People Vs Barclays Bank Data Protection Officer

[tamadus]

Red

 

Why send another sec 77/78 request and payment ? They can actually ignore this totally as it's within 1 month of your last request. I also dont think this is covered by the CCA as the account has been settled (several years ago).

 

this is almost certainly a DPA matter now

 

I would base a complaint to the ICO on them still processing data so long after the account was settled and closed and refusing to comply with your subject access notice.

[Redmountie999]

Can anyone point in the right direction for an N1 - poc. I need to know what to put on an N1 if it's for a default removal / non-monetary claim.

[Redmountie999]

Sent a Subject Access Request to Barclays on 23/01/2007. They replied today with the following letter:-

 

Dear Mr A N Another

 

Please be aware that the Bank is not under an obligation to present this information according to any particular format. Therefore, your request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside. You may of course obtain this data from copy statements and these will be supplied to you within the next few weeks without charges on this occasion. We would advise however, that statement information prior to 2000 is stored manually rather than on computer. Therefore, if your account was opened prior to this time, there may be an increase in the time required to collate the information you have requested. I apologise in advance should this delay cause any inconvenience to you.

 

As regards your mention of “manual intervention”, the Data Protection Act does not oblige the Bank to comment about internal policies and procedures. Furthermore, in the context of managing day to day transactions arising from out of order accounts, the Bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that would be covered by the DPA. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute “personal data” under the DPA and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA subject access request. For avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not generally record information in a way that is caught by the provisions of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention.

 

Barclays have placed a default on my account dating back to 2001. I was never aware of this default until I applied for a number of recent mortgages and was turned down because of this default marker on my Credit Report. I have written to Barclays on 4 occasions asking them to remove it and they have so far refused. I have issued a s.10 & s.12 Data Subject Notice which they set aside. I then sent them a S.A.R. after repeatedly asking Barclays to supply me with a copy of the Terms and Conditions I would have agreed to be bound to when originally opening the account. They state that they do NOT have this information. More importantly they have also declined my request to provide me with a copy of the original default notice that I have NEVER received. I have spoken to the Debt Management Company that I was with and they also state that they have never received anything from them or myself regarding a default.

 

Is what they are doing correct and legal? All I want to achieve is to remove the default that was placed onto my credit report.

[Redmountie999]

Sent a Subject Access Request to Barclays on 23/01/2007. They replied today with the following letter:-

Dear Mr A N Another

Please be aware that the Bank is not under an obligation to present this information according to any particular format. Therefore, your request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside. You may of course obtain this data from copy statements and these will be supplied to you within the next few weeks without charges on this occasion. We would advise however, that statement information prior to 2000 is stored manually rather than on computer. Therefore, if your account was opened prior to this time, there may be an increase in the time required to collate the information you have requested. I apologise in advance should this delay cause any inconvenience to you.

As regards your mention of “manual intervention”, the Data Protection Act does not oblige the Bank to comment about internal policies and procedures. Furthermore, in the context of managing day to day transactions arising from out of order accounts, the Bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that would be covered by the Data Protection Act. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute “personal data” under the Data Protection Act and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 Data Protection Act subject access request. For avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not generally record information in a way that is caught by the provisions of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention.

Barclays have placed a default on my account dating back to 2001. I was never aware of this default until I applied for a number of recent mortgages and was turned down because of this default marker on my Credit Report. I have written to Barclays on 4 occasions asking them to remove it and they have so far refused. I have issued a s.10 & s.12 Data Subject Notice which they set aside. I then sent them a S.A.R. after repeatedly asking Barclays to supply me with a copy of the Terms and Conditions I would have agreed to be bound to when originally opening the account. They state that they do NOT have this information. More importantly they have also declined my request to provide me with a copy of the original default notice that I have NEVER received. I have spoken to the Debt Management Company that I was with and they also state that they have never received anything from them or myself regarding a default.

Is what they are doing correct and legal? All I want to achieve is to remove the default that was placed onto my credit report.

