un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

[un1boy]

Here is what I am going to reply:

____________

Thanks for your email. I have read an noted you comments however there are some things you mention which need to be addressed.

 

Firstly you stated that "settled accounts would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions you have complied with." The issue here is that for all entries mentioned, the providers have failed to provide roof of my consent; as I am sure you are no doubt aware, Experian is a Data Controller within its own right and has a legal obligation to make sure the information it holds is accurate and obtained lawfully. You have obviously ignored my concerned and failed to investigate fully, otherwise you would be aware of this. You will note that it is not sufficient for Experian to simply say that they cannot amend my data without the consent of the companies concerned.

 

You mention removing the data only by order of a court. I would prefer Experian to act within the law and comply with the regulations they are bound by without seeking court action. Don’t get me wrong, if you do not reply positively to this email I will issue a Statutory Notice to you in which you will have 21 days to reply. The Notice compels you to obtain evidence that the information you hold has been obtained lawfully, amongst other responsibilities it will ask of you. If you fail to comply with that notice I will have no option but to issue legal proceedings with regard to this matter.

 

You mention again that you are writing to the companies concerned and I appreciate your efforts in this regard. You will note, as mentioned above that Experian has a legal obligation to ensure all information it holds is obtained lawfully. Therefore, in anticipation of your reply that the companies state the information is correct and you cannot remove or amend it, I require you to provide evidence as per your obligations as a Data Controller that you have ensured its accuracy and legality.

 

With regards to the issue of my consent and the Information Commissioner’s (ICO) recent guideline about default accounts, I would like to remind you that they are just that, guidelines. If this situation ends up in Court a Judge will be required to rule based on the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA); the recommendations of the ICO will not taken into account. You will note that a Judge must also rule taking the European Court of Human Right’s regulations into consideration.

In summary I will not accept a reply stating that my data cannot be removed purely based on the fact that the companies concerned have not given you permission to do so. If your reply goes along the lines of this, without providing evidence that you have adhered to your legal obligations as a Data Controller, I will issue you with a Statutory Notice which will compel you to provide the evidence. If you do not comply with my Statutory Notice I will issue legal proceedings.

I trust my position on this is clear enough.

Thank you for your time.

________

All feedback greatfully received!

[Tinkerbelle]

Remind me again, why you are bothering the CRA's please?

[un1boy]

It's principle more than anyhting....but, I guess you think I shouldn't go for them?

 

I want them to realise their responsibilites as Data Controllers

[Tinkerbelle]

LOL.. Good Luck

[un1boy]

Do you not thiunk I should take them on?

[mila]

Go on uniboy....... its about time someone had a go with the cras'.

 

I recently sent a cheque for £4 for cr for myself and my wife. My wife got her cr straightaway, however for mine they requested further evidence to verify my details etc. They initially asked for 2 further documents bearing my name and address, I duely obliged. A week later they asked for another form of document. So I rang them and complained that they had no right to withold my report and gave them a lot of crap about DPA etc. They said they will come back to me....still waiting

[un1boy]

Thanks for your support Mila- I had similar problems with getting my cr - i suggest just sending them the info they require.....they are, legally entiltiled to ask for more id....which is what they may say to you....sding the id they want will just men you'll get it back quicker, that's all!!

[un1boy]

Here is what I am going to reply:

____________

Thanks for your email. I have read an noted you comments however there are some things you mention which need to be addressed.

 

Firstly you stated that "settled accounts would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions you have complied with." The issue here is that for all entries mentioned, the providers have failed to provide roof of my consent; as I am sure you are no doubt aware, Experian is a Data Controller within its own right and has a legal obligation to make sure the information it holds is accurate and obtained lawfully. You have obviously ignored my concerned and failed to investigate fully, otherwise you would be aware of this. You will note that it is not sufficient for Experian to simply say that they cannot amend my data without the consent of the companies concerned.

 

 

You mention removing the data only by order of a court. I would prefer Experian to act within the law and comply with the regulations they are bound by without seeking court action. Don’t get me wrong, if you do not reply positively to this email I will issue a Statutory Notice to you in which you will have 21 days to reply. The Notice compels you to obtain evidence that the information you hold has been obtained lawfully, amongst other responsibilities it will ask of you. If you fail to comply with that notice I will have no option but to issue legal proceedings with regard to this matter.

 

 

You mention again that you are writing to the companies concerned and I appreciate your efforts in this regard. You will note, as mentioned above that Experian has a legal obligation to ensure all information it holds is obtained lawfully. Therefore, in anticipation of your reply that the companies state the information is correct and you cannot remove or amend it, I require you to provide evidence as per your obligations as a Data Controller that you have ensured its accuracy and legality.

 

With regards to the issue of my consent and the Information Commissioner’s (ICO) recent guideline about default accounts, I would like to remind you that they are just that, guidelines. If this situation ends up in Court a Judge will be required to rule based on the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA); the recommendations of the ICO will not taken into account. You will note that a Judge must also rule taking the European Court of Human Right’s regulations into consideration.

 

In summary I will not accept a reply stating that my data cannot be removed purely based on the fact that the companies concerned have not given you permission to do so. If your reply goes along the lines of this, without providing evidence that you have adhered to your legal obligations as a Data Controller, I will issue you with a Statutory Notice which will compel you to provide the evidence. If you do not comply with my Statutory Notice I will issue legal proceedings.

 

I trust my position on this is clear enough.

 

Thank you for your time.

________

 

All feedback greatfully received!

 

OK guys- sent this email today!

[Tinkerbelle]

Looking forward to the reply

[un1boy]

Aw thanks Tink!!

 

Here, I like the changes to the forum layout - but, where are everyone's signatures?! :-/

[Tinkerbelle]

Aw thanks Tink!!

 

Here, I like the changes to the forum layout - but, where are everyone's signatures?! :-/

 

Great isn't it

Your signature will not show if you have posted more than once in a thread.

 

Except for Mods/Pinks

[un1boy]

Except for Mods/Pinks

 

Pinks???

[Tinkerbelle]

Sorry..

Green = Mods

Pinks = Site Helpers

[un1boy]

Hey, no probs - talking baout Pink....I went to see her at the M.E.N on sunday and she put on a right good show!!

[hondamad21]

Hi Un1boy,

 

Just wanted to say good luck.

Am watching your thread with bated breath. . .

 

Hondamad

[un1boy]

Hi Un1boy,

 

Just wanted to say good luck.

Am watching your thread with bated breath. . .

 

Hondamad

 

Hi Hondamad - thanks for your support....I'll keep you posted, every step of the way!!!

[ncf355]

Hiya Un1, any news?

[un1boy]

hi ncf, thanks for asking, but no not yet - I haven't issued the stat notice yet either - im just testing the water with T-Mobile and then trying it all out with Equifax - I need to estblish whether the CRA's are data controllers or processors here though, otherwise I'm setting myself up to fail!!

[Guest willowb]

Hi there:)

 

Check out the latest discussion in 'default hell'....sift through the silliness! lol

 

here's the post from Lookingforinfo which started it off......

Before we start on defaults, consider clause 6 from the point of view of a CRA. Already they hold data on anyone who is registered on any Council Roll.

Have we given them permission to do that? Also, in a bank/customer relationship, for instance, the CRA would be the 3rd party in clause 6

wouldn't you agree? "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". In the event of the bank account

being subsequently closed, the clause reads that the third party, if they

have legitimate interests, can also process data, without the need for

consent or a contract between the 3rd party and the data subject. The

collection and storage of data is the core business of CRAs, and there

appears to be no lawful hindrance on their operations when complying with

the Act. So we can conclude that processing data by CRAs even after the

cancellation of the original bank/customer agreement is not in itself a

breach of the Data Protection Act, by invoking clause 6 ?

