Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks. I often use this free site  https://www.sejda.com/compress-pdf  for work to compress PDFs. If it's no good, as you say, split it, and we'll do the biz at this end tomorrow. Knackered here - more in the morrow.
    • This is the covering email response (all personal details removed) - the pdf with all the info is 8mb - too big to upload - I'll need to split it and redact it tomorrow. Dear, We write further to your recent correspondence. We note from this that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the dates of 22nd August 2023 and 11th September 2023 and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 26th August 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 22nd August 2023 Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we entered into legal proceedings on 8th January 2024 in order to recover the outstanding sum owed for the Parking Charge and further costs were incurred. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 15th September 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 11th September 2023 . Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we contacted our recovery agent in order to recover the outstanding sum owed against the Parking Charge. For clarity, personal data sent to our recovery agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. We can confirm, in line with s.(1)(h) of Article 15, that no automated decision-making or profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4), has been undertaken in relation to personal data in this case. We note that Article 22 states as follows, “The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her”. We can confirm that you have not been subject to such a decision and that the processing falls outside the scope of Article 22. Any automated checks undertaken by Parkingeye in relation to ANPR data will only result in a decision not to issue a Parking Charge. Should the ANPR data we process indicate that a breach of the parking terms and conditions has taken place, any subsequent decision to issue a Parking Charge will require that data to pass through a substantial checking process that includes human intervention. Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:   •             The right to request from Parkingeye access, rectification or erasure of your personal data; •             The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data; •             The right to object to the processing of your personal data.   Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, www.ico.org.uk. You may also seek a judicial remedy. For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.Parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/   Yours sincerely,   Parkingeye Privacy Team
    • Thanks to you both.  I'd guessed it was CCTV, but the creeps who sneak up and take photos of the vehicles also use time stamps. BTW TT98, what you have received is not a fine, you can never be clobbered for the statutory consequences of not paying a fine - because it isn't one.  It's an invoice, and they have the same right to sue you as you have the right to sue anyone as a layperson who doesn't pay you for an invoice.  It's just a simple civil matter about a "debt".  Nothing worse.
    • As Dave has already said there are Consideration periods and Grace periods to be taken into account when private parking is involved. Before looking at that the first thing is to check whether your PCN complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which regulates the private parking rogues. They were very good at twice quoting from the Act but they missed Section 9[2][e] (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; They didn't do that so they have not complied with the Act which means they cannot pursue you as the keeper only as the driver which they said themselves when quoting Section 9 [2][f] . In addition they are supposed to quote the period of parking but instead given the times of arrival and departure of your vegicle which is not the same thing.Obviously their times  include the driving times to the parking place plus later from the parking place to the exit. So removing those times from your 15 minute overtime and that doesn't include extra minutes when your car was held up by stopping for pedestrians or other cars passing in front of you as well as returning the shopping trolley and possibly  queueing to get out of the car park. And that doesn't include children and or disabled people causing greater differences betwen their times and the actual parking period which is what is specified in the Act. It is perfectly possible that as much as fifteen minutes longer  could be taken in a larger busy car park compared to their spurious ANPR times. You may have noticed sating well done to you in his post. that was for two reasons. The first for giving us all the necessary details surrounding the alleged breach. the second well done was for not appealing a possibly giving away who was driving. As you the keeper is not responsible now for paying the PCN and Highview do not know who was driving they will have difficulty if the take you to Court since Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person which is quite right considering that quite often family members often drive as opposed to the keeper as can loads of other people drive your  who have valid insurance motor policies. So don't worry even if you have to go to Court as the odds are in your favour and that's before we see the contract and Witness Statement which often give more ammunition against them.
    • Thanks. The way the court system works, with fixed costs included in the claim, means you have nothing to lose by fighting on. Give in now and you pay them their claim. Lose in court and you pay them their claim.  So why not fight? In fact were you to lose in court it's highly likely that the judge would increase the amount by their £25 hearing fee but then decrease it by disallowing the £70 Unicorn Food Tax they have just made up and added to the claim. It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay. But what about their negligence in allowing a disgracefully-parked vehicle to stay where it was and prevent your BB access? In any case, there is a long, long way to go before court.  A lot of these companies start a court claim in the hope that the motorist will wet themself and give in.  If a case is robustly defended and a decent Witness Statement produced, a good 20% of the time they drop the cases.  We'll support you all the way.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4112 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by renegotiation
New thread created out of much longer and older thread.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :lol: :lol: :lol: 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?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely an SAR 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

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 SAR's.

 

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.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 SAR'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?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 SAR's show up. Thanks again.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, this latest discussion is theoretical - what happens in practise is that these companies flaut the law, DPA 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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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

Edited by renegotiation
Content Of Post Changed To Link Up Thread Better.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written strong letters to all the CRA's asking them for definite confirmation of their policies on data over 6 years old. I await their replies with interest. No replies as of yet.

 

I had a bit of an argument the other day with an Equifax manager as it goes. I was letting off steam about them turning up on my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from Barclaycard. He told me it was moral that creditors should know where their debtors were. I told him I agreed that it was moral for creditors to know the location of their debtors, BUT (a) it wasn't their job to do that, especially in the clandestine manner in which it was done!!! and (b) even if it was their job to do that, WHICH IT WASN'T, they certainly had no business passing on telephone numbers of debtors to disgusting DCA's that harassed folk in their own homes at all hours of the day!!! He seemed to shut up after hearing my comments and didn't know what to say!

 

Experian are the first to reply and here is their response. Yep, I was right! Here it is:

 

IMG.jpg

 

My experience of CRA's so far is:

 

Experian - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in both telephone calls! Good work Experian!

 

Equifax - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in one call. Moralised and lied to in the other! Good work Equifax!

 

Callcredit - They don't seem to be contactable by phone apparently! Otherwise, I think I know what I would be hearing. Anyhow, I complained about 2 incorrect default dates from one company. They were down as 18 months later than the identical defaults on my Experian and Equifax credit reports. They wrote and said the ***2*** dates had been amended. I wrote back and requested another credit report. Lo and behold, only 1 of the dates had been amended! Good work Callcredit!

 

That's nothing but lies and incompetence. I await the replies from Equifax and Callcredit on default data over 6 years old with interest. My question is if it isn't any use to anyone why do they keep it? They don't have grounds to keep it do they? I thought they were supposed to keep data for 'only as long as it was necessary'!

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they admit that they archive the information rather than delete it after 6 years.

They might claim that's so that they can check back on stuff, do SARs etc.

However the act says they should only keep information for as long as it is relevant, then delete it, not archive it.

 

Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

These 3 companies must have a hell of a lot of data on people are they suppose to send you archive stuff as well as the data up to six years. Also do they send it to people in ordinary post when a SAR is sent to therm. It must be very heavy and cost a lot of postage. I am not not worry about their cost but may only send it out second class and even if they send it first class people may not get it for weeks later due to it been so heavy. Why do they keep old stuff that is older then six year old as I alway thought that it would automatically fall of their computers when it was six years old. Do they go thought it and look at what is worth keeping. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal experience with Experian has been that they DON'T automatically drop stuff unless you check your credit report - which after all is what THEY want you to do MONTHLY (there is an article stating that one day it will be necessary to do MONTHLY checks - WHY????) if I can find the article I will post the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'O' Yes, of course they want everyone to do a monthly check, think of all that revenue from us the punter, I feel sometimes that they have a lot to do with data going missing, it is a money making racket and that is a fact. :-?

 

These people are less than honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make the ICO my first port of call and see what they say. Then, I need to draft a good letter for my CRA SAR's. I'll just wait and see what Equifax and Callcredit have to say. I'm thinking I should have no legal difficulty forcing them to remove my data that no longer need. I just don't trust them!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I received a wholly inadequate reply from Equifax a few days back and absolutely no response from Callcredit whatsover. My original letter template was completely unambiguous so the feeble reply from Equifax and lack of reply from callcredit are likely to be answers in themselves. Hmmm. I wonder what that answer could be? :):):) I have sent a copy of my original letter to Callcredit (registered mail this time) demanding a response and another unambiguous letter to Equifax asking for a fuller answer! Just for the record, I have pasted Equifax's lacklustre response below. They have basically just stated what most of the nation knows and ignored my question.

 

 

 

IMG-3.jpg

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are like blinkin politicians the way they answer these questions - never a straight answer! You ask them a question and they come back with " No, the question that should be asked is......." then go on to answer that one ( with a touch of " The fact of the matter is...." :mad: ) Jeez they make you mad!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez they make you mad!

 

Yes, but they certainly picked the wrong person if they think i'm just going to skulk off.

 

sue the companies giving them the information, I say. (I have!)

 

I plan to do all I can. I got a lot of things on my plate at the moment! One thing at a time for me. Still got to start my CCJ set aside as well. :):):)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...