Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[jimfishybob]

The other option of course, as has already been suggested and, I think the only viable alternative, is to force lenders to seek redress throught the courts. This way, everything stays nice and legal, the debtor has the opportunity to defend him/herself and the banks cannot arbitrarily destroy peoples lives on their own say so.

 

This also addresses my main issue with the default system. The industry has obviously been out one night and agreed with themselves that a default has equal stature to a CCJ. Therefore, it purposefully circumvents the legal process and avoids all that nasty, "well, he/she might have a valid defence' nonsense.

 

If you remove defaults from the system it would work equally well, (statistically, or otherwise), as it does now, but it would likely cost lending institutions more money.

 

The question has to be asked, if the lenders have a legitimate case, then why not just procede straight to court? What is it about defaults that suits them so over a Court Judgement?

[compsoz]

The fact that they don't have to provide any proof ?

[dayglo]

it's more to do with the fact that it's the cheapest and easiest wasy to begin the process of debt collection.

[pugsley]

I think it's great you are taking them on, and others will follow you whether you win or fail, being a trailblazer isn't always a comfortable position but you make it easier for other's that follow.

 

thanks xx

[dayglo]

I think it's great you are taking them on, and others will follow you whether you win or fail, being a trailblazer isn't always a comfortable position but you make it easier for other's that follow.

 

thanks xx

 

Thank you very much. I've got a small tear in my eye now

[Number6]

Why is your eye torn??

 

Shouldn't you get over to casualty??

 

Pete

[dayglo]

sorry - can't type properly, blood everywhere.

[jimfishybob]

Pmsl

[Neo]

I know! Vodafone argue that the Information Commissioners Office set guidance for companies, Vodafone follow that guidance. The Information Commissioners Office are now saying that it doesn't really matter what it says in the contract as consent isn't even required!

 

anyway - I filed my N1 forms on Friday, 1 for NatWest and 1 for Vodafone and I'm £300 lighter. I'm starting to think that's £300 I won't see again....

 

Is there any chance you could let us (or me) see your particulars of claim, im totally stuck on what to write...!

[dayglo]

ok hang on.... I'll try to post a copy of the form

[dayglo]

"The Claimant signed a civil contract with the defendant on dd/mm/ccyy in which it was agreed that the disclosure of personal data in relation to the contract would extend only to such times as the conclusion of the contract.

At no time did the Claimant grant permission, either expressly or implied, for the defendant to abritrarily extend that permission to store, process or disclose any personal data beyond the cessation date of the contract.

It is the Claimant's contention that the defendant's perceived right to abritrarily choose to extend the length of that contract without the Claimant's knowledge or agreement would be unlawful and unenforceable under the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

The defendant has failed to provide the Claimant with any evidence to prove agreement to such terms in perpetuity, and it is therefore the Claimant's contention that the defendant is in breach of both the contract itself and the Data Protection Act 1998, by the defendant's continued disclosure of personal data."

 

© SurlyBonds !!!

[dayglo]

This is a copy of an e-mail I have just sent to the Information Commissioners Office regarding my complaint.

 

Dear xxx,

Please find below my complaint regarding the way you have handled my original complaint and the conclusions that you have reached. I don't really see the need to attempt fill in your complaint form in MS word document that is poorly put together and not designed for online data entry.

I have inserted comments into your e-mail in red. If these do not show in red on your computer please let me know and I will resend in a different format.

Regards,

Dayglo

 

PLEASE SEE MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN RED

 

14th September 2006

 

 

Reference: RFA0132535

 

 

Dear Dayglo

 

I refer to your emails of 7th September 2006 and 8th September 2006 concerning the retention of account information by the credit reference agencies.

 

You complained that the credit reference agencies are retaining and sharing information about closed accounts in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act). You maintained that they only have permission to hold account information for the duration of a credit agreement and that once the agreement ends so does the consent to process information about it.

 

Your argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.

 

As you may be aware the first data protection principle states that

 

"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless:

at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met; and

in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met."

 

 

One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is our view that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent. No one condition carries greater weight than any other. All the conditions provide an equally valid basis for processing. Merely because consent is the first condition to appear in both Schedules 2 and 3 does not mean that organisations should consider it first.

 

Consent is not defined in the Act and so it is helpful to look back at Directive 95/46/EC which defines "the data subject's consent" as:

 

".any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed."

 

 

In the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is because if you don't agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice.

 

It is our view that the condition for processing below (Schedule 2 part 6) covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

 

"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 because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

 

We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions You believe the rights of ‘other lenders’ supersede MY rights as a data subject? And this "wide view" that you take is not wide enough to consider my rights freedoms and legitimate interests?. It is important to note here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals.

You have only considered the first half of schedule 2 part 6. The second half (in bold above) I absolutely maintain that the processing in unwarranted in my particular case because it predudices my rights and freedoms or legitimate interests as a data subject. Section 6 in full says

"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.

(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 doubt very much that you have asked the secretary of state to order, in this particular circumstance whether this condition is, or is not, to be taken as satisfied. The spirit of the act here is clear, it is for the Secretary of state to determine whether Schedule 2 section 6 applies.

The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

The entire paragraph above is irrelevant. There may well have been ‘discussions’ and ‘recommendations’ regarding time limits to be included in the act, not one of these recommendations made their way into the Data Protection Act. For you to suggest that this has any bearing on my complaint is, in my opinion, weak and shameful. Please investigate my complaint relative to the act as it stands not an act that you presume ‘may’ have been made.

