10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress. (1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons— (a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and (b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted. (2)Subsection (1) does not apply— (a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or (b)in such other cases as may be prescribed by the [F1 Secretary of State] by order. SCHEDULE 2 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data 1The data subject has given his consent to the processing. 2The processing is necessary— (a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or (b)for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract. 3The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. 4The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject. It certainly appears from the above provisions that clear and express consent is required BEFORE any data may be processed about the data subject for specific purposes and that as in the first limb processing has ALREADY begun then the DATA SUBJECT can withdraw any IMPLIED consent.....and also from my struggles to find any provisions in my previous posts their does not appear to be any legal obligation(in 3) under which the Data Controller is subject...IN RELATION TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECT OF WORK ON ENTITLEMENT TO ESA and VOLUNTEERING However the threshold for damage or distress must be SUBSTANTIAL I have not researched the Welfare Reform act 2012 C5 as of yet ...although it has been passed the majority of it's provisions are not yet in force PERSONAL DATA IS DEFINED AS THUS 1 Basic interpretative provisions. (1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— “data” means information which— (a)is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, (b)is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment, ©is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system, F1. . . (d)does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or © but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68; [F2or (e)is recorded information held by a public authority and does not fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d);] “personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified— (a)from those data, or (b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual;

Mixman...I am claiming on behalf of an elderly gentleman..with his authority i might add.. .but please tell me ....his claim for PPI goes back to around 1998 when he opened up 3 different accounts/loan agreements...he is claiming fro those PPI's which were never even mentioned at the time of agreement only to find out that they were added to his loan agreement.. The agreements were all paid up by end of 2004...will there be any probs in claiming bearing in mind these will be PRE-2005.. I ask u because your agreement/s were made at around same time and your claim for PP is made at about same time too approx NOW!!! The only docs he has given me are his statements of account which clearly show PPI.. and his loan ACCT NO:.should I send a copy of those in with a letter..will they b able to locate POLICY and REF NO's with just that piece of document.. What did you do and what probs did u have? Many Thanks Can u advise me...

Answer to q.1 is Yes as long is not less than one month the previous request as per s78 CCA 1974 Ans to Q.2 is that the onus is upon them to give you a notice of assignment whenever a debt is sold on.however you need to distinguish whether they are still the agent of the Original Creditor or are truly the new purchasers of the debt in which case you would need to request them I think I read once (but can’t remember where) that when a debt is sold the recipient does not have to provide a copy of the agreement because when they bougt the debt it was a given that the debt was legally enforceable. There is nothing in the ACT that expressly says this unless someone can correct me...in fact it would be MORE favourable to sell on a useless debt for 'something than to sell on an legally enforceable debt..otherwise they would have pursued it themselves for the full amount

you know that saying goes..'ugliness on the inside' always shows on the outside

YES...that is my outlook too...I will volunteer for the 'small' folk in order to contribute to them to grow BUT not for large corporates:evil: who in my estimation will not 'distribute' my efforts to those in greater need:-D

Presumably in relation to post 463 and in answer to post 461, consent forms would be an irrelevant issue and would not be up for signing in the first place There are NO express requirements for Consent Forms in any of the above provisions. I struggled to find ANY sanctions applicable to refusing signing Consent forms in ESA 2008/794 In fact there appears to be no mention at all of Consent Forms in ESA 2008/794 The Sanctions refer to Work/Claimant Commitments ..etc ESA finds it's origins in Welfare Reform Act 2007..this Act appears to provide NO express power for the Minister(by Regulations) to Sanction or Reduce ESA as a result of failing to sign any Consent form.. Indeed Issue of Consent Forms do not feature at all as part of the Conditionaliity precedent to entitlement of ESA...OR once entitlement to ESA to affect any continuance of receipt of ESA by failing/refusing to sign any CF's

