Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[aardvark the lecturer]

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

 

Can you post a link to that thread here please?

 

 

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?

 

For the CRA's I think it's because they're whole business model and value is based on being able to hold and process the whole shebang of data about us.

For the individual suppliers an admittance/proof that this practise is unlawfull could surely open the doors for some serious damages and compensation claims where we can prove that it has had an impact on the cost of our subsequent credit, and the denial of certain services has had a significant impact on the quality of life of the individual.

 

Hmmm,

I see lawsuits on the horizon........

 

New headline suggestion - Can open.....worms everywhere

 

Cheers.

[dayglo]

lets get this 'consent' issue nailed once and for all.

 

The DPA lists 'consent' as one of six items in the act, only one of the items must be in place for processing to be acceptable.

 

one of these is "legitimate use" - under the DPA, consent is NOT required from the subject if a "legitimate use" can be shown.

 

However, the CCA is much clearer, for any data to be shared under the CCA then consent from the individual IS required. That is why Vodafone now claim that their products are not regulated products as defined in the CCA.

 

The CRAs trot out the same line.

[Tobes]

Doesn't the Act state that you can withdraww your permission if you consider it to be unwarranted or it causes you undue distress? I think that you could argue that because it is not a Court judgment, like a CCJ, that it is arbitrary, applied as punishment without the ability to appeal, yet it has the same affect and length, it is unwarranted, and causes undue distress i.e. credit is a function of modern life, first-time mortgages, personal businesses etc are affected directly...Also what's the point of having defaults recorded since CCJs are recorded? Surely if they the creditors are in the right they should go to Court to get the problem sorted...

[dayglo]

I received notification back from my local court that the N1 forms against Vodafone and Natwest have been issued and deemed served as of today.

 

tick tock tick tock....

[dayglo]

Doesn't the Act state that you can withdraww your permission if you consider it to be unwarranted or it causes you undue distress? I think that you could argue that because it is not a Court judgment, like a CCJ, that it is arbitrary, applied as punishment without the ability to appeal, yet it has the same affect and length, it is unwarranted, and causes undue distress i.e. credit is a function of modern life, first-time mortgages, personal businesses etc are affected directly...Also what's the point of having defaults recorded since CCJs are recorded? Surely if they the creditors are in the right they should go to Court to get the problem sorted...

 

I quite agree. The problem is that Vodafone, Natwest, Experian, Equifax and Mycallcredit all disagree and are refusing to do anything until I can convice a judge to 'order' them to. at £150 a pop it's also quite expensive. They have all said that they intend to quote the ICO in their defence as supporting the current practices. I love a challenge but bloody hell!!!

[Tobes]

lol good luck

[Tobes]

The ICO has no legal power, i.e. they suck, soit's down to the judge

[pford]

Can you post a link to that thread here please?

 

Cheers.

 

Think this is what you are after found it today after a bit of browsing

thread is here

 

 

 

Norman Lamb:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a good point. There is a big problem with the transfer of credit. Sometimes it can work in the consumer's interest, if they can get a genuinely lower rate of interest and use the system. However, there are real dangers involved. I am not suggesting that the new clause will be a panacea to resolve all the problems of irresponsible lending in the credit industry.

 

Further to the hon. Gentleman's point, the Treasury Committee noted that people often transfer their credit card balance having received a commitment of a nil rate of interest for perhaps a year. However, they are often not told that new purchases on the card will be charged at the full rate of interest, or that when they pay off some of the balance, it will be taken off the balance transfer, not the new purchases. They therefore find that they are paying interest when they did not expect to. So there are many problems, and they all come down to the practice of responsible lending. We still have a way to go to get the industry fully to understand the importance of that concept.

 

I am seeking to address one specific historic problem, which is that, in the view of the industry and the Information Commissioner, there cannot be a full sharing of data. The commissioner has advised the industry that it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to share data without consent. Incidentally, the problem has got much worse because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, there has been a revolution involving people shopping around. In the old days, all our needs were met by one institution—a bank or whatever. Now, people shop around for the best value product, so the need to address the problem of data sharing has grown considerably.

