But is this anything new? We already have this - but provate enterprise has done much to fool the public into believing it is a 'necessary evil' - and I'm talking about the CRAs. This is simply a vertical market within, and I'm sure the main CRAs are kicking themselves that they didn't think of doing it (having to make do with administering the 'insurance fraud' database.

Surely, they have no interest in whether anyone has guilt? They offer a 'service' and firms subscribe to it - in the same way PPCs do. Like them, I doubt many of the larger companies actually pay anything for the service provided (like the clampers) - and another case where 'guilt' is of no interest. As for it being 'dishonest', I don't see how it can be - they are not judge or jury, and they are entitled to their opinion - your beef is that they are attempting to profit from it.

In my case, on one PC it crashes all the time, yet on another it runs flawlessly. This leads me to the logical explanation that there is something extra/missing from the PC that makes it crash all the time, but I've not got the time to reinstall the OS. Based on this, it would be impossible to state that IE is 'buggy' as it cannot be stated as such across the board - only your implementation/installation of it. With so many variables in play, no judge would accept an assertion that the S/w was not fit for purpose.

The issue that nobody has mentioned, is - as required by the DPA - a data subject has to GIVE THEIR PERMISSION for their information to be stored on RLP's database. There is no exception for RLP. So, if they are compiling lists of allegedly dishonest individuals, where is this all-important permission? Have people really confirmed their details (inclkuding DoB) and agreed that RLP may store their details? Someone, who has found themselves to be listed, but has not provided permission would need to be prepared to take on RLP and the ICO to ensure the Act is complied with.

No I haven't, and I've no idea who 'we' is either.

The point remains, charges have to be agreed, they cannot be arbitrarily applied.

Doesn't matter for non-LIP, their professional fees are capped in the Small Claims track, so the end result is the same!

They're being disingenuous - the 'approval' is the Data Registration, not that the ICO has explicitly approved their methods of operation. It's like CRA's and the disclosure of 'defaults'. The term is misused in it's original (legal) sense, as a Default (note the capital 'D') referred to a court document or judgement proving the person was at fault. However, anyone can be 'in default' (small 'd') for not complying with the terms of an agreement. It suits their purpose to blur the major differences in the same word - in effect, giving them the power of blackening someone's name without resorting to a judicial decision. The ICO's 'approval' is just the same thing - but they are approving RLP's ability to register their computer system to comply with the DPA. Firms like these rely on ambiguous terms in order to give creditbility to their business model. A look at the website linked above will show how desperate they are to seek justification for their reason to exist, with quotes from legal people that endorse what they do. (They're hardly going to promote those that don't!) But their form for visitors to complete to their rejection of RLP's claim is an abomination, but I bet there will be many who will fill it in and bury themselves even deeper.

How is this any different from any other self-incrimination? The fact a computer log-in is onvolved appears to be an irrelevance, theiy had concerns, and presumably were vindicated when the page was displayed? I don't believe this is any different from a teacher asking a pupil if they 'did something', and the answer was in the affirmative. If the staff used deception to access the offending page, or threatened physical abuse, there might be a valid complaint, but if it was freely given (even with reservations) then no 'rights' were infringed.

They can't, UNLESS they are in a field/industry that is explicitly permitted to make a CRB enquiry (for which they have to pay for). This is why most request the potential employee to request the check, and exhibit a certificate confirming the results of the search. (This way, the applicant pays for it!).

That comes across in your original post?

Well, I'me aware of at least 2 in my local court from the last 5 years. (I look out for things like this, along with actions by TVLRO, DVLA and Insurance Companies). I agree this may be a miniscule percentage of the actual letters they send out, but that's not the point - the same holds true of speculative Private Parking Companies. Check out the information here: http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/advice.aspx

Defeat? Actually no - my comment was directed at a member of the Site Team who seems intend on point-scoring than information, but no change there. As for the post, I can confirm there are parts of the UK where no court action is required to obtain a CCJ. This remains as accurate now as it was a few hours ago.

You need to know what the Writ was for. Letters to Claimants at this stage might be pointless once the court machine has started. Assuming the SO's turned up at an address you previously inhabited, they will most likely have recorded that the writ was served at your address. The expectation that your mother would advise you of this would be high. Similarly, if you did not update the creditor of your change of address this might also work against you. A call to your local court giving your name and the address the Writ was served on might provide some additional details. Do remember, the clock has already started ticking, so you need to get to the bottom of it sooner rather than later.