The relationship between entitlement to remaning in ESA and Volunteer work and hence lawful avoidance attending pimps work programmes can be found here straight from Authority..I redacted it for the sake of clarity. 2008 No. 794 SOCIAL SECURITY The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 PART 7 EFFECT OF WORK ON ENTITLEMENT TO AN EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE A claimant who works to be treated as not entitled to an employment and support allowance 40.—(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, a claimant is to be treated as not entitled to an employment and support allowance in any week in which that claimant does work. (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to— (f) any of the categories of work set out in regulation 45 (exempt work). 43.——(4) In this regulation— “volunteer” means a person who is engaged in voluntary work otherwise than for a relative, where the only payment received or due to be paid to the person by virtue of being so engaged is in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by the person in connection with that work. Exempt work 45.—(1) The categories of work referred to in regulation 40(2)(f) are set out in the following paragraphs (6) Work done where the claimant receives no payment of earnings and where the claimant—(a)is engaged by a charity or voluntary organisation; or (b)is a volunteer, where the Secretary of State is satisfied in any of those cases that it is reasonable for the claimant to provide the service free of charge. (10) In this regulation “relevant benefit” means— (a)an employment and support allowance; or (b)credits under regulations made under section 22(5) of the Contributions and Benefits Act(96), “volunteer” has the same meaning it has in regulation 43; “work placement” means practical work experience with an employer, which is neither paid nor undertaken in expectation of payment The above makes all the more sense when read in conjunction with a post further above in regard to the Policy Intent of JCP Plus for the purposes of Mandatory Work Activity and also Work Related Activity hth

2011 No. 1349 SOCIAL SECURITY The Employment and Support Allowance(Work-Related Activity) Regulations 2011 PART 2 Work-related activity Requirement to undertake work-related activity 3.—(1) The Secretary of State may require a person who satisfies the requirements inparagraph (2) to undertake work-related activity(8) as a condition of continuing to be entitled to thefull amount of employment and support allowance payable to that person.(2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) are that the person— (a)is required to take part in, or has taken part in, one or more work-focused interviewspursuant to regulation 54 of the ESA Regulations; (b)is not a lone parent who is responsible for and a member of the same household as a childunder the age of 5; ©is not entitled to a carer’s allowance; and (d)is not entitled to a carer premium under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the ESA Regulations. (3) A requirement to undertake work-related activity ceases to have effect if the person becomesa member of the support group(9) (4) A requirement imposed under paragraph (1)— (a)must be reasonable in the view of the Secretary of State, having regard to the person’scircumstances; and (b)may not require the person to— (i)apply for a job or undertake work, whether as an employee or otherwise; or (ii)undergo medical treatment. (5) A person who is a lone parent and in any week is responsible for and a member of the samehousehold as a child under the age of 13, may only be required to undertake work-related activityunder paragraph (1) during the child’s normal school hours It appears from the above Regulation that if one fails one of the 2 tests then one would still be entitled to ESA but put into the WRA group and NOT support group...this means that one would not be at the behest of the Pimps above...and that one can get on one's own choice for looking for for type of work suited to oneself work without being monitored by PIMPS above and NOT being sent to any old job by the PIMPS above.

I have been reading Employment support Regulations 2008/794 'The Regulations'...and in Part 7 it goes onto state that if a person is exempt work ...in this case voluntary work that s/he will remain in ESA and not be moved on to JSA...but this should not be confused with interpreting it as ...'as I am in voluntary work I am entitled to ESA'...UNLESS one is already in the ESA assessment phase waiting to undergo 2nd phase assessment and fails to get into support group but is put into WRA group... Is this a correct interpretation

Originally Posted by gil_jnr Hi from another Ingeus inmate I'va been 'attached' to them since last august, had a grand total of 6 basic meetings in all that time, and not had to take any in-house or other courses or dealings with any of their subcontractors The saving grace has been to find my own unpaid volunteer job that's relevant to my skills and qualifications, enhances my CV, and that I really enjoy...the bonus is that regardless of how many hours you volunteer for, as long as you declare yourself as 'unpaid volunteer worker' through the jobcentre, you're exempted from MWAs "3. Given the policy intent of MWA, the following claimants must not be considered for referral to MWA: currently working (paid or voluntary) undertaking employment related study / training taking part in or recently completed* another employment measure (contracted or non-contracted) aimed at helping them move closer to the labour market" The other step was to withdraw the DPA waiver that I'd originally signed. Now I'm left alone to get on with searching for a job under my own steam, they can't contact any job application or voluntary employer, can't refer me or my personal details to any other sub-contractor, and can't mandadte me to any activity good on you me next AND me....

so where does this leave us????