[dayglo]

Hi Red,

 

Sorry I wasn't in a position to help over xmas/new year but I'm able to work with you on this now. Before I get into all the detail, there is one element of this that is screaming at me....

 

they defaulted you in 2001 and you said earlier in this thread that it was 'nearly six years ago'

 

well - do you know in which month the default was placed on your file.

 

you see, it wall fall off automatically after six years and it would make sense to weigh up the relative effort this is going to take compared to just waiting a few months. 1 default won't make much difference in terms of a mortgage or house move so unless you have a real reason for removing it now, if it has less than, say, 6 months to run - my advice would be to leave it.

 

Take my case with vodafone, I started my claim with them in July last year and we have a court hearing in March. Now, for awhile last year this took over my life and the whole process is still ongoing.

 

Maybe my case with Natwest is a closer example to yours with Barclays though. But that still took 3 months from start to finish.

 

Do you see what I'm getting at? What month is your default due to expire naturally?

[dayglo]

I'll wait for answer to post #28 before picking my way through the comments made already on this thread - some of which are a little misleading!

[Redmountie999]

hi day,

 

Thank you for taking a look at my thread and circumstances.

 

Right the default is due to be removed in November 2007. It was registered on 09/11/2001.

 

The reason i'm so desperate to get it removed is because i've tried to apply for various credit and the only thing on my Credit File that causes the companies to deline is the 1 default from Barclays in 2001. Even though it is shown as satisfied the companies always bring it up.

 

It has seriously affected my ability to get credit. If I don't get a mortgage within 2 months my in laws won't sell me the house i rent from them. They have knocked £10,000 off for me as it's family but they need to sell. I've been offered 2 mortgages but at a perrcentage of 8% plus. I can't afford those type of repayments. The mortgage companies and bank have told me that if I get the default removed then they would give me a mortgage etc. So ya see for me to just wait for another 10 months is going to be very hard for me

[dayglo]

Hi. Bummer November eh? hmmmm.

 

In that case lets go for it, but just a quick point - I got a mortgage last year from Chelsea BS (from their 'prospect' range') with 4 defaults and very competitive too, and you can easily swap internal products if you get the default removed in the meantime. Maybe that would be a good plave to spend your initial efforts?

 

what is setting the 2 month deadline?

 

ok. let's get to the plan.

 

1) you have paid off this debt and nothing is outstanding correct? excellent! You are not a debt doger then.

 

2) if it's been on there for 5+ years already then i think we can argue it's done it's job!

 

3) as mentioned already - forget consumer credit act. not relevant here at all.

 

4) Have you read section 10 of the data protection act? if not - i insist you do that straight after you've read this post. I'll help you by posting a link to it here Make sure you understand exactly what section 10 is all about and what rights it gives you. During reading section 10, you'll come accross a reference to Schedule 2.

 

5) Schedule 2 contains 6 conditions in 6 paragraphs. For data processing to be considered lawful, a data controller must be able to meet just one of these conditions.

 

6) If any of the conditions described in paras 1-4 are met then your S.10(1) notice is automatically invalid.

 

7) if Barclays claim that they are processing your data under paragraph 5 or 6 and refuse to comply with your notice then you must ask a court to make a decision in line with your rights under section 10(4)

 

8) I seem to recall that Barcalys are claiming that they are not going to comply with your notice because they USED to have your consent! that's a brilliant and should be very easy to enforce compliance with your notice in court.

 

9) You also issued your notice under section 12. Have you read section 12? I know the original SB template for this letter contained S.12 notices but I really don't see how it's relevant to you in this case. Section 12 is your right to prevent decisions being made on wholly automatic data processing basis. What decisions do you think Barclays are still making automatically? sorry to be cheeky! I mean no harm. If challenged, just drop any future reference to section 12.

 

10) How nice to see my old letter to the ICO come back in a different form! still, my advice - the ICO are not your firneds in this matter, they are under considerable pressure from the govt. to give more power to the CRAs not less. They want to ensure that lenders have access to as much information as possible in this area in an effort to reduce over burdened UK personal debt levels. Do not waste your time with them any more.