 

The Information Commissioner has said that, under the old agreements in which there is no provision for data sharing, a lender would need the customer's consent to share such information. The only solution available at the moment, therefore, is for the lender to go to the customer and ask for their consent. Members will appreciate, having sent out political mailings to people, that the response rate to such requests would be tiny. The industry reckons that it would be less than 1 per cent. We cannot resolve the problem simply by seeking consent under the existing rules. New clause 1 seeks to address that.

 

Mark Lazarowicz (MP for Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op):

 

I have sympathy with the objectives of the new clause and with the need to promote greater data sharing on an historical basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that we need to be careful about forcing consent, as it were, on members of the public? The Data Protection Act is there for a reason, after all. The new clause would give fairly wide powers to credit reference agencies and other organisations to extract consent from individuals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think about the implications of what could be quite a serious breach of data protection principles.

 

 

full debate on this here

 

or here

[pford]

and another bit of info

 

 

DATA PROTECTION IN PRACTICE IN THE UK

With the full knowledge of the applicant50] lenders search the databases at credit reference agencies.

 

A standard notification and consent wording is now being widely used by banks, credit card issuers and similar organisations. Other clauses advise data subjects, whether records of applications and information on the performance of credit accounts are lodged with credit reference agencies and made available for the purpose of the prevention of over-commitment and fraud. This "closed user group" of banks and other credit reference agency clients access the data electronically (for the most part) for use in automated decision systems in which credit scoring is an integral part. This data is supplied and accessed on a fully reciprocal basis, ie only those organisations that share may access the information.

 

 

Lenders have been joining up their portfolios (currently) at the rate of 20-30 each month for a number of years. Only those consumer records on which consent to share the data is held are ever supplied and, as a result, many lenders are only able to share a proportion of their portfolios. This is a particular issue for revolving accounts such as credit cards and current accounts as they have a long life. It is anticipated that c45m accounts that were opened before lenders decided to join the sharing scheme (and added the appropriate clauses to their application forms) are not currently able to be shared. So for example, a lender with accounts dating back to the 1960s will only be able to share those opened after they changed their forms in 1994.

 

For the most part, the available data is sufficient to form a reliable picture of the likely future behaviour of an individual such that a lender can calculate the probability of the account going bad. However, in order to calculate absolute values to identify overindebted people—such as total levels of debt—the industry is keen for all data to be available.

[Tobes]

"The Information Commissioner has said that, under the old agreements in which there is no provision for data sharing, a lender would need the customer's consent to share such information."

This is what interests me (oooh I've gone all red!!) No provisions - nothing in the contract - and CONSENT

So it's dependant on the contract and consent is required, yet that completely contradicts what they've just said - god they are making me maaaad!

[aardvark the lecturer]

Dayglo, I think your submission of evidence will be even bigger than jonni2bads!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank/3962-jonni2bad-halifax-off-court.html

 

Ho hum, if you need a hand with all that photocopying and printing let me know, lol

[aardvark the lecturer]

I knew I'd seen reference to this somewhere...

 

For the CRA's I think it's because they're whole business model and value is based on being able to hold and process the whole shebang of data about us.

For the individual suppliers an admittance/proof that this practise is unlawfull could surely open the doors for some serious damages and compensation claims where we can prove that it has had an impact on the cost of our subsequent credit, and the denial of certain services has had a significant impact on the quality of life of the individual.

 

Hmmm,

I see lawsuits on the horizon........

 

New headline suggestion - Can open.....worms everywhere

 

This is the post I was thinking of...

 

If you can show that you have been unfairly defaulted, then it stands to reason that your credit worthiness would have been impacted and, each time your files are searched, creditors would obviously assume that you were a bad risk. This, in effect, is a slur on your good name or, more to the point, a Defamation of Character.

