I think you misunderstand my base explanation, In my mind, and that of the courts, there is no doubt whatsoever that unless specifically agreed the processing of data beyond the end of the contract is unlawful, this is a plain and simple fact of contract (common law), and if you took this approach to the original creditor then I am certain they would fold almost immediately an injunction application was served. However The current tact where people seem to think that an injunction will be awarded directly against the CRA's is (in my humble opinion) very misguided indeed. If you did wish to seek injunction you would have two main options; 1. A perpetual injunction 2. an interim injunction A perpetual injunction would only ever be awarded after a trial or other formal determination of dispute, and from the information provided in respect to the cases outlined above neither would appear to have happened. If you were to apply for an interim injunction the base premise of this would be that you would be required to make an undertaking to the court that you foresee no reasonable cause why your claim would fail, nor that the application could be reasonably defended by the respondent, or that you do not expect them to defend at all. I think given the responses provide by the CRA’s in the posts above it is quite clear that they would vigorously defend their position, and if you were to uses their previous correspondence in your case you would only be proving to the court that the respondent has previously advised you that they had the full intention of fully defending your application. It is also very important to understand how the court would view an application, as all they would actually consider at the initial stages of the application is whether the complainant can win and, if so, whether there is a greater risk of injustice to the complainant in denying him interim injunctive relief than there is to the respondent in granting it or vice versa. Because the court is balancing one party's interests against the other, it will not grant an interim injunction without obtaining a promise to the court from the complainant to compensate the injuncted party for any loss or damage that it may sustain from the order should the court later conclude that the injunction should never have been granted. This promise is known as "an undertaking as to damages". So the long and short of it is, yes feel free to pursue the CRA’s , but my honest belief is it will be to no avail, however if you direct your efforts at the creditor / primary data controller then you will probably achieve the same end result much more rapidly, and with a fraction of the effort and risk .

I think you are interpreting "automatic processing" in a very literal sense, the definition within the 1998 DPA S.12(1) refers directly to any decision making process being undertaken by automatic means, i.e without human intervention. The publishing of the data it self is not an automated process within the definitions of the act, although I do understand the reason in your logic that the way in which the data is transmitted and provided from the CRA’s records to the searcher is "automatic", however as the data is provided in its raw format, and the “decision” is made by the searcher, I think you will be hard pushed to argue this point to a court. I am also not aware of a single person who has recently taken a CRA to court on this matter, and from what I can gather even the aforementioned Surlybonds has direct all of his injunction cases at the original creditors / primary data controllers and not at the CRA’s. I would however be very interested to see what did happen if anyone did attempt an injunction directly against the CRA’s, however I think they would need to have some fairly serious legal backing as I imagine if the CRA’s contested it (which mindful of the wider implications they undoubtedly would) then it would rapidly be escalated beyond the county courts, probably to the chancery division in the case of a breach of confidence, or the high court for a "simple" data protection issue, in either case the claimant would certainly not receive the same level of protection from costs if they were unsuccessful, and would probably be looking at a cost order of in excess of 10k if unsuccessful.

If it was a specific item of your claim that the default should be removed and the court has awarded an order in default, then a copy of this order sent to the CRA’s will suffice

Glenn, completely agree and until this is tested in a higher court unfortunately there will be no quick way forward. the only issue with the "damage and distress" statement / premise is that it must be clearly proved that the processing and it’s inherent impact on the subject are either "unwarranted", “disproportionate” or “unnecessary”. however if a data subject should stand before the court and openly admit to having breached the terms of a contract then the court may well take the view that the publishing is indeed warranted, and the impact on the subjects person or “credit worthiness” is only a true reflection on the way in which they have conducted their financial undertakings, it then becomes a separate matter for discussion as to the time frame of how long this performance data is actually relevant, which brings us back to the recommendations of the “independent” regulator the ICO. Furthermore the court will also be bound to consider the wider interests of the "public" (and I use the term loosely, as what it in fact means is the corporations who provide a "service" to the public) and therefore the terms “warranted” and “necessary” come into play again. I again apologise if my posts here seem negative, but it is my belief that pursuing the CRA’s will do little or nothing in the current climate, and that the time used would be much more wisely directed at the original creditor / primary data controller. The most the CRA will ever do at present is to deflect the issue and just offer to add a fairly feeble notice of correction to the data subjects file.

S.10(1) relates directly to “processing” and the argument they will use is that the industry regulator deems 6 years to be “reasonable in the circumstances” If you are referring to “automatic processing” then it is S.12(1) which is applicable, not S10.(1). 12. - (1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct. And all this requires is the removal of an automated decision making process, not the base format in which the data is stored or published.

Indeed they do "process" within the definitions of the act, however the line between processing and "automatic processing" is very thin, and this is the argument I imagine they would use.

I apologise in advance as you will no doubt interpret my response to be negative, and not what you would wish to hear however the facts relating to the statements you have made are as follows; you are quite correct, however the industry regulator (ICO) has already stated that the time period adopted would appear to be “reasonable” , and if you did chose to contest this in court you would need to present a very strong case to the court as to why the appointed regulators statement is flawed. These paragraphs raise a number of issues; Experian (or any CRA for that matter) do not engage in the automatic processing of your data, they merely store and publish to their clients, and within the scope of the act this is not classed “automatic processing” as no automated decision making is undertaken by the CRA’s themselves in respect of your data. Therefore the request you have made above will only ever result in them responding to you and offering to place a notice of correction to your file which will state that you as a data subject have chosen to opt out of automatic processing under S.12(1), however unfortunately this is no guarantee that automated processing will stop, as the interpretation of this notice (or any notice of correction added to a file) is governed by the searchers own protocols and algorithms built in to any “scoring” system. I’m sorry I cant be more positive, but the harsh reality is you will achieve little or no success pursuing the CRA in this manner, the best you will ever achieve is the addition of the S.12(1) notice. If you want the core data removed this is a matter you would need to contest directly with the original creditor / primary data control and subsequently raise any potential litigation directly with them.