 

11) Do not write any more letters to barclays until you have filed your claim. You give them the chance to improve their response to your S.10(1) notice.

 

12) onto your claim. Have 21 days expired since your notice, i'm pretty sure it has but I haven't checked - you can do that!

 

13) you will need something for your Particulars of claim, the ones I used focused too much on the consent issue, I noticed Zootscoot has drafted an improved version relevant for S.10. I doubt she'll mind you using them, I paste them below

 

The Claimant had account (A/C No) with Defendant from (Date) conducted on their standard terms and conditions.

It is the Claimant’s contention that:

 

1.The Defendant, as a data controller, is processing the Claimant's personal data without consent.

2. The Claimant sent a notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 on 2 October 2006, requesting the Defendant to cease processing his data, on the grounds that it was causing unwarranted substantial damage and distress.

 

3. The damage and distress relate to the Claimant having to pay higher interest rates on credit agreements and the inability to obtain new credit arrangements or to obtain a mortgage.

 

4. The Defendant continues to process the Claimant's personal data through their data processors of Equifax, Experian Call Credit and any other Credit Reference agency employed by the Defendant.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) An order that the Defendant ceases processing the Claimant’s data under Sections 10 (4) Of the Data Protection Act

 

b) Compensation at the courts discretion under s.13 of the Data Protection Act 1998

 

c) Court costs;

 

14) remember, you have some obligations under S.10 too. You are claiming that their continued processing is causing you substantial damages or distress and that this is unwarranted.

 

15) If barcalys take this all the way then you will have to show this.

 

16) but for now - fill in an N1 claim form using the above PoC, hand over £150 at your local court and good luck.

 

remember - now go and read section 10 of the data protection act.

[dayglo]

Red

 

Why send another sec 77/78 request and payment ? They can actually ignore this totally as it's within 1 month of your last request. I also dont think this is covered by the CCA as the account has been settled (several years ago).

 

this is almost certainly a Data Protection Act matter now

 

I would base a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office on them still processing data so long after the account was settled and closed and refusing to comply with your subject access notice.

 

Failure to comply with S.10(1) notices are a matter for court as described in S.10(4) not the ICO.

 

The ICO will only give a view as to whether or not a breach of the DPA is likely or unlikey to have occured. The defendant will almost certainly produce a letter from the ICO as part of their defence claiming that they are in favour of allowing processing of personal data by CRAs on behalf of data subscribers for a period of 6 years following the ending of any contract.

[dayglo]

ok tam is here

 

As Red thought at first this is a Data Protection Act matter and he rightly issued a sec 10 Subject Access Notice on them which they are refusing to follow.

 

 

just a minor technicality. A subject access request and a S.10(1) notice are quite different. This is a S.10(1) notice requireing a data controller to cease processing data that is or is likely to caused unwarranted substantial damages or distress.

 

 

They are doing this on the basis that they continue processing data fro 6 years after an account is closed. THIS is incorrect. The only thing that is legally obliged remain on a credit reference file for 6 years is something that has been ordered to be placed on it by a court. This would be a CCJ, IVA or bankruptcy order. NOTHING else and nobody else has the legal right to impose a 6 year time.

 

This can be a bit misleading. True, there is no requirement that says a creditor HAS to process data for 6 years following the ending of a contract, but equally there is nothign that says that they can't either. in fact, when pushed the Information Commissioners Office will state that they beleive the current practice is entirley reasonable for the credit industry as a whole. Complaining to the Information Commissioners Office on this matter is pointless.

 

I forget now where it is stated but processing data to a credit reference file should cease after a 'reasonable period of time', 3 months is reasonable when the relationship has finished. I think it's one of the OFT documents.

 

I would be amazed and very interested if you can show me where this is! The Information Commissioners Office who are responsible for overseeing the Data Protection Act in the UK state that 6 years is, in their view, a reasonable period of time.