 

BIG BIG issue. So big, in fact, that it would put our money claims in the shade by a considerable margin.

 

That would get them nervous

[aardvark the lecturer]

see this thread also,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/32772-very-ed-off-now.html

(Thanks pford)

 

It appears the DTI wants a piece of the action too now....

[david.m]

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 guess thats the reason (surly was it)that sent a copy to both

the CRA and the bank got it removed PDQ as someone in the bank clicked at how that information might be rather bad for them if it became public LOL, and so let the CRA bend over and agree to remove it nice and clean perhaps.

 

i wonder if the likes of NTL:tw also have a contract covering such actions to as that would be very useful as a hammer to make them clean up their accounting act of overcharging etc.

 

 

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.

 

 

as regards Vodafone ,if their contract is even harder than the banks then the CRA is really in a mess as i cant see Vodafone careing as the banks would about repercussions?.

 

then theres the CRA is the controller bit that seems true even though they deny it...

 

the plot keeps getting wilder, but is it being made so in an effort to make us take our eye off the ball?.

[david.m]

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?

it seems to me that some of it could be down to people being so called jobswerth (as in, its more than me jobs werth to cross the line manager higher ups etc), then theres the person that really beleaves with all their heart that they are right (aka george bush/tony blair), in what they do no matter what the outcome for others, but most of all its simple we must make more cash whatever the cost to the users as long is im alright jack golden handshake, theres also the fact they put these excuses up as its far cheaper for them than any other way, or they woul dhave put these cheaper alternatives in place already.

 

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

 

i have a nagging feeling that some of the larger orgs such as NTL:tw already do or will at least put something in place given time and a profit reason to do so, but that would be a top secret busness secret that noone inside would dare divulge under threat of loosing knighthoods, golden handshakes etc, ohh and the incedental fact that there will be a british LAW somewere that says they cant do that under freat of something very big, not that they think it applys to them as their main offices are registered in the US of A or some other country that takes masses of profit and inovation from the UK people i imagine...

[david.m]

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

 

interesting, would you have a link to a transcript or perhaps a select commitee video somewere theyworkforus perhaps.

[david.m]

Doesn't the Act state that you can withdraww your permission if you consider it to be unwarranted or it causes you undue distress? I think that you could argue that because it is not a Court judgment, like a CCJ, that it is arbitrary, applied as punishment without the ability to appeal, yet it has the same affect and length, it is unwarranted, and causes undue distress i.e. credit is a function of modern life, first-time mortgages, personal businesses etc are affected directly...Also what's the point of having defaults recorded since CCJs are recorded? Surely if they the creditors are in the right they should go to Court to get the problem sorted...

 

you make some very good points and one thought crossed my mind, i wonder what the judges are or would think on a personal level about these people (after all a company is nothing than an entry on a legal document) making themselves arbitors of justice (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition... monty python,In the early years of the 16th century, to combat the rising tide of religious unorthodoxy, the Pope gave Cardinal Ximinez of Spain leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of violence, terror and torture that makes a smashing film. This was the Spanish Inquisition... ) above the learned justice.

 

even if a claim only ever gets to N1 before its stopped , i wonder if the justices would see these comments/hints that they are being rediculed by companys and take their own actions in our favour and we show our backing for the courts and our wish that if any money gets payed out we would rather see the courts cash in rather than the CRA/data controllers, banks etc....

 

 

 

The Spanish Inquisition - Monty Python

[david.m]

Think this is what you are after found it today after a bit of browsing

thread is here

 

 

Norman Lamb:

 

"There is a big problem with the transfer of credit. Sometimes it can work in the consumer's interest"

 

this Norman really worrys me, it appears his got connections in the CRA or at the least an interest in them, he implys it shouldnt be in the consumers interest were information is king.