No as this wont change the fact that the accounts were defaulted if there is no dispute that the debt is yours then no settle all debt, then potentially they may be removed raises the question why did two seprate creditors have the "wrong" address, had you moved and not updated them ?

Were the products scored against the data held at callcredit?, as the company’s that actually use Call Credit are exceptionally limited. If you can demonstrate that these products were “scored” against the inaccurate data then yes you have a case, however it is far more likely that either Experian or Equifax were used and other factors dictated your risk profile. Additionally I think you would struggle to get a witness statement from the lenders in question identifying true loss. Sorry I cant be more positive but I think you will struggle to obtain any form of formal compensation unless you can clearly demonstrate and prove a true loss

Why? what loss has been suffered?

1. did the original agreement form part of the claimants original evidence to the court. 2. have you made any payment towards the order since issue

If the order has been set aside then you should ask the CRA's to contact the registry trust, the CRA’s will then update their records accordingly

Call Credit are generally much slower at updating data, and are more prone to “oversights” Nonetheless if the order was satisfied in full and the claimant has verified this then Call Credit should update their records forthwith. With regards to compensation then if the data was with all three agencies, and you could document a true loss then you would have this option. However the likelihood is the credit you have obtained in the last few years has not be “scored” against the call credit data (virtually no one but their own sister company’s use them) so in reality, bit of a non starter

If the original order is successfully set aside then the registry trust will update their records accordingly, and the original order will be removed in its entirety. the court itself is not the data controller and will not be obliged to respond to a DPA request, it is the registry trust who are the registered data controller.

The court cant simply cancel an order once made unless an application to set aside or vary is made. The way you need to move forward on this is to submit an N244 applying for the original order to be set aside on the grounds that the sums claimed contained what you believe to be unlawful charges, and therefore the amount of the order was incorrect. Additionally the court has no direct contact with the CRA’s and certainly wont take kindly to being told that they will be reported for breaching the DPA. Once an order is made the court places this on the public register which in turn is published to the CRA’s and the general public via the registry trust. The courts involvement is to pass order only

You could technically argue that the employer has breached his duties under S.20 (1) and (2) of The Workplace (health safety and welfare Regs) In respect of s.s (2)(b) “orderly” may be interpreted as suitably maintained, therfor if provision was originally made for hot water and this has failed due to poor maintenance there is a duty to ensure it is reinstated. Sanitary conveniences 20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless— (a) the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit; (b) they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and © separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside. (3) It shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement in paragraph (1) to provide sufficient sanitary conveniences in a workplace which is not a new workplace, a modification, an extension or a conversion and which, immediately before this regulation came into force in respect of it, was subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961, if sanitary conveniences are provided in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 1.

A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) under S.7 of the Data Protection Act is not dependant on the full fee being paid, the data controller can if they chose provide the data without a fee, however the requirements of the S.7 the request remain unchanged. The £10 GBP is the maximum that may be charged, however there is no lawful requirement to charge, just a maximum charge that may be applied.

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply, I’m actually looking for a pre-defined template for the particulars of claim for when the defendant fails to respond to that notice

Has anyone seen a template for the particulars of claim for failure to comply to the S.10 DPA notice?

Unfortunately preparation costs would only apply to Multi Track or fast track cases, the £9.25 mentioned is not applicable to small claims. At least 2 people got away with this in the very early stages of the Mercantile cases, (before either the defendant or the claimant were informed of the courts directions) however once the court had indicated that all claims that had been transferred to the mercantile should be dealt with under the provisions of the small claims process then these payments were stopped by the defendant.

The subject access request is just the common term for a request made under S.7, and this request by definition will require them to release all relevant data pertaining to you as an individual, you will therefore not need to supply any account numbers as this should be provided to you under the generic request for data you have made. If you have already sent a S.A.R to Thames and they have exceed the 40 days compliance time, then report the matter immediately to the Information Commissioners Office, Thames are very well known to them!!!

If Thames have registered the default it is highly unlikely they can document it, send them a standard S.7 DPA request and when they fail to reply (which they will) report the matter to the ICO, they will then remove the notice ICO – Information Commissioner's Office

Hi hope I can shed some light on these for you Not quite sure what you are getting at here, there is no requirment under S.77 / S.78 to provide a default notice? The creditor being in "default" of their requirement to provide account data to enforce the debt will only be valid for as long as the non provision continues, if they can validate the debt after the initial period then the enforcement is lawful, no court action would be required. the 12 days relates to the requiment to provide a balance, and a statement of account under the CCA, the 40 days relates to the Data Protection Act S.7 request. Technically they would not have to produce the orginal notice, they could quite feasably just provide a witness statement to the court stating that one was sent, whether they would actualy do this or not is another matter though. Finaly if a "Default notice" was located they could indeed reinstate it, howevere it could only be registed as served on the orginal date, and would expire 6 years from the orginal date

No the note of sale would not have to disclose the amount that the item was sold for, just that the "benefit" / amount owed to the original creditor had been assigned / sold to the current claimant. Also, yes if they took the matter to court the judge would wish to see the original contract that the assignment relates too.

No the note of sale would not have to disclose the amount that the item was sold for, just that the "benefit" / amount owed to the original creditor had been assigned / sold to the current claimant. Also, yes if they took the matter to court the judge would wish to see the original contract that the assignment relates too.