 

Red I would write to them emphasising that 6 years is nothing but an industry standard, it has no lawful basis and as such your SAN stands especially considering they did not send the appropriate notices first, the default was unlawfully recorded. Unless they confirm that they have stopped processing your data and have removed the default that is causing you extra expense and worry then you will lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office. In fact I would lodge a complaint anyway.

 

There is a risk of confusing CCA default notices as described therin with defaults passed from data subscribers to CRAs. They are very different beasts and one can exist without the other. A data subscriber does not have to tell you that they have passed a default flag to a CRA database.

 

 

I would also send a SAN to the credit reference agency involved as well, again stipulating this default was unlawfully recorded. Again tell them their self imposed 6 year rule has no basis in law and that you are making an official complaint with the Information Commissioners Office.

 

sorry but i disagree. This would be waste of time. Sending an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to a CRA is pointless when you can get your credit file which contains the same info for £2!

 

Every CRA is fully aware of the current argument regaridng "is 6 years reasonable or not" - they will simply send you the standard letter from the Information Commissioners Office explaining why they think that 6 years is reasonable and tell you all about the Crowther report (yawn) - complete waste of time I'm afraid.

[Redmountie999]

Let me reply to each one of your points so we don't confuse the issue and we both know where we are at.

 

Right,

 

1). Yep, all paid off as of 01/02/2006 so i'm certainly not trying to dodge any lawful debts that I had with Barclays. Although it is highly likely that a good portion of the original defaulted debt was due to bank charges. But those charges are more than likely going to be over 6 years old and therefore not reclaimable.

 

4). Nope I haven't fully read s10 yet but you can be sure i'll be up till late tonight studying it throughly. ( Should have read and understood it before sending and engaging in this process, I know )

 

7). I'm not exactly sure if Barclays are claiming that they are processing my data under paragraph 5 or 6? I don't think they have specifically stated these particular sections in any of their letters. Although they are refusing to comply with my notice. They state in their response to the DSN that they have considered my notice carefully and have concluded that section 10 of the Act does not apply in these circumstances. (quite what that means day I don't know, maybe you could enlighten me why they think that?)

 

9). I was under the impression that their continuing update of my default marker was an automated decision done by a computer and not with any human intervention. Am I wrong about this? Do they review this monthly before updating the info?

 

12) If you mean 21 days from serving them with my S10 notice then it was served on 4th January 2007. So i guess the 21 days expired yesterday.

 

Finally i'm happy to use the details in zoots poc. I have had trouble with a mortgage hence the numerous credit searches on my credit file ( all saying no). Also the limited credit I have has meant that I have had to pay higher than normal interest/apr and I've also not been able to get nearly any type of credit, store card and I cant open an account with most high street banks. Is this sufficient to show or prove this point?

 

Day, this is snapshot of Barclays response to my s.10 & s.12 Data Subject Notice. I believe that they are relying on the fact that I would have previously agreed to be bound to their terms and conditions.

 

I'm assuming that they are relying on the following as this is all they have stated in their letter of reply;-

 

I refer to your recent letter, enclosing a Statutory notice persuant to sections 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

In order to comply with the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998, which requires that personal data be processed fairly and lawfully, Barclays notifies it's customers at that it intends to share data with credit reference agencies, and obtains cosent to do so via standard customer terms and conditions.

 

I note that you are looking to rely on the provisions of section 10 of the Act, as it is your belief that Barclays is subjecting you to substantial unwarranted financial damage and personal distress by continuing to process your personal data, and you are requesting that the data is therefore deleted. For the avoidance of doubt, Barclays does not accept this and it is denied that the processing of your personal data was unlawful.

 

Barclays maintains that you have previously consented, by agreeing to be bound by Barclays' terms and conditions associated with your account, to the collection, use, disclosure and retention of your personal data as set out in the terms and conditions, and that continued retention is necessary under the terms of the contract entered into. This includes the capture of consent to share data with credit reference agencies. It is Barclays view that such consent was not limited to the duration of your account and that it cannot be revoked at will. We will therefore continue to process your personal data as described in our terms and conditions, but will not process it for any new purposes.