I am emotionally cold towards ALL 'on the other side'.....

Not necessarily...I HAD a pre-existing medical condition...which they KNEW about ...as it was disclosed...they added PPI...when it came to call upon my insurance as I had been made unemployed through sickness they did not want to pay out..I pushed for it and they LOWELLS closed my account on behalf of CAP ONE.. wiped out my debt..

A trite exercise...as it was MP's that pushed this legislation forward in the first place:|

The latest news on A4E work programme providers are under investigation for FRAUD http://uk.news.yahoo.com/four-arrests-fraud-investigation-003548506.html Tip of the iceberg?

The agreemnt that twtt is hypothesising is one where the sig and Prescribed Terms are not contemporaenously present...and i thought that discussion on s61 by HHJ Waksman in Carey statedthat Presence at Point of Signature was a requirement

You are right... BUT the Agreements Regulations 1983...which regulate the signing of agreements allows Creditors to send copies wthout signatures.. HHJ Waksman explained this in Carey under Issue 2 .....the Regulations are Copies of Documents and Notices Regulations 1983... The point that you are amking is correct insofar that this is not proof an Leglly executed agreement was signed...s189 CCA 1974 and s61 CCA 1974...this copy that hye have sent you is only for informatin purposes...you MUST read CAREY to get a better handle on proof purpose and information purpose... Cases should be read as this determines the interpretation to be given on statutes and regs

Yes...that could be used as 'secondary evidence'.... Also a copy agreement without a tick is analgous to one sent under s78 without a signature as oer CCA 1983...but again it does not PROVE a legally 'signed' agreement...I am exploring all the angles..

The fact that a tick is missing...or any thing that the informatuon describes as conveying your signature amounts to the fact that in accordance with Subsection 5 of Article 4 above that iNTENT per se is lacking ...let alone YOUR intent

Is cover letter from DCA or OC?

They probably cannot even comply with a s78 request for information as one of the requirements stated by HHJ Waksman in Carey is that amongst other things 'the address at the time which the agreement was legally executed must be correct as of that date'..(roughly speaking) There may also be issues as to time limitations...

Article 4 amends the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 to enable agreements to be concluded electronically and to enable the creditor or owner to include in the signature box information about the process or means of providing, communicating or verifying the signature made by the debtor or hirer. If there is no tick(the alleged debtors) in the box then it cannot comply with s61 a legally 'signed' executed agreement IF there is NO BOX then they have not complied with FORM

A mere tick in the siggy box is sufficient...HOWEVER...you can make ir difficult for them to PROVE this under Electronic Communications Act 2000 and I rhink that require an INTENT to tick that box...and that that tick WAS BY YOU... I did this with a DCA on behalf of a friend and they decided to close the account it was to much bother for them.The amendment is in the CCA 1974.... credit agreements concluded online s176A states the form and procedure....but in the Consumer Credit agreements Regulations 1983 there is a requirement for intent.... After all when hacking into someones account is so prevalent today ...it may not be disputed that a particular computer from a particular IP address was responsible but can they prove that it was NOT someone else at that address...INTENT from THAT alleged applicant needs to be proved needs.... This only relevant if the alleged debtor denies or cannot remember ever having ticked the sig box... The amending instrument is in SI 2004/3236 the relevant section is... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3236/article/4/made Notice the point made in subsection 5...although a tick can be sufficient to show that A agreement was concluded in the MANNER required...the word INTEND is also used...the power of that should not be underestimated