Good stuff, glad to see it's working. Some banks are claiming that they can keep your data on their own INTERNAL systems. This is usually to upkeep their own internal credit checking system.. e.g. LTSB use their own. It could be argued that this is likewise removed, once the contract has finished, but some banks are now starting to put clauses in that you give permission for data to be used by them after the contract finished. However, this is only for internal purposes only... but make sure of what is says, usually it states for marketing purposes. In which case they can't retain it for reference purposes. ATEOTD, it all comes back to What Did YOU Sign Away When You Signed The Contract? New contract wording is already changing - be on your guard.

Yes, we have this on... shall we say... suitable standby... Muhahahahahahaha

Probably a bit too early to start opening up the champers....Still LOADS to do... we have to start taking on the advice given yesterday and chasing up the actions that they took away. Hi ho, Hi ho... it's off to work we go. Still, although no celebrations, in my book, a glass a day keeps the stressies away... I did have a smoking jacket once.... leant over the bonfire too far... ;-)

Updates in in new thread... Developments

Absolutely, the proportionability of the case is something that all judges need to weigh up. But, we're already thinking about taking this via a judicial review as the lender/CRAs are basically, judge, jury and executioner in this whole credit reference process. 1. There's absolutely no proportion to the whole process - it's black and white and that's it - "overprocessing" is the term that Dave came up with. 2. The banks often break the Banking Code anyway by not informing customers 28 days beforehand of the proposal to register adverse data - of ANY form (even is and 2s, etc). So, although the Banking code is voluntary, it forms part of the contract as they claim to be signatories to it, therefore it is an implied contrcat and they have to adhere to it a part of the overall contract. 3. Any decision is totally one-sided and is not referred to any process (let alone appeal panel/arbitartion, etc.) for a judgement to assess the fairness of any adverse data or look into the circumstances as to how the alledged breach occurred. 4. There is no appeal process once the data is registered. 5. The CRAs are basically going beyond the terms of the contract and extending the disclosure clauses on their own say so. They are supposed to write to you with any intended changed in Terms and Conditions with an opportunity for you to opt out, or cease the contract. Any clause is therefore not fair under the UTCC Regs. 6. The I.C.O. is about as tough with the CRAs as slapping them with limp lettuce or a wet fish... Hey didn't Python do such a sketch. Anyway, we will continue this 'battle' until right wins over... no matter how long it takes... geeeeezus, that sounds so sycophantic, or from some film... bad data puppy ------> BTW, hello to all our regular watchers from the Credit Reference Industry... we know how much you enjoy reading these posts....hi....hellooooo..... we can seeeeeee youuuuuuu...

Yep, that's basically what the I.C.O. is saying.... 'data for the common good', despite the FACT that the CRAs are not one of the exempted 'common good' agencies listed in the Shedules of the Act - as they are private companies.. someone knows someone who's getting something out of all this.... As to the 'proportionality' of the offence: Magna Carta Clause 20, "For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. Clause 40, "To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice." Bill of Rights 1689: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF THE STATUTE! P.S. Tink, nice Avatar!;-)

No s**t Sherlock!!!. troll-----> P.S. Thanks unc, for blowing sunshine up my a**e you embarrassing old f**t

Firstly, yesterday went well.. (not as in brilliant) but certainly a few steps forward. But this is, I think, going to be a case of constant pressure like Chinese water torture! The under-secretarial-something-title-assistant-person we met was your typical Civvie (didn't really know enough about the legal semantics to offer any "considered opinion"), but did make copious notes and made some suggestions as I went along as to how he could refer the matters and what actions that I could take via my MP. Overall, I think he was a little embarrassed that the Data Protection Act didn't actually specify a time constraint, and this was obviously overlooked when the Bill was drafted. However, he did concur that whatever the Information Commissioners Office comes out with as advice can still be tested in Court and is not taken into the legal argument - it is their interpretation only. I don't want to go too much into what the future strategies are, as one may involve a very neat ambush, and I am not going to reveal it here as we all know who watches this site and learns from our intended plans. Surprise is going to be an important factor in this one. I also need a lot more time to plan this particular method out, and think about ensuring covering off ALL angles as it is quite complex. Riley and I also need to do some serious work on looking at some case precedents to see if other previous contractual cases have thrown up anything we can use for ammo in this context, as there is nothing in relation to CRA cases to date. We therefore need to look at other aspects of contract cases and co-relate the relevancy of those judgements. We have started digging... As to the I.C.O. (and dayglo's recent developments) I now have had exactly the same response email from the same woman (no, I won't mention names... just in case the pink monkeys start looking for a stick!!) Needless to say, I think the email is just about the biggest load of tosh I've read from a regulator in a very long time. Lily-livered, spineless drivel doesn't even begin.... As stated in one of my earlier posts, most regulators seem to focus too heavily on their specific Act and don't have the knowledge or remit to incorporate the dependant and connected Laws - in this case, the terms of the contract. It is highly blu**y amusing to see the so-called DPA Police (I.C.O.) uphold the very argument that a CRA has just conceded...but there again, I think we all won our bets in relation to 'Dayglo the Bookie's' previous odds-on post. In my mind... someone is seriously in someone else's back pocket if this is the so-called support that the I.C.O. gives the public. The email does not contain an ounce of logic in the argument, especially the statement about obtaining permission - she has not understood the logic of the argument, which is quite simple: Permission is sought to conduct the initial check and run the contract only, unless the contract says anything else - end of story. However, speaking to the email writer and investigator today, she has admitted that she only referred it to the policy ops people, NOT the legal department. However, after ringing her round in circles for about 20 minutes her brain finally melted and she gave up, with the usual I-can't-even-understand-your-logic-as-my-brain-is-bleeding response of "I don't think we're going to agree here and we seem to keep coming back to the same point". (and then she got taken away.... ) .......allegedly [smirk] "Back to the same point" huh??? OH YES, DAMN RIGHT WE ARE LADY!!!... The simple logical "same point" that you can't get through your brain in that contractual Law formed the basis of the agreement between the two parties...nothing else!! The DPA and CCA are then used to regulate that agreement.... it ain't the other way around. Duh! But, as I said - typical lower-end-of-foodchain CS...there, there, never mind. [oooh....bi*ching.... watch those pinkie hackles rise!!! ] So, I have now requested a formal complaint procedure pack to instigate a complaint about the way the matter was handled especially in light of her not referring the matter to someone legally qualified who understands contract Law, let alone the Law of Tort now that a contract has been breached... you might now get a hint at where I'm coming from for some 'new angles' ;-) So, no move forward with the I.C.O. who have simply shown: a) they don't understand contract Law, let alone apply it in respect of the DPA and how permissions were obtained b) they have managed to uphold the very argument that Experian have conceded in their letter to me c) how they have not come up with a single point of reference for "six years" other than refer to the very "industry standard" timeframe that we are claiming isn't legally constitued in the first place - other than a committee meeting in 1971 ... some 35 years ago???? and waaaaaaaaaay before any data protection laws were even a twinke in their Daddy's eye. d) they won't listen to the public and simply give up the conversation when they get tied up in logic, and then pass the buck up the food-chain - which is what they should have done in the first place if they didn't understand the complaint. e) they haven't got the intelligence to do their job - they should be sent on courses to understand the legal ramifications of how the DPA interfaces with other Laws, etc. f) what is the 'real' relationship between the I.C.O. and those they Police here... Hmmmmm, back to grassy-knolls and 170 degree rotating bullets, methinks. and f) they are totally responsible for the price of cheese, the Middle-East crisis, and the weather.... okay I'm joking on that one! However, she has STILL not come up with ANY legal statute other than her interpretation that "reasonable time" = "six years", and that's assuming that "reasonable time" can be arbitrarily tacked onto the back of a contract anyway, after it's finished, without you agreeing to such a change in that contract... which is what the supplier is, effectively, doing. strewth!!!!! Trying to work with the I.C.O. = And the best bit of all, is that when these template letters are sent to the actual banks, etc., they remove the default "as a gesture of goodwill"....yeah right.!!! Anyway, back to alter battle plans - patience is a virtue.

picky, picky, picky... you're so damn inconsistent in your scoring...what ahve ai got to do to get at least a 4 dammit... Well, at least I had something to do whilst I was in dentention...the keyboard and PaintShop beckoned, so it was File/Open/SurlyBondsAvatar.gif.... and off we go....waaahhhaaaayyyyyy:p But, I can sense some of the pinkies and greenies going more fluffy and eye-twirly with each passing second... in sheer disgust at my blatant disrespect towards a classic children's show... So, anyway no more "Luke, Use the Force", ... more "Look, Use the Pink Power"

Hey... yep... and brought back from the dark side too ... am a good Jedi now...!

A Data Protection license is what all Data Controllers have to apply for from the I.C.O. - i.e. you have to be registered with the I.C.O.to hold data, and list what categories of data you are intending to store and process. If you don't have one, then you are breaking section 17 (Part 3) of the Act. All CRAs have to hold one, AND be licensed under the CCA. The DP Act is the piece of legislation that empowers the I.C.O. to ensure that all Data Controllers have one, and to make sure that they comply with all aspects of the Act for the collation, storage and processing of all your data - and remember that the Act says that YOU own it. BTW, the word 'processing' includes and 'disclosing' of data.

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.

"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----->

THERE!! you see what happens when you get to discuss the matter sensibly with the organ grinder... and the not the (cage-rattling) monkeys???... ...Peace, harmony, and everyone back on an even keel, setting sail to battle once more with the common enemy. Now, off to check my profile works and then we can get back to business... Hmmmm... profile edit tools still bu**ered... avatar, sig, etc.... any ideas ?

ROFLMAO...

Dave, I think you know me well enough that neither would I place myslef in a position of potential financial ruin, nor would I do it for the site. We are, I believe, all taking things further into the realms of Westminster to get more political coverages of our respective battles. I am not of a mind to jeaopardise the credibility of the test case, I'm working on, by damaging my own case. Yes, I've got attitude, and I fully admit that I'm a sarcastic SOB, don't take prisoners, and I don't do political correctness and hate inequality with a near-deathwish mentality...but ATEOTD I am here to help on the bits that I know about... hence why I don't creep into other forums and talk bo**ocks. P.S. I note that Keith Waterhouse has, again, used 'Muppet' in his column...

Hey, I did say that I would pop back for my mail every now and then... I like to keep in touch with the sensible people. (OhMyGawd... can I say that... ah yes, that's right, becuase I didn't name any particular Muppet in person) Providing, of course, that the consternation about me helping out by phone has subsided... Now, let's see if, in the interests of concilliation, this ever gets through the Mods...

I'm not posting anything back until I have the member functionality back on my account, including ability to update: 1) my signature 2) my avatar 3) my email address 4) PMs If I can't assist people fully via PMs and posts, then is it actually worth it. At the moment, any attempt to manage my own account comes up with: You have been banned for the following reason: None Date the ban will be lifted: Never So, no "following reason" - that's nice and clear then, and to the second part, Judge Jefferies was a pussycat. Again, no email or PM from the person who actually effected this...

I'm not quite sure WHAT is actually going on now... my PM facility seems to be back (although the limit is only 5 mails), however, I can't alter my signature, avatar or email address, or any profile information, which seems a bit daft if I change email address or need to update my signature with any latest success stories. Either I'm banned or I'm not ...and all message to the Admin seem to be ignored/not read. Or is it the Mods doing this? I don't know what config rights they have in their user manual. I would simply like SOMEONE to clarify if I am a member on this site or not. As to the rest of your specific post.. we'll just have to agree to disagree... I don't agree that I've been 'naughty' at all.

You need to read the Sticky thread above to see what is classed as auto decision processing

Erm no, I am not blaming this removal on anyone... I am injecting a little humour (and complete sarcasm) to make the point about what I consider was unnecessary editing on other posts. And I think some people need to REALLY get a sense of humour - if they can't take my posts in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which they are posted, then they REALLY do need to get a reality check in their diaires, like NOW! No telling-off presumed, but no, I don't accept the comment that I am acting illegally or unlawfully which is what the banks.CRAs ar doing in my book. I find it all very funny actually, especially the attitudes of some people once they get a few stripes on their sleeves. As they say, "power corrupts".

Aha!... Seem to have sourced the problem... Any attempt to send a private mail gives the following error message: SurlyBonds, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons: Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system? If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation. You know, when you've been Tango'd Now off to try and repair signature file...

Whole profile's falling apart...yikes! I feel like the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz here... "Heeeeeeeellllppppp meeeeeeee, I'mmmmmmm melllllllllting" Maybe, I'll cancel and set up a new logon... Now that I'm considered (by some) as a bad puppy, I could always come back as 'Darth Surly'

Yikes, now my signature's gone weird!! I think someone may be hacking around here... must be the CRAs, or the banks' IT gurus, trying to mess up my profile and login?

Dunno...just went zapppp!, There was a bright flash, a bang, a fizzing sound combined with the smell of burning... and then just asteroid-sized lumps and post debris floating in space... It did seem to (uncannily) coincide with barracad's latest assault on my postings... so maybe an ICBM from his/her arsenal went slightly astray...