2 defaults Egg and Vodaphone - Default hell!!

[Stuart_in_the_red]

Yes, well, asked a librarian at my local library but was told they don't hold a copy!

[Tinkerbelle]

Yes, well, asked a librarian at my local library but was told they don't hold a copy!

 

I meant the Library on this site.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/27535-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html

[Stuart_in_the_red]

I meant the Library on this site.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/27535-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html

 

lol thank you tinkerbelle, I will have a look :grin:

[kateandpete]

You need to check out some other threads in this forum and in the defaults sub-forum. This issue has been discussed quite a bit. Under the CCA they don't need to supply you with a default notice. In fact, according to the CCA (and accompanying statutory instruments), they don't even need to provide you with a copy of your signed agreement, but that's another matter.

 

The important bit though is that if you were to take them to court, they would need to show they had complied with sections 87, 88 and 89 of the CCA. (Read it in the statutes library on this site). I can't see how they would be able to do this without a copy of the original default notice.

 

The situation seems to be the same with original executed agreements. You need to go to court in order to see it.

 

Check out some of zootscoot and Number6's posts on these issues. They know far more than me.

[elsinore]

Check out some of zootscoot and Number6's posts on these issues. They know far more than me.

 

Particularly rhis one

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/43409-link-financial-cca-request-2.html

 

Elsinore

[ED1237]

Just linking to the thread

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry to reopen this thread, but I didn't find it till it was vurtually over.

My question relates to the use of our data by a CRA after we have

terminated an agreement with a bank, say, but they have left a default on our record.

Thus most of the conditions that allow a CRA to continue processing that

data have gone. However this clause appears that it might justify their

continual processing-

 

"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 by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

A CRA could surely claim that to continue to store the default information

could be described as a legitimate interest in their line of business. So does

their interest outweigh our legitimate interest to have it removed. And if

it does, why should they be allowed to process defaults at all?

[Guest willowb]

legitimate interest in their line of business. ?

 

But they have no legal right......the basis of SB's templates.

 

Wxx

[un1boy]

"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 by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

The data controller has no legitimate interest - they are not party to a contract between them and the data subject for example, they don't have permission to process the data.

 

And as for the rights and freedoms - at the end of the day, for a data controller to be processing default entries that are settled and say under £1000 or in my case £1 (yes, £1!!!) then the processing is unwarrented.....it makes no difference if someone defaulted a few years ago - they might have been going through a tough time, maybe a divorece or bereavement for example.

 

So, in my view the processing is unwarrented. I am in the processes of comiling my N! for Equifax and Experian to stop them proceessing my data!

[lookinforinfo]

Sadly perhaps, SB is not the final arbiter on what is and what isn't legal.

And I take my hat off to him for his achievements with the interpretation of

the Data Protection Act and his knowledge when dealing with Cras and

especially the removal of defaults. And the email from Experian was the

icing on the cake.

However the clause above is one of the conditions that allows data controllers to process our data [and only one condition is necessary to allow it]. And that clause appears to cover CRAs in the conducting of their

businesses. So my question is, I suppose, given that the above clause

appears to cover CRAs, why did Experian not use it in their dealings with SB?

[lookinforinfo]

Under section 7 of the DPA, there is a section devoted to CRAs, which

would imply that the legislating body accept that CRAs do have a role to

play in the processing of data. Morover the function of CRAs is to supply

their members with details on as many of the population as they can [and

doubtless as much detail as they are allowed under the law]. That would

seem to mean that our data is their legitimate interest, providing it is

fairly, accurately and lawfully processed.

Cras do not need our permission to process data, though our consent would

be a bonus to them. At the moment my thought is that clause 6 above

does allow them to continue to process our data even where no contract

exists beteen ourselves and another company.

 

It may well be that there will be on an individual basis, circumstances like

the one cited by Uniboy, where his legitimate interests override those of

the data controller, but it may take a Court case [or cases] to resolve.

[Guest willowb]

and lawfully processed..

Doesn't that sentence leave them open to the fact that they are not acting lawfully by processing our data without our expressed permission after the cessation of a contract?

 

Wxx

[lookinforinfo]

There are any one of six conditions under which it is possible to process data.

And the one I quoted appears to obviate the need for consent or a contract.

[Guest willowb]

.

And the one I quoted appears to obviate the need for consent or a contract.

How?

 

The 6 years thing is a term decided upon by the cra's and financial institutions. The legislating body may consent to their right to process data under certain conditions but the cra's and FIs are sadly mistaken if they think they can dream up a fixed period for their own benefit. Why not say 12 years and get away with it?

 

Within the law, I am entitled to question anyone's authority to control/process my personal data. I don't give the FIs permission to do so and they have no contract with me to be upheld. There is nothing written in legislation which gives them expressed permission to do so once a contract has been ended.

 

Wxx

[lookinforinfo]

Before we start on defaults, consider clause 6 from the point of view of a CRA. Already they hold data on anyone who is registered on any Council Roll.

Have we given them permission to do that? Also, in a bank/customer relationship, for instance, the CRA would be the 3rd party in clause 6

wouldn't you agree? "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". In the event of the bank account

being subsequently closed, the clause reads that the third party, if they

have legitimate interests, can also process data, without the need for

consent or a contract between the 3rd party and the data subject. The

collection and storage of data is the core business of CRAs, and there

appears to be no lawful hindrance on their operations when complying with

the Act. So we can conclude that processing data by CRAs even after the

cancellation of the original bank/customer agreement is not in itself a

breach of the Data Protection Act, by invoking clause 6 ?

