Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So, the two child benefit cap is going to (rightly or wrongly) be a big issue, with the care of kids undoubtedly taking second place to political point scoring  ... Some think that parents should be responsible for kids, and the state pay as little as possible else the parents will just use having kids (which they then neglect) as a means of income for them to spend on fags and booze. Some think that benefits should be effectively there for anyone whatever the circumstances.   So what do people think might be some sort of solution?   I think that both those stances are extremes,  and you can be sure of just a few things 1. Neither or any approach fits all affected. There are some who will abuse the system, just as there are some left in genuine desperate need. 2. None of its the kids fault, and how they are treated will have a large impact on our nations future.   So, despite the claims of 'it means only rich people can have kids' which is rubbish, I think the cap should stay. ... BUT that free school meals should be introduced for all state school kids:   Which would * ensure our nations children kids get fed at least one meal a day with the funds intended for that * be a significant incentive to go to school for the poorer kids at least - keeping many off the streets and away from bad company * almost certainly reduce problems and increase productivity in the classroom from irritable hungry kids (per stats)   Not a perfect solution by any means - but seems a positive move to me.    
    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
    • Unrest has claimed the lives of 32 people, after a policy on government jobs sparked mass protests.View the full article
  • 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
      • 162 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

Data Protection - What If I Rescind My Permission


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5528 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

I have been reading through some clips I have downloaded and came accross the one below, it was probably actually brought to our attention by this site

My question is, can I rescind my permission for my Data to be processed. This would by-pass the DCA/OC and be directed entirely at the reporting agencies. THEY DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to hold or publish my information, and if I swear an Afidavit or something similar, rescinding, or similar any permissions they think they may have to process and hold my Data

 

Thinking along this line, they have NEVER had my permission to proccess my Data, which is either sold or given to them by a third party so how can they justify that they are acting within the law.

 

"Section 55 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) makes it a criminal offence to obtain and sell personal data from individuals without their consent.

"This catches investigators who obtain personal information about an individual and sell it on.

"But it means companies buying personal data also risk prosecution, because by requesting the information they may have ‘procured' the offence.

"The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has made it clear that businesses can no longer turn a blind eye to the source of any personal data they use."

 

Businesses using personal data should review their processes and how they engage with their information agencies."

News of the allegations comes against a backdrop of threatened tougher penalties for companies and individuals in breach of data rules, including heavy fines and even prison sentences.

Substantial fines in the form of a percentage of turnover could be introduced this summer, while the Government has already agreed that the ICO can audit public bodies. The ICO is now pressing for the right to audit private companies, too, in response to increasing numbers of public organisations such as local authorities and NHS trusts outsourcing their IT functions.

At the same time, it wants to see prison sentences introduced for those in breach of Section 55.

I thought we could open up a discussion along these lines, unless of course, it has already been done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think there is another problem with the whole data processing issue. This goes back to the fact that there are thousands of unenforceable CCA's out there because they haven't been signed or they lack prescribed terms. Surely logic dictates that if these 'agreements' are fatally flawed because they are not properly executed, it follows that there is no agreement in place. If there is no agreement, how can someone have given permission for data to be processed in conncection with this agreement. I believe that the OC's are committing crimes by continuing to process data and passing on this 'permission' to ther appointed DCA's who in turn commit further crimes.

 

The issue is a simple one - and should be for any court or commissioner to decide. I have no 'proper' agreement with X, therefore X has no right to process data becuase there is no agreement. Furthermore, X cannot pass on this supposed right to process data because there is no agreement in the first place. I know it's simplistic, but surely the moral issues surrounding CCA's being enforced because goods/services have been provided have no place in our courts? It seems that most of these OC's & DCA's rely on the moral high ground rather than the law. In my eyes the moral high ground is actually where a business conducts itself lawfully and ethically.

 

Anyway that's my opinion- but yes it should be a very simple thing to have the right rescind one's permission to process data but I am sure that Joe Public wil never win that right. It is obvious to me that the failure of the Banks, finance houses and retailers to ensure their agreements are watertight is one of the main reasons we are now deep in recession and those responsible should be hung out to dry. Do not blame the 'sub-prime' customers for borrowing beyond their means (afterall, we aren't criminals as some organisations would have you believe), blame the lenders in whatever form the may be.

 

Here endeth the rant accoring to the Wizard.........

Edited by welshwizard
keyboard dyslexia again....

Welshwizard QC (Quite Content):rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

....taking up the rant!!!!!

 

I totally agree with all that you have said, and I know that it is not as you say as simplistic as we see it, but, you know, actually it probably is that simple!!

 

For instance, I have it explained to me what a surgeon is going to do in the operating theatre, and I sign to say 'go ahead'. Then I have a think about it and decide, no, thats' too risky, and I rescind my permission - end of.

 

I sign a legally binding Contract, and all is explained to me - I sign - the contract is lost, and cannot be proved and a Judge will uphold my right (most will anyway). So if they do not have the right to my money, how can they say they have the right to process my personal data because the agreement with my signature existed (in their eyes). Now the rub as I see it - the DCA's are not and never have been a party to this so called elusive agreement, so will NEVER have even set eyes on it so how can they legally suppy my private information to a third party!!!

 

Now, the CRA's - How do they obtain the information they publish - do they buy it, are they given it free gratis or what. Now the important part DO THEY HAVE MY PERMISSION, OR HAVE HAD SIGHT OF MY PERMISSION TO PUBLISH MY DETAILS - no, they do not, and so I am going to draw up a legal looking document, swear it at Court and send it to all CRA's and see what happens!!

 

Here endeth the rant according to HC ........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
....taking up the rant!!!!!

 

I totally agree with all that you have said, and I know that it is not as you say as simplistic as we see it, but, you know, actually it probably is that simple!!

 

For instance, I have it explained to me what a surgeon is going to do in the operating theatre, and I sign to say 'go ahead'. Then I have a think about it and decide, no, thats' too risky, and I rescind my permission - end of.

 

I sign a legally binding Contract, and all is explained to me - I sign - the contract is lost, and cannot be proved and a Judge will uphold my right (most will anyway). So if they do not have the right to my money, how can they say they have the right to process my personal data because the agreement with my signature existed (in their eyes). Now the rub as I see it - the DCA's are not and never have been a party to this so called elusive agreement, so will NEVER have even set eyes on it so how can they legally suppy my private information to a third party!!!

 

Now, the CRA's - How do they obtain the information they publish - do they buy it, are they given it free gratis or what. Now the important part DO THEY HAVE MY PERMISSION, OR HAVE HAD SIGHT OF MY PERMISSION TO PUBLISH MY DETAILS - no, they do not, and so I am going to draw up a legal looking document, swear it at Court and send it to all CRA's and see what happens!!

 

Here endeth the rant according to HC ........

I would love to see this.

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...