 

"I am seeking to address one specific historic problem, which is that, in the view of the industry and the Information Commissioner, there cannot be a full sharing of data. The commissioner has advised the industry that it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to share data without consent. Incidentally, the problem has got much worse because, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, there has been a revolution involving people shopping around. In the old days, all our needs were met by one institution—a bank or whatever. Now, people shop around for the best value product, so the need to address the problem of data sharing has grown considerably."

 

wow, that couldnt be more clear, we the people, this norman is supposed to serve, and protect our interests, wants to take away what little protection we have to enrich the high flying corporations and to hell with us.

 

"The Information Commissioner has said that, under the old agreements in which there is no provision for data sharing, a lender would need the customer's consent to share such information. The only solution available at the moment, therefore, is for the lender to go to the customer and ask for their consent. "

 

my god, hes not happy with a power the CRAs already think they have, he wants to make it official and totally remove the DPA part that is supposed to protect the ordinary person.

 

"Members will appreciate, having sent out political mailings to people, that the response rate to such requests would be tiny. The industry reckons that it would be less than 1 per cent. We cannot resolve the problem simply by seeking consent under the existing rules. New clause 1 seeks to address that."

 

again downplaying the fact they have already distroyed many peoples lives and playing the poor us card to make viewers/media ignore the truth of the matter through lack of understanding or other reasons.

 

ohh and like a political mailing as anywere near the same as a specially worded please personal data owner heres a pre payed form i want you to sign and in return, ill credit your account with X amount, or if you prefer drop it into the nearest bank as that proves we are not trying to con you as the banks dont do that sort of thing, ohh wait perhaps it is ......

 

full debate on this here

 

or here

 

its no wonder the GOV MPs and their related company contacts are so keen on pushing the ID cards and the related (what is it?) 50 plus sections for inspecifyed data entry, after all the CRA's etc have proven the concept that the great unwashed (water meter and no credit 8) dont care/understand the real underlined reason for ID cards in any shape or form when taken in context of the data protection act and all things related and learned on this site.....

 

it makes the 'if you have done nothing wrong , you have nothing to hide' brigade seem very silly and nieave after connecting the dots

 

we had better start telling every single person in the united kingdom to write their N1's for the CRAs and every one else before the real BIG ONE hits ID cards , if we fight the CRA/banks and all the rest will the GOV think twice about the ID cards and revisions to the DPA in their profit encumbered minds and bank accounts?...........

 

sorry for the ranting, but its finally hitting me how we are viewed , its not pritty..

[david.m]

and another bit of info

"DATA PROTECTION IN PRACTICE IN THE UK "

my personal data "their portfolios" dont think so, any profits of my name/data is my cash end of story.

 

the poor things "many lenders are only able to share a proportion of their portfolios" "So for example, a lender with accounts dating back to the 1960s will only be able to share those opened after they changed their forms in 1994"

 

dear god, the owners of their personal data get a whole 6 years of data to request, we need to stop this ASAP, as their not werthy and not in our profit mongers club, how dare they want all data we keep on them quiet.

 

"form a reliable picture of the likely future behaviour of an individual such that a lender can calculate the probability of the account going bad" you see chaps, we need to be able to weed out the clever ones that might click on to the fact we are making things up as we go along so as to take even more cash, wonder if we can find a way to include the kids pocket money as well after all we now indirectly hold data on the mobil owning kids spending and we now need even more rules to take even a pennys those ungreatful people have stored in their wisky jars

just not makeing our profits larger sat there is it..

[ppauls150]

Someone has finally had success. Look Here

Click Link Here

[Tinkerbelle]

Only a matter of time now Dayglo!

[dayglo]

I am so apprehensive now!!!!

signs look good though don't they!

[Tinkerbelle]

They certainly do

 

I'm soooooooooooo excited!!

[dayglo]

I promise you'll be the first to know Tinks (smile)

[Number6]

My thoughts go with you Mr Dayglo!

 

Pete