Even if your assertion was plausible Perpy, the stated warning is all that is required to shift the burden of responsibility. As Conniff notes, a change in the wind direction is enough to brick a phone - the slightest error is enough to make the install fail. Sometimes they fail-safe, other times they do not. If the upgrade itself was badly coded - making all upgraders brick their gadgets, then I might agree with you. However, as it only appears to affect very few. this would not appear to be the problem.

Criminal Records are in the Public Domain? Have you tried to search them? I'm not talking about personal access to data (which is what the CRB provides), so by definition this is not a 'Public Record'. If you care to tell me where I may peruse them, then I might just believe you. My attempts at doing so have been continually thwarted.

Oh dear. Bee in your bonnet time? Sorry, I have no interest in researching matters that are of little relevance to me. The facts stand for themselves - if you wish to seek the information, YOU find out by asking each and every water company what their policy on the matter is. The fact remains, Councils can still purrsue householders for water debts, whether they actually do so in practice is irrelevant. For those in Scotland and NI, Councils enforce non-payment as a matter of routine.

CRB is not a 'Public Record'. And this quote was lifted from over a month ago - keep up!

No. It is completely correct. CouncilsSTILL have the right to enforce, it has never been withdrawn. How an individual privatised water company decides to enforce non payment is up to them on an individual basis. If they choose to use the Council for enforcement the CCJ is simply rubber stamped. If they do it themselves, they do not have the same powers as the council and will be required to seek a CCJ by conventional means.

I don't understand the concern - it is only an allegation available to 'club' members - it is not a 'Public Record'. Look at a similat money-making enterprise, the Credit Reference Agencies. Their system allows their clients to record 'defaults' against an individual. It is those accessing this information who decide that this default is the same as a CCJ. Their error - there has been no court case, no decision of an independent nature. Yet firms MUCH prefer to work this way, they avoid the costs of taking anyone to court, and are able to 'record' the debt information for others to see - whilst having a ready-made collection industry ready to pay them a % to take ownership of the debt to pursue the alleged debtor. This appears to be what RLP do, in a parallel exploitation. You might recall they were there as a dual-track to pursue the miscreant in addition to any criminal liability. But they got greedy. Rather than ignore cases that never make it to court, they need to pursue cases that have not been proven (as theyd be unbable to exist otherwise). So far, they're still hanging on in there.

The situation will most likely have changed in England since the privatisation of the water industry there (and Wales, I believe). In Scotland and NI, the cost of water is an inherent part of the Council Tax system, where the old Residential 'Water Rates' were rolled into the Council Tax, and the council paid over the assessed amount (based on property size not consumption) to the supplying agency. Therefore, in these areas non payment is an issue for the Council, and Decrees for non payment are a natural part of enforcement, with no requirement for any formal court action - as there is a Statutory Addition of 10% of the amount owing and if this is not paid, a flat fee for the Warrant of Execution. The householder has only one arbiter, the Council. There is no appeal to the court.

Firmware upgrades are 'Bait & Switch'? Only if you believe in the Tooth Fairy. The item was fully working as supplied, a firmware update is always done at the consumer's risk, and a failure to do it correctly chargeable. The benefit of checking that others are in the same boat is in mitigation to seek a discount on the cost of restoring it to full working order. Firmware changes are not the same as filling a car with petrol ot renewing a tax disk, it goes to the heart of the item, and is still seen as a 'modification'. As I recall, Sonly also have a dsclaimer stating that updates are at the users own risk.

You do not need 'permission' from the ICO to run a computer database - however, you need to be registered under the DPA, and a check of the ICO's register confirms that RLP are indeed registered complete with a Data Controller. As such, a SAR sent to them with the appropriate fee is all that is required to obtain all information.

They appear to be aware of you being a resident much longer than seven months. Were the arrears for this or a different property? It looks as though they acknowledge you have made some payments, but as you can see, the recovery costs have seriously pumped up the charges.

They certainly won't be exempt from the DPA, and the remedies within will still apply to them regardless!