 

Now we come on to defaults. Surlybonds does not seem to object to their

use when a person is in default, as he confirms in his "Victory" thread by saying that he would not try to have those ones removed. And as for the

six year term, I would imagine it falls in line with the Limitations Act for

debts and ccjs. Anything longer would surely breach the UTCCR.

 

Where a contract has expired, while the bank in our example can no longer

process our data, it is harder to make out a case for the CRA to likewise cease, especially as their clients look to them for information on which to base

their decisions. Especially as clause 6 appears to give them the right to do so-

"

except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

Now I accept that an expired default may come under at least part of those

terms, but do they outweigh the legitimate interests of the CRA to process

them, when they don't appear to have when the default was current.

Perhaps there is no fixed answer, and each individual case may have to be

judged on its merits in Court, or a precedent set.

I appreciate that a different answer was supplied to Surlybonds in the email

from Experian [or was it Equifax] but perhaps they failed to understand fully

the Act. On the other hand, I may be totally wrong, though I have seen

nothing yet that confirms it.

[Tinkerbelle]

except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

 

The Data Subject being Joe Public i.e you and me.

[Guest willowb]

I don't think anyone is going for the juggular with the CRAs, infact it's advised against when trying to get a default removed. People are arguing with the financial institutions their right to store and process information after a contract has ended. They are not covered by clause 6.

 

Wxx

 

I'm trying....don't shout!

[Tinkerbelle]

I don't think anyone is going for the juggular with the CRAs, infact it's advised against when trying to get a default removed. People are arguing with the financial institutions their right to store and process information after a contract has ended. They are not covered by clause 6.

 

Wxx

 

I'm trying....don't shout!

 

That wasn't directed at you hon.

 

I'm just highlighting something for lookingfor info

 

Like you I have always said that it is best to go after the Organisation and not the CRA, and I can see no benefit in stopping a CRA from processing one's data. They do actually have a role, and benefit to everyone. Some people may agree, some may not.

 

However, when they refuse to remove or correct incorrect information then that's a problem. I don't think anyone should try and use the DPA to hide or avoid paying a legitimate debt. A person will always be in a better position to have things corrected/ammended if they don't have monies outstanding.

 

Lets not forget that the CRA's are allowed by Law to process data that is in the public domain, all the other stuff, well....that's what everyone is debating

[Guest willowb]

I meant that for LFI too LOL:)

 

I agree totally with what you are saying, CRAs have a necessary role but it is extremely one sided when it comes to our rights, they seem to totally represent the banks whilst giving everyone the impression that they are unbiased.

 

It would take a very confident person who knows their stuff inside out to take on the CRAs over this issue but as for the banks, well it's just so obvious that all their rights to process our data ends after 1. the debt is paid off and 2. the contract (where consent was given) has ended. If they can produce a signed agreement whereby the data subject has given them the expressed right to continue processing their data after a contract has ended then they might have an argument. But even if they did, wouldn't they still be in breach of the law? Would they be in breach of Unfair Terms and Conditions?

 

Just my thoughts, I don't profess to know an awful lot!

 

Wxx

[Tinkerbelle]

I meant that for LFI too LOL:)

 

I agree totally with what you are saying, CRAs have a necessary role but it is extremely one sided when it comes to our rights, they seem to totally represent the banks whilst giving everyone the impression that they are unbiased.

 

It would take a very confident person who knows their stuff inside out to take on the CRAs over this issue but as for the banks, well it's just so obvious that all their rights to process our data ends after 1. the debt is paid off and 2. the contract (where consent was given) has ended. If they can produce a signed agreement whereby the data subject has given them the expressed right to continue processing their data after a contract has ended then they might have an argument. But even if they did, wouldn't they still be in breach of the law? Would they be in breach of Unfair Terms and Conditions?

 

Just my thoughts, I don't profess to know an awful lot!

 

Wxx

 

I agree with you. I opened a parachute account with a bank that I am going to close. They charged me over £100 for bouncing a £17 direct debit,a nd when I asked for a refund they threatened me with account closure.

 

So I will be writing to them, telling them that I am closing the account. Return the cheque book and cards, amd my letter will also state that by closing the account they have agreed to stop processing my data, and where it has been processed they must remove it etc etc...

 

Lets see how they like that

[Guest willowb]

You rock Tinks!!

 

Wxx

[Number6]

I agree with you. I opened a parachute account with a bank that I am going to close. They charged me over £100 for bouncing a £17 direct debit,a nd when I asked for a refund they threatened me with account closure.

 

So I will be writing to them, telling them that I am closing the account. Return the cheque book and cards, amd my letter will also state that by closing the account they have agreed to stop processing my data, and where it has been processed they must remove it etc etc...

 

Lets see how they like that

 

What bank is it Tinks?

 

Love the new avatar BTW! Best one yet

 

Pete

[dayglo]

good morning - I see we've dug up another old thread! hmmm those were the days eh? When we thought all we had to do was send a couple of letters and we'd have our lives back?

[Number6]

good morning - I see we've dug up another old thread! hmmm those were the days eh? When we thought all we had to do was send a couple of letters and we'd have our lives back?

 

Life seemed so much simpler then...

 

Pete

[elsinore]

Life seemed so much simpler then...

 

Pete

 

Or has time re-written every line?

 

Elsinore