 

Now we come on to defaults. Surlybonds does not seem to object to their

use when a person is in default, as he confirms in his "Victory" thread by saying that he would not try to have those ones removed. And as for the

six year term, I would imagine it falls in line with the Limitations Act for

debts and ccjs. Anything longer would surely breach the UTCCR.

 

Where a contract has expired, while the bank in our example can no longer

process our data, it is harder to make out a case for the CRA to likewise cease, especially as their clients look to them for information on which to base

their decisions. Especially as clause 6 appears to give them the right to do so-

"

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."

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."

Now I accept that an expired default may come under at least part of those

terms, but do they outweigh the legitimate interests of the CRA to process

them, when they don't appear to have when the default was current.

Perhaps there is no fixed answer, and each individual case may have to be

judged on its merits in Court, or a precedent set.

I appreciate that a different answer was supplied to Surlybonds in the email

from Experian [or was it Equifax] but perhaps they failed to understand fully

the Act. On the other hand, I may be totally wrong, though I have seen

nothing yet that confirms it

 

 

Oh actually, you did post on it didn't you?

 

head's all over the place!

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

btw which avatar do you prefer? I'm having an identity crisis:|

 

 

Wxx

[un1boy]

Hi there:)

 

Check out the latest discussion in 'default hell'....sift through the silliness! lol

 

here's the post from Lookingforinfo which started it off......

Before we start on defaults, consider clause 6 from the point of view of a CRA. Already they hold data on anyone who is registered on any Council Roll.

Have we given them permission to do that? Also, in a bank/customer relationship, for instance, the CRA would be the 3rd party in clause 6

wouldn't you agree? "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". In the event of the bank account

being subsequently closed, the clause reads that the third party, if they

have legitimate interests, can also process data, without the need for

consent or a contract between the 3rd party and the data subject. The

collection and storage of data is the core business of CRAs, and there

appears to be no lawful hindrance on their operations when complying with

the Act. So we can conclude that processing data by CRAs even after the

cancellation of the original bank/customer agreement is not in itself a

breach of the Data Protection Act, by invoking clause 6 ?

 

Now we come on to defaults. Surlybonds does not seem to object to their

use when a person is in default, as he confirms in his "Victory" thread by saying that he would not try to have those ones removed. And as for the

six year term, I would imagine it falls in line with the Limitations Act for

debts and ccjs. Anything longer would surely breach the UTCCR.

 

Where a contract has expired, while the bank in our example can no longer

process our data, it is harder to make out a case for the CRA to likewise cease, especially as their clients look to them for information on which to base

their decisions. Especially as clause 6 appears to give them the right to do so-

"

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."

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."

Now I accept that an expired default may come under at least part of those

terms, but do they outweigh the legitimate interests of the CRA to process

them, when they don't appear to have when the default was current.

Perhaps there is no fixed answer, and each individual case may have to be

judged on its merits in Court, or a precedent set.

I appreciate that a different answer was supplied to Surlybonds in the email

from Experian [or was it Equifax] but perhaps they failed to understand fully

the Act. On the other hand, I may be totally wrong, though I have seen

nothing yet that confirms it

 

 

Oh actually, you did post on it didn't you?

 

head's all over the place!

 

Wxx

 

Thanks willow, yes, I am following this thread but have not had the time to digest it all or really be online much - my computer at home is broken so I'm getting online here and there at the mo!

 

This is basically saying that the CRA's are processors, as opposed to controllers then, eh?

[un1boy]

btw which avatar do you prefer? I'm having an identity crisis:|

 

 

Wxx

 

I prefer the one where your boobs are glowing (not for that reason though!)

[Guest willowb]

You cheeky boy! I think I will change back though!

 

Wxx

[un1boy]

You cheeky boy! I think I will change back though!

 

Wxx

 

Ahh....you love it!!!

 

Here, what should I change mine to? (Change? I don't even have one!)

[un1boy]

You cheeky boy! I think I will change back though!

 

Wxx

 

That's better - good to have you back....I'll have to make sure I wear sunglasses now though!