Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces The Ombudsman provides independent and impartial oversight of the Service Complaints system for members of the UK Armed Forces READ MORE HERE: Welcome to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces | Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces WWW.SCOAF.ORG.UK

The following attachment contains guidelines on filing defaults with credit reference agencies. It was published in 2007. guidance_on_defaults.pdf These guidelines have now been superseded by a new set which apparently have been drafted by the credit reference agencies themselves but with approval and apparently "close involvement" of the information Commissioner. high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf You can spot the difference because the original 2007 version is on information Commissioner headed notepaper and the information Commissioner claims responsibility for it. The more recent 2014 revised version contains merely a "foreword" by the Information Commissioner. Of particular interest is the clear difference in approach to disputed accounts. The 2007 guidance gives very clear directions as the steps to be followed when deciding whether or not to refer a disputed account to the credit reference agency file. The 2014 guidance appears to be completely silent on this matter. Although this important issue has clearly been deliberately excluded from the more recent guidance, you should remember that first of all – this is only guidance. Secondly, the original 2007 guidelines make it clear that the entering of a disputed account on to a credit reference agency file risks breaching the legal requirement of – accuracy. Although the subject of disputed files has been omitted from recent guidance, "accuracy" is still a lawful requirement for all entries placed onto credit files. This means that the steps which the 2007 document advises should be taken, are still relevant and we feel that where there is an account which is subject of a valid dispute – as per the 2007 guidance, that this should not be referred to the CRA's. We appreciate that this places some organisations in great difficulty because it must take a great deal of time and judgement to make the right decisions. However, we are also fully aware that many organisations are really quite cavalier about the status of disputed accounts and will even use the credit reference agency as a stick to beat troublesome customers with. If you feel that you have a marker which has been unlawfully placed on your credit file because you have a valid dispute – such as a mobile phone provider failing to carry out their side of the bargain, then you should read the two guidance documents above – and keep the 2007 version very much in mind. Just because the 2007 version has been revised, it does not mean that it has no validity.

Rather late in the day I've just noticed this document http://www.scoronline.co.uk/sites/default/files/high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf which purports to set high-level principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies. You would think that this kind of document would be put together by the Information Commissioner after great thought and deliberation in his role as the guardian of the human right of privacy under article 8 of the Convention. Not so. This document was put together by the credit industry and then merely approved by the Information Commissioner who has been persuaded to write a foreword to the document in which he merely says that he will continue to express a "keen interest" in how personal data is processed by the credit industry. More amazing is the fact that this document which is drawn up by the credit industry – the very people that the Information Commissioner is meant to survey and to police, is intended to replace or supplement the Information Commissioner's own set of rules/guidance which he published several years earlier in 2007 -Data Protection Technical Guidance: Filing defaults with credit reference agencies I'm sure that some enthusiastic people will find interesting to make comparisons between the two documents. I will be interested to see what posts appear on this thread. However, one thing that jumps out at me is that in the 2007 document it says unequivocally that disputed accounts should not be the subject of credit file entries. In the 2014 document, it doesn't mention this but merely skirts around it by talking about accuracy. Also, in the 2014 document, I noticed that there is a requirement that 28 days notice be given before a default is entered. I'm not sure how this squares with the FAQ on the Information Commissioner's own website which says very clearly that a default without notice is generally not a problem. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/credit/ Is this delegation or abrogation by the Information Commissioner? high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf guidance_on_defaults.pdf

CCTV code of practice - revised http://ico.org.uk/about_us/consultations/our_consultations Responses to this consultation must be submitted by 1 July 2014.

I've had a leaflet and the voting cards, but still have no idea who is standing. How are we supposed to vote for anyone when we don't even know their name let alone any qualifications they might have to take on this highly paid job. http://uknationalforums.com/showthread.php?552-What-is-this-all-about