Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dayglo last won the day on December 4 2006

dayglo had the most liked content!


1,136 Excellent
  1. If you have read the last few posts on my 'life back' thread you'll be aware of two things 1) I lost - I convinced the judge that I had suffered substantial damages (but not distress) but I failed to convince the judge that these were unwarranted and as such my case was dismissed. 2) It was only a raised eyebrow from the judge and a goodwill gesture from the Vodafone legal executive that spared me from having to pay their legal costs, it was too complicated to be heard as small claims track it could have cost me a fortune. I'm not saying whether you should or should not continue, that is a call for you to make but you should understand that I won't be around for help I'm afraid. I regret that I'm not able to offer help by PM either. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. DG.
  2. Thanks Shelter Pie. You remind me of an old friend I miss.
  3. when you said 1000 lines for you I thought it was party time!
  4. I know - the lobbying process is a lucrative market these days - firms pay good money to for 'time' with MPs I think her tongue was wedged in her cheek a little when she said it, in her summing up though she said "the burden of proof is on the claimant to PROVE that the processing is unwarranted and in her opinion I had not done that" Actually, when you press the ICO on this point, they mean it to encompass the whole of the credit industry, both lenders and credit reference agencies have a 'legitimate' business interest and in their opinion that outweighs, in most cases (not all) the legitimate interests of data subjects. Another interesting throwaway comment made by the judge was "I am not bound at all by anything the ICO has either said or published and I will make up my own mind in this area. Having said that and having read what the ICO has to say in this area, I don't see any justified reason for disagreeing with them in this case" I'm not going to go down that road, its laden with booby traps for the future. We all give our thoughts freely here - I'd be against developing a "oh no I lost but I'm sure the good folk at CAG will bail me out" mentality. We make our beds and we lie in 'em. Im glad you were entertained though - there were some funny moments! I again, thanks very much. I like my thinking being described as "top notch" - not sure Mrs DG would agree though!
  5. if you refer to me again as "gayglo" it'll be far worse than the embarassment corner!
  6. locked in a room with me for 3 days - I suggest you get some expensive therapy as quicky as possible Thank-you very much. How kind. yep - it probably didn't help me when early on during the hearing I let it slip that I wasn't sure exactly what, in this context, "unwarranted" meant. The judge, to be fair to her, said "neither did she as it isn't defined anywhere in the act" maybe, but please, and this is aimed more at other folk reading this rather you Duncan, please remember the following. 1) I lost - I understood the arguments pretty well in my opinion and I lost. 2) I came within inches of having to pay vodafone's legal costs. The judge said this was the most complicated case she'd heard in many years and the level of complexity meant it was not suitable for small claims track. If anyone else is thinking of following in these footsteps - be wary of your exposure to legal costs if you lose. Personally I regret ever taking this issue on, its cost me £220 in real money, proven a massive distraction in my personal life, and the sweat in the final half hour as the discussion moved towards paying costs was not pleasant. I know SB has had a better record in this sort of area but please tread carefully before taking cases like these in front of judges. Even hot foxy ones like I had!
  7. good evening voyager9. That particular post was before I learned about the two very different types of 'default' I've posted about this elsewhere but here is one post I made about the two distinct types of default here The first type is as defined in CCA (section 88 - i think) and is a prelude to further action such as debt collection agencies, demands for full repayment etc. The second type is the one that causes you harm and thats the ones that the lenders pass to the CRAs. Both types of default can exist independantly of each other. I've seen many CCA defaults that never made it to credit files and, like vodafone, many defaults on credit files that were never 'issued' under the CCA. That's why I didn't make more of this point.
  8. I did look at the "sensitive data" angle - I concluded it was a non-starter. As far as the DPA is concerned, financial data is not considered "sensitive"
  9. well, if you're gonna make this your first post in the thread, it appears to be a blinder. welcome onboard sir, a fine post. I may reply in more detail when i'm less... how shall we say, less "tired and emotional"
  10. nice angle, i promise this is true! at one point during the exhausting 2 and bit hours of the hearing, mr vodafone man said sometihng, and the judge said "this is an argument" - I so desperately wanted to say "no it isn't its just contradication!"
  11. no idea. Please continue that particular discussion point elsewhere and leave this for wallowing self pity!
  12. forgiven. But if it helps - section 14 DPA is your best bet to have 'inaccurate' personal data corrected.
  • Create New...