'C.R.A.'s Archiving Our Data Over 6 Years Old'

[renegotiation]

This thread has emerged out of Sosumi's 'C.A.G. S.A.R. Club' thread and would likely have never started without it. Sosumi's thread got so big and branched off in so many directions it probably got a little confusing for any new viewer that wanted to trace back issues with clarity. So, appreciation to sosumi for this thread. It was in the said thread that I asked the following question:

Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean going to court if it comes to it basically.

[renegotiation]

Bumpity bump.

[car2403]

Originally Posted by renegotiation

It's a long thread! The answer might be in it somewhere I know. Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean court if it comes to it basically.

It's my view that they never delete anything - it's just removed from view.

Proving that would be almost impossible, unless you could find a whistleblower to give you concrete evidence it happens.

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible, but I can see why you would want incorrect/inaccurate visible information corrected.

[renegotiation]

Originally Posted by car2403

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible

Thanks for the reply. I'm dealing with the incorrect visible stuff at the moment as it goes. That's hard enough! I just don't trust them one bit with my old debts and believe things may well get worse in the future. Your answer hints, I hope, that from a legal perspective I could force them to remove any data they held on me over 6 years old. Is that right then?

[Newborn]

Surely an Subject Access Request should show whatever they hold on you, however old.
Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

Newborn

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by Newborn

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.
Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

Newborn

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

[renegotiation]

Originally Posted by Newborn

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Yes, I was going to send off some Subject Access Request's.

Originally Posted by Newborn

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

In theory! They tend to think they are a law unto themselves though.

[renegotiation]

Originally Posted by andrew1

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

Like a proper tombola!

[Newborn]

Hi andrew1 and renegotiation,

I was being a bit niaive and simplistic with my answer.
In the perfect world my answer is correct.
But if the law changed tomorrow and Experian etc were able to publish a 20 year credit history you can bet your bottom dollar they've got it ready!
It's just not published.
While a debt is outstanding they will argue that they can keep the data indefinitely until several years after it is FULLY repaid.
Partial repayment will keep the remainder of the debt live, even if 'full and final'. (Zombie Debt).

Newborn

[renegotiation]

Thanks for the replies Newborn. I'm just talking about my unpaid debts. They were all left unpaid around 6 years ago and longer. The defaults went on at varying stages after that. I want to know if they have a 'right' to keep this data on file for longer than 6 years or not. If they don't have this right, and my Subject Access Request's show that they do have information on me older than 6 years, I am going to force them to remove it in court. Let's face it, it will probably have to be done in court knowing their arrogance. I think i've done my time so to speak. I do have a case right?

[Newborn]

The data protection act allows the retention of data if it is it in the 'interest of the data controller' (creditor or DCA) to do so. They just can't publish it on a credit file after 6 years have passed.
Also, bear in mind that the OC will also keep any data 'in their interests', which they can then pass on to the DCA whenever they want anyway.
If the information cannot be published and it is statute barred (??) I don't think you have a problem, unless the law changed overnight to allow them to publish the data. It would probably not be retrospectively allowed anyway.

Newborn

[renegotiation]

My concern is they would find some 'dubiously legal' way of making this adverse data hinder me in the future. The question is if noone uses it then why do they keep it? I will see what the Subject Access Request's show up. Thanks again.

[car2403]

With respect, this latest discussion is theoretical - what happens in practise is that these companies flaut the law, Data Protection Act or not, and those less knowledgeable accept it as "being the way".

I'm sure we can all remember the time where we didn't question what goes on, but I feel the tide is turning now.

Incidentally, the CRA's claim a "legitimate interest" in the information given to them by their clients, because their other clients use that information for "legitimate reasons". This wouldn't stand up in Court, but who takes the CRA to Court? I haven't. The onus is on the data controller - which the CRA is, but only vicariously, via data feeds from creditors, so are effectively second hand data controllers themselves. Correct the direct DC, then use s.14(1) and s.14(3) to correct the CRA.

Until these practises are challenged formally - which won't happen, as they settle out of Court before any precedent is set - this is the system we have to live with.

[babybear39]

Lets challenge thae law of precendent then

[car2403]

Originally Posted by babybear39

Lets challenge thae law of precendent then

If you can get a case to a level that sets a precedent, you'd be making legal history. It isn't going to happen, as they will back down and settle before you get there.

[renegotiation]

We need to ask for a huge settlement that they will never pay to ensure it gets to court...