 

Having studies the provisions of the Act, you may be aware that Barclays must not retain personal data for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data is held. When considering suitable retention periods, Barclays considers all it's legal, regulatory, operational and commercial requirements. Barclays cannot simply delete a customer record when a contract with a customer is cancelled or terminated. It is Barclays standard retention policy to retain personal data about formal customers for 6 years after the relationship has ended.

 

Whats your views day?????????

[Guest willowb]

Hello guys!

I see you are in VERY safe hands here Redmountie;)

 

Who on earth is offering you an 8% mortgage? :o you only have one default yeah? We have 4 and have a 5.65% mortgage with GMAC (£8,000 redemption fee though if you move your mortgage within 2 years). Do you have a mortgage broker?

 

The only thing is, if you do get a mortgage with one of these cos (GMAC or Kensington) then make sure it's at a fixed rate until the redemption period is up, I've heard some horror stories about them putting up their rates until you are forced to move your mortgage and pay their HUGE

fee:-x .....not good!

 

Just a thought!

 

Wxxx

[Redmountie999]

hi willow, I couldn't get a mortgage with GMAC or Kensington. my mortgage broker tried them as a last resort. GMAC definately won't do it now becasue I just filled my poc against them today for reclaiming charges from my credit agreement with them.

 

Thank you for your views though, keep em coming danno!!!!

[dayglo]

1). Yep, all paid off as of 01/02/2006 so i'm certainly not trying to dodge any lawful debts that I had with Barclays. Although it is highly likely that a good portion of the original defaulted debt was due to bank charges. But those charges are more than likely going to be over 6 years old and therefore not reclaimable.

 

ok

 

4). Nope I haven't fully read s10 yet but you can be sure i'll be up till late tonight studying it throughly. ( Should have read and understood it before sending and engaging in this process, I know )

 

consider my finger wagged in your general direction If it takes you more than 20 minutes to read it, you shouldn't proceed further!

 

7). I'm not exactly sure if Barclays are claiming that they are processing my data under paragraph 5 or 6? I don't think they have specifically stated these particular sections in any of their letters. Although they are refusing to comply with my notice. They state in their response to the DSN that they have considered my notice carefully and have concluded that section 10 of the Act does not apply in these circumstances. (quite what that means day I don't know, maybe you could enlighten me why they think that?)

 

You are right - as of now Barcalys are claiming a ridiculous reason for processing your data. They claim that you have given consent previously and for some reason they think this can never be revoked! If they sork this through though they will inevitably claim theat they are processing your data under para 6. They may not have said it yet - but if this goes the distance, you can bet they will.

 

9). I was under the impression that their continuing update of my default marker was an automated decision done by a computer and not with any human intervention. Am I wrong about this? Do they review this monthly before updating the info?

 

updating the monthly flag is considered as processing but not decision making.

 

12) If you mean 21 days from serving them with my S10 notice then it was served on 4th January 2007. So i guess the 21 days expired yesterday.

 

ok

 

Finally i'm happy to use the details in zoots poc. I have had trouble with a mortgage hence the numerous credit searches on my credit file ( all saying no). Also the limited credit I have has meant that I have had to pay higher than normal interest/apr and I've also not been able to get nearly any type of credit, store card and I cant open an account with most high street banks. Is this sufficient to show or prove this point?

 

yes this is ok. you'll need to turn in into a concise argument later on - not urgent now.

 

Day, this is snapshot of Barclays response to my s.10 & s.12 Data Subject Notice. I believe that they are relying on the fact that I would have previously agreed to be bound to their terms and conditions.

 

I'm assuming that they are relying on the following as this is all they have stated in their letter of reply;-

 

I refer to your recent letter, enclosing a Statutory notice persuant to sections 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

In order to comply with the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998, which requires that personal data be processed fairly and lawfully, Barclays notifies it's customers at that it intends to share data with credit reference agencies, and obtains cosent to do so via standard customer terms and conditions.

