason for keeping your data is quite different from the bank's, and they feel that in order to fulfill their 'legitimate interests', they need to keep it for six years.

 

Noted... BUT, in that case, where is the "legitimate interest" between the customer and the CRA??... I've never signed anything between myself and the CRA, only between myself and the supplier, and the DPA gives no rights to a third party, especially for them to assume inherited rights based on the first contract.

 

If I give a friend permission to drive my car, it gives him no rights whatsoever to let someone else go drive it too, without my further permission.

 

In Law, for a 'legitimate interest' to exist, there needs to be either a statute, a contract or an interest under the Law of Tort.

 

For the first, there is no "six years" ANYWHERE in legislation, nor are the I.C.O.s contradictory statements any clearer - see below,

For the second, the contract has finished, and for the third, if anything, the CRA is the tortfeasor, not the consumer.

 

The word 'legitimate' derives from the Latin stem 'legis' (law) in that nothing is legitimate unless a 'law' of some sort defines it as so.

e.g. I have no legitimate interest in my neighbour, as we have no contract, and unless I break a criminal statute in actions against him, or invoke the Law of Tort (basically, the law of responsibility to others in society), that situation remains as "no legitimate interest".

 

Despite what the I.C.O. decided the other day over tea and bikkies, their own legal guidance document CLEARLY states:

 

 

"

3.1.4 Lawfulness

The Act does not provide any guidance on the meaning of "lawful". The natural meaning of unlawful has been broadly described by the Courts as "something which is contrary to some law or enactment or is done without lawful justification or excuse". (R v R [1991] 4All ER 481). The term applies equally to the public and private sector and to breaches of both statute and common law, whether criminal or civil. An example of information unlawfully obtained might be information, which is obtained as a result of a breach of confidence or in breach of an enforceable contractual agreement. Since 2 October 2000 it applies to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by a data controller bound by that Act.

...

There are circumstances where an obligation of confidence arises between a data controller and an individual about whom information is recorded, for example, in relation to medical or banking information. The effect of an obligation of confidence is that a data controller is restricted from using the information for a purpose other than that for which it was provided or disclosing it without the individual’s permission. It would be unlawful for a data controller to do this unless there was some overriding reason in the public interest for this to happen. Where such personal data are processed for a purpose other than that for which the information was provided, the processing is likely to be unlawful processing.

"

"Overriding reason in the public interest"?? For a personal loan default that happened years ago.... I don't think so.

 

And would the Secretary of State wish to issue an exemption on each individual case... Hmmmmmm, methinks not.

[Robertxc]

I've never signed anything between myself and the CRA, only between myself and the supplier,

But presumably the agreement you signed explicitly stated that you agree to them passing the information to the CRA.

BUT schedule 2 goes onto say that it is the Secretary of State who decides what would constitute a legitimate interest.

Actually, what it says is:

 

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

 

I don't think you could interpret it to say that the Secretary of State has to decide what are the Data Controller's 'legitimate interests', only that he may decide to do so. Also, I think that it would be very much in the interests of the CRA (to whom you have agreed to let your data be given), to keep it, because that is the fundamental nature of their business.

 

What 6.1 does say is that the 'legitimate interests' of the data subject outweigh the 'legitimate interests' of the data controller or the third party:

 

...except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject