further to my earlier post (1591) I have now received a reply from the Information Commissioner check it out http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/72974-reply-form-information-commissioners.html

I sent them an email on 22 February and they replied today.The following is my reply to their response, my reply to them today also includes the original email I sent them on 22nd Feb. Here goes...... COULD YOU PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO A PERSON THAT CAN READ ENGLISH, SINCE YOU HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, MY QUESTION AGAIN WAS If a lender cannot produce evidence of an agreement (AS IN A REGULATED CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT) with an individual and the account is in dispute and that individual has not given consent to the lender for processing or transmitting his/her data in respect of the disputed account, is the lender legally entitled to transmit his/her data to the CRA's. Note, I am talking about the legallity and not industry practise. If your answer is yes than I would like you to point me to the part in the data protection act that will prove this. I have also highlighted in your response below my comment. Since this is a very serious matter I await a response from someone who is an authority on these matters. Regards Humblemen 10th March 2007 Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for e-mail communication of 22nd February 2007. From the content of your communication it would seem that you are questioning whether the retention of an adverse entry on your credit file is in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act). (I AM TALKING ABOUT ANY DATA IN ABSENCE OF A REGULATED CCA) You seem to infer that the lender in question would only have permission to hold account information for the duration of a credit agreement and that once the agreement ends so does the consent to process information about it. (WHERE HAVE I INFERED THIS IN MY ORIGINAL EMAIL) Your argument appears to be based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case. As you may be aware the first data protection principle states that “Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless: at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met; and in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.” One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is our view (INTERESTED IN LEGALITY NOT YOUR VIEWS)that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent. No one condition carries greater weight than any other. All the conditions provide an equally valid basis for processing. Merely because consent is the first condition to appear in both Schedules 2 and 3 does not mean that organisations should consider it first. Consent is not defined in the Act and so it is helpful to look back at Directive 95/46/EC which defines “the data subject’s consent” as: “…any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed.” In the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is because if you don’t agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice. It is our view (INTERESTED IN LEGALITY NOT YOUR VIEWS) that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond. “The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.” We take a wide view (INTERESTED IN LEGALITY NOT YOUR VIEWS) of the legitimate interests and we consider (INTERESTED IN LEGALITY NOT YOUR CONSIDERATION) that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals. The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted (SHOULD BE). At the time this was already the practice (INTERESTED IN LEGALITY NOT INDUSTRY PRATICE)common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained. (THEREFORE THERE IS NO TIME FRAME IN PLACE CURRENTLY) The fifth data protection principle states that “Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.” Account information is held by the credit reference agencies for a period of six years after the account was last active. It does appear to be the case, (WHERE IN LAW DO IT SAY THIS IS OK) at least at the present time, that in addition to current credit commitments the preceding six years of an individual’s credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed. As a consequence this historical information would appear (WHO SAYS) to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle. I trust that this has clarified our position. (IT DOESN'T AND I FAIL TO SEE WHY IT TOOK YOU 16 DAYS TO SEND ME A TEMPLATE)Thank you for writing to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Yours faithfully Casework & Advice Officer

what the FOS mean is we will send them a standard letter with details of all the affected customers, instead of bothering our member with 100's of letters, so they can just reply with a simple letter rather than addressing 100's of letters individually.

IT is not about name-changing its about swapping (this is the key difference) names, 2 totally different things. Its is to do with legalities from the revenues point of view and creative accounting. In simpler terms Humbleman is 16 years, get stopped whilst driving a car gives his brothers name who has a driving licence, so for the time being his name is Humblemans-brother, when he passes his test he is Humbleman again. There is no need to swap name if all is/was in order.

I would again point out that these companies Kings hill and Cabot, actually swopped name, its was not just a change of name. What I am getting at is, why would companies swap names, one of the reasons would be that for a long time they were conducting business activity under the umbrella of a company that was dormant. All of a sudden they realised that they better put their house in order since the consumers are now becoming more learned. How many of you have before bothered to question or do a company search on lenders about 5 years ago, I would say none and since we realised that the so called clean companies are no longer so, we have started to uncover a lot of shady dealings.

I guess this is SENSE-BURRIES for all loyal customers

When I CCA'd them 4 weeks ago I got a reply to the effect, could you please call us inorder we may assist you with your query I will just sit tight until 12+30 days and sent them a letter saying they have excedeed the time limit etc.

IMO the TS are not with us on this, and as such will not prosecute the DCA or the original lender for non compliance. As it is they are not able to deal effectively with the current affairs, if you can imagine them taking this on it means they could possible be overloaded with a hell of a lot of extra pain and bother.

100% behind you on this.

Once you are in arrears, your LL has an option to either detemine the lease or send in bailiffs to levy charge on the goods in the premises in question (giving you some time to pay the rent).To determine the lease they can just instruct a firm of bailiffs who inturn will change the locks and post a notice to that effect. Did any of this happen.

I would agree with Lantanas' view on this.

Conar686 excellent!!!!

bump

Wait till the summer and you will get the specials

How very right. I wouldnt be surprised when you make a complaint to ICO, they probably ring the CRA's and ask, By the way what is the Industry norm for this, and the CRA would reply by the way its ....... and coming from ICO we take it as gospel.

Almost identical to the one I got, except for the choice of the four cards which I didn't have

This was obviously an invitation to apply for a credit card. What surprised me was the response I got.

at the top of this it starts of with Platinum Card 5.9 % for balance transfer until... No annual fees Platinum Card Benefits RSVP REPLY BY 1999 Please complete your application form etc etc and if you need any help etc call 0800...... please return by ........ Credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974 (in small writing) Card Issued by RBS..... Pricipal cardholder details, then the bit where I fill in my details etc... A box at the bottom says YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL-Once you have signed this agreement you will have a short time to cancel it. Exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post by RBS Advanta There is only my signature and no box for theirs

I got a reply from them this morning and have started my own thread (to avoid hijacking this thread) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/71723-last-mint-reply-cca.html

Made a CCA request under section (77-79) a month ago using the template, got a letter today Sorry for the delay......... Your request for documents contains some misconception about your entitlement to information in a specified format, so that there is no misunderstanding here we will set the record straight on the format of the information we are obliged to provide you. Your written request for information made under s78(1) of CCA no it was under 77-79 must be accompained by a fee of £1. I sent this to you but you decided to not to acknowledge We are obliged to provide you with a 'true' copy of the credit agreement. In terms of CCA copy document regulations the true copy requirements can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement. We are not insisting on the payment of £1 and enclosed the s78(1) information. With regard to your request of 'statement of account' I never mentioned this in my letter I have enclosed the most recent statement for the above account. Ok what I got is Copy of my last months statement a generic piece of paper with my name address account number and credit limit and half way down a title 'CCA regulated by CCA 1974' and then goes on to giving key financial information AN application form with my name address, employer a bit about data protection and my signature ageneric leaflet YOUR COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS What do the experts think of this

I CCA'd about 4 weeks ago, not heard anything from them at all

just be calm and collective and you will just walk over them

When did they obtain the CCJ?

THats the reason why I wanted clarification, since there is already a judgment your first course of action would be to have the judgment set aside and then argue the case. AS long as the CCJ is there there is no question of dispute, IMO

For clarification, did you CCA'd them on the account they already have CCJ's.