 

I note that you are looking to rely on the provisions of section 10 of the Act, as it is your belief that Barclays is subjecting you to substantial unwarranted financial damage and personal distress by continuing to process your personal data, and you are requesting that the data is therefore deleted. For the avoidance of doubt, Barclays does not accept this and it is denied that the processing of your personal data was unlawful.

 

Barclays maintains that you have previously consented, by agreeing to be bound by Barclays' terms and conditions associated with your account, to the collection, use, disclosure and retention of your personal data as set out in the terms and conditions, and that continued retention is necessary under the terms of the contract entered into. This includes the capture of consent to share data with credit reference agencies. It is Barclays view that such consent was not limited to the duration of your account and that it cannot be revoked at will. We will therefore continue to process your personal data as described in our terms and conditions, but will not process it for any new purposes.

 

Having studies the provisions of the Act, you may be aware that Barclays must not retain personal data for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data is held. When considering suitable retention periods, Barclays considers all it's legal, regulatory, operational and commercial requirements. Barclays cannot simply delete a customer record when a contract with a customer is cancelled or terminated. It is Barclays standard retention policy to retain personal data about formal customers for 6 years after the relationship has ended.

 

Whats your views day?????????

 

As stated above, Barclays are arguing that you previously gave consent to them for data processing so they intend to carry on.

 

They have not fully understood the nature of a notice under S.10(1) to cease processing data.

 

Once you've read Section 10 and schedule 2 (paras 1-6) a light bulb will go off in your head (doesn't it willow? )

 

I'll carry on helping until it does - then you'll be fine!

[dayglo]

Hello guys!

I see you are in VERY safe hands here Redmountie;)

 

Wxxx

 

how kind. Thanks very much!

[Guest willowb]

Once you've read Section 10 and schedule 2 (paras 1-6) a light bulb will go off in your head (doesn't it willow? )

 

LOL:p .....you had to replace the bulb a few times though hey!

how kind. Thanks very much!

You are welcome, lovely to see you hun:)

 

Wxxx

[dayglo]

sorry - can't resist it

 

[Guest willowb]

I can't see it!

[dayglo]

http://nedmartin.org/amused/pics/lightbulb-mice.gif

[Redmountie999]

Day, I've read up on s10.

 

So am I right in thinking that if I have been or am likely to be caused substantial damage or distress and that damage or distress ir or would be unwarranted then they should cease processing my personal data? And to continue to do so after a s.10 notice has been served and 21 days is an offence. Tell me i've cracked it mate?

[dayglo]

almost...

 

it's not an 'offence' if they don't - you have to get a judge to order them to comply that's all.

 

yep - under section 10(3) they have to reply to you within 21 days to let you know they've either done it or with justified reasons why they have not.

 

Their response that they have once had your consent and that they believe that this consent is unrevokable appears to be their argument.

 

if you end up in front of a judge, try and rehearse in your mind what you would say.

 

The wasy i did it was to try and find a reasonably smart friend with very little background knowledge and present both yours and thier arguments to them and see if you can do it - accuratly and yet succinctly.

 

but i think you've about go it! isn't it amazing what we can learn when we actually read the acts in question!!!! (not having a dig at you or anyone else - it's just the folks that quote acts left right and centre before reading them!)

[Redmountie999]

Yeah I'm with you mate. So i'll have to issue a poc and see if that will be sufficient for Barclays to remove the default marker. If not i'm assuming they will then enter a defence based on the above arguments. Will you be able to help me with the AQ and evidence bundle if it goes to court.

 

How likely is it that i'll have to go to court. i'm worried about going to court but not for the normal reasons. Also if I go to court and lose do I have to pay the defendant's costs? I couldn't afford to do that. I'd obviously loose the £150 court fee right?

 

Did you win your case in court? How easy was it? Was it against Barclays?Did the company have a barrister present?