The fifth data protection principle states that "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

 

The key word here is THAT purpose. I.e. That purpose specified in any contract that was in force at the time. The contract has ended, therefore THAT purpose is no longer valid.

Account information is held by the credit reference agencies for a period of six years after the account was last active. It does appear to be the case, at least at the present time, that in addition to current credit commitments the preceding six years of an individual's credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed. As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

This is a weak paragraph that I suspect belies your lack of confidence in its accuracy. "Appears to be the case" and "at least at the current time" are an insulting gesture from a supposedly respectful office such as yours.

I suspect that you have not obtained legal advice regarding my complaint as you admitted on the telephone that the complaint had not been investigated by anyone from your legal department. You also admitted on the telephone that you do not understand contract law and it’s bearing on my complaint. I am amazed therefore that you failed to pass my complaint through your legal department.

I trust that this has clarified our position.

Yours sincerely

Casework and Advice Manager

 

 

I am truly shocked, upset, hurt and angry by the way my complaint has been handled by your office. You suggested on the telephone that any ‘appeal’ would be unlikely to be successful as it would be heard by your boss who was involved in the original investigation. This is outrageous. What sort of appeals procedure is this?

You also suggested that it was good that I am taking legal action against Vodafone and NatWest individually. NO it is NOT good. I am forced to take this action as a single member of the public as I have been let down by your office that is supposed to regulate the application of the Data Protection Act. If I am successful, you suggested that this would be a good thing for everyone else as I will have obtained a legal judgment. WRONG! You are hiding behind me, waiting to see if I am successful or not. You are, in my opinion, a weak organisation that is ridiculed within the credit referencing industry as toothless, under resourced and unable to adequately control the CRAs. Shame on you. The UK public deserve better than this.

You also maintain a rather pathetic line that the Information Commissioners Office has "very little influence on decisions made within the credit industry" This demonstrates an appalling lack of insight into the behavior of lenders and CRAs who, in every single one of my letters and phonecalls have stated "we behave like this because the Information Commissioners Office say that we can"

This is merely that start of action against the unlawful behavior of the CRAs and other lenders. Once I am successful in proving this, I will hold your letter up for the world to see what an ineffective regulator you really are.

For you to support the practice of holding defamatory non-public data for a period of six years after the contract that allowed the processing to begin really does sadden me and my family.

Shame on you.

Dayglo

 

[pford]

Go for it and well said. Can’t wait to see their reply to that

[Tinkerbelle]

Flamin 'eck Dayglo !!!! That's it you tell em!

 

They certainly can't be under any illusions now. Excellent Stuff, I like it!!

[dayglo]

it won't make any difference, just makes me feel a fraction better thats all.

[aardvark the lecturer]

Now that would read SO NICELY as the front page of a daily national. I can see the headlines now.....

 

• Information Commissioners Office savaged by angry man
  
• Dayglo shows his ars* to the ICO and is greeted as a hero

 

any other sugestions anyone?

[dayglo]

I just hope Tinkerbelle doesn't spot all the typos!

[aardvark the lecturer]

Now you've done it, she'll go looking for them now.

 

Hey Tinkerbelle, can you go through dayglo's post and highlight all the typos, then lock-it so dayglo can't remove them?

[Tinkerbelle]

Lol

[dayglo]

Just had a chat with our consumer compliance exec at experian.

He informed me that he has contacted all the suppliers I listed as closed or settled accounts. To date he has had one reply, from Natwest, stating “no – the default is accurate it must stay on the file”. After a long winded discussion, it appears that Experian have contracts in place with suppliers that state Experian cannot remove data from a credit file without express agreement from the supplier. So they are in a predicament, they either remove the data as I have demanded and breach their contract with their suppliers and risk going to court against Natwest or they keep the data on the file, keep their customer Natwest Happy and risk being taken to court by little ‘ol me. Guess which option they prefer?

I have also noticed that a ‘notice of correction’ has appeared on all the disputed defaults stating

"THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED."

He also suggested that Vodafone, still awaiting a response for my account, are responding with an even harsher position regarding removal of defaults for other peoples’ claims.

Apparently there is a letter on its way to me regarding the above.

I almost felt sorry for him today – he sounded completely dejected and fed up. But the feeling soon passed!

I explained that unless the out of date and inaccurate data was removed very quickly, I would have to take experian to court. He understood and said he would write back to the data suppliers…

I won’t hold my breath.

[Tobes]

Was it Mr. H?

 

I'm still awaiting a response to my most recent letter to them and especially since I left a rather heated message on his voicemail after he wrote me a very snotty letter.

[dayglo]

yes it was mr h

[Tinkerbelle]

Good Grief!! I'm thinking that the Companies (i.e. Vodafone etc) are trying to take a hard line thinking that we are going to give up and back down. Well they are all in for a surprise aren't they? :o

 

I cannot for the life of me understand why they are so hell bent on not complying with the Data Protection Act...it is there for a reason is it not?

 

And if they are that bothered about not having someone as a customer that they have to practically "libel" them in public for 6 years, why don't they just "ban" a person "in house" as opposed to risking a pretty serious lawsuit?

 

When will they ever learn

[un1boy]

Indeed - but, the problem is they all think they above the law and they don't like us standing up to them, do they?

[Tobes]

I've sent a new, strongly worded request for information to the ICO, based on a thread that might be extremely helpful in which it is stated that the ICO told Parliament that consent is required (though not specifically in our circumstances) which obviously contradicts their most recent stance.