[tamadus]

just a minor technicality. A subject access request and a S.10(1) notice are quite different. This is a S.10(1) notice requireing a data controller to cease processing data that is or is likely to caused unwarranted substantial damages or distress.

 

I never mentioned a subject access request, I said a subject access notice, which is the correct terms for a sec 10 notice.

 

 

This can be a bit misleading. True, there is no requirement that says a creditor HAS to process data for 6 years following the ending of a contract, but equally there is nothign that says that they can't either. in fact, when pushed the Information Commissioners Office will state that they beleive the current practice is entirley reasonable for the credit industry as a whole. Complaining to the Information Commissioners Office on this matter is pointless.

 

What is messleading about it? I repeat there is NO LEGAL requirement to continue processing data for anything like 6 years after the contract is settled.

 

I would be amazed and very interested if you can show me where this is! The Information Commissioners Office who are responsible for overseeing the Data Protection Act in the UK state that 6 years is, in their view, a reasonable period of time.

 

I'll hav eto find it again, but the 5th principle does state that information should not be kept longer than is neccessary. Once the contract is settled there is no real reason to continue processing data.

 

There is a risk of confusing CCA default notices as described therin with defaults passed from data subscribers to CRAs. They are very different beasts and one can exist without the other. A data subscriber does not have to tell you that they have passed a default flag to a CRA database.

 

A CCA default notice will usually result in a default being recorded on the credit file. I seem to recall that Red never received the default notice required under the CCA giving him the opportunity to rectify the breech. This was not a default flag but an actual default notice recorded as a result of an elleged breech of the CCA and he should have been notified in advance about it. The CCA ceases to have effect once the contract is terminated and settled, hence my post clearly stating the CCA was not involved. Therefore my post is valid and is not confusing in any way.

 

 

sorry but i disagree. This would be waste of time. Sending an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to a CRA is pointless when you can get your credit file which contains the same info for £2!

 

Once again I said a SAN (subject access notice) NOT an SAR. These are 2 totally different things. In reality your credit file probably contains more than an SAR would produce, so I totally agree an SAR to a CRA is pointless.

 

Every CRA is fully aware of the current argument regaridng "is 6 years reasonable or not" - they will simply send you the standard letter from the Information Commissioners Office explaining why they think that 6 years is reasonable and tell you all about the Crowther report (yawn) - complete waste of time I'm afraid.

 

Just as they will go to great lengths to convince a court that 6 years is reasonable and explain in great detail about the Crowther Report. Lets face it the phrase 'reasonable length of time' gives different ideas to different people. I am fairly sure that most people would consider 6 years to be a very unreasonable period to be hounded by the affects of a default.

The only real fault in my post was suggesting a complaint to the ICO as they are under a heavy workload lately and it now appears time is important. I dont want a flame war with you dayglo but my post is very valid and factual and I stand by it and I don't see any reason for you to attempt to tear it apart, especially when you have made the same mistake about and SAR and SAN twice. That does cause confusion.

[dayglo]

A Subject Access Notice is not defined in the Data Protection Act at all.

 

The Information Commissioners Office define Subject Access Notice as "identical to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)"

 

A notice issued under section 10(1) is also undefined - except as described.

 

There is no OFT document that regards 3 months as a reasonable period of time to process personal data or to disclose personal data to third parties following the ceasation of a contract.

 

Whether or not a default notice issued under the CCA 'usually' results in a default marker on your CRA file depends on your definition of usually. In my experience roughly 1 in 10 default notices issued under the CCA result in a default flag on your CRA.

[Redmountie999]

So took my latest poc to county court on Friday and when I mentioned what I was trying to do about he default the clerk said that I should speak to community legal services first as if i filed the judge would only try and get me to resolve the issue through arbitration before a hearing. What do you recokon guys, should I just stick with your advice and issue the N1 poc as previously discussed in the thread. I'd need careful guidance on how to complete the form and the later stages. I also need to work on my arguments for the judge.