Credit Ref Agency reply to DPA s.12 request-help please

[Number6]

Not quite, I'm afraid. I presume you're refering to 10.1:

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

However, if you look at 10.2, it says:

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

 

...which brings us straight back to Schedule 2.1:

 

CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF ANY PERSONAL DATA

 

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

 

 

We are going around in circles and only a test case will set this in stone. I'm quite prepared to put this to a judge if the CRA's don't play nicely.

 

As an aside the Information Commissioners Office has stated that it is impossible for consent to be freely granted... ...

 

Pete

[Robertxc]

Well, we'll find out soon enough. I will be in court on the 10th of October discussing this very issue with one of the banks. Presuming they don't settle first, of course.

[SurlyBonds]

I'm sure you'll hear from us shortly Pete.

 

James

 

Maybe we'll get some answers to some of the earlier questions now.... the ones carefully avoided. But, there again...

 

[Number6]

Well, we'll find out soon enough. I will be in court on the 10th of October discussing this very issue with one of the banks. Presuming they don't settle first, of course.

 

I'll look forward to learning the result.

 

Are they likely to settle?

 

Pete

[JamesJ]

Maybe we'll get some answers to some of the earlier questions now.... the ones carefully avoided. But, there again...

 

 

Maybe you could change your avatar!

[Guest Alison82]

Maybe you should forget about that James and start addressing some of the questions put to you!

[Number6]

JamesJ, please don't start using someones comic avatar as an excuse not to answer questions. If you are going to post on here then please show due deference to everyone else!

 

Pete

[SurlyBonds]

Maybe you could change your avatar!

 

Yeah right... that just about sums it up!

 

Troll s**t-stirring alert raised to DEFCON 4.

[JamesJ]

Happy to. I've answered lots of questions on here already. I have also taken some rather unjustified abuse. Someone even phoned and left me a very rude message with a colleague. Fire away.

[Tobes]

Yes, but they only provide it to other banks on the instruction of the originating bank (the one with your credit agreement, who for that purpose is the Data Controller). Also, they may well be data controllers as well - for example if you go online and get your credit file, but in this case you will have agreed somewhere to let them process your data for that purpose.

 

No, they supply my information to anyone who asks, on a commercial basis, because I have signed AGAIN or ticked a box because I am applying for more credit, another account or for the purposes of fraud and identity verification - it's nothing to do with the bank who has supplied my data to the CRAs anymore.

[Guest Alison82]

James

 

Where did the CRA's get the idea that 6 years equals a 'reasonable time'???

[Number6]

Happy to. I've answered lots of questions on here already. I have also taken some rather unjustified abuse. Someone even phoned and left me a very rude message with a colleague. Fire away.

 

You have also dodged many!

 

All we ask is that questions are answered honestly and with the benefit of in-depth knowledge.

 

What we do NOT want are "politicians" answers!

 

Pete

[JamesJ]

James

 

Where did the CRA's get the idea that 6 years equals a 'reasonable time'???

 

That's how long CCJs are kept on the public records.

[JamesJ]

You have also dodged many!

 

All we ask is that questions are answered honestly and with the benefit of in-depth knowledge.

 

What we do NOT want are "politicians" answers!

 

Pete

 

Pete

 

I will answer the questions I can honestly, as I always do.

 

James

[Guest Alison82]

That’s because that is in the public domain, what about all of the other data?

e.g. a default of £23 for a catalogue bill?

[JamesJ]

That’s because that is in the public domain, what about all of the other data?

e.g. a default of £23 for a catalogue bill?

 

If we're holding public personal data for six years it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time.

[Guest Alison82]

Payment history?

 

How someone conducted their finances when they were 18 would not necessarily be how they would conduct them at the age of 23, and even if they did could you not still show that with a payment history of 1-2 years??

[Guest Alison82]

If we're holding public personal data for six years it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time.

 

 

Even for something so trivial that can have a serious negative impact on a person’s life and their families lives??

[JamesJ]

To a certain extent you are right, which is why lenders often bias their scoring towards more recently borrowing behaviour.

[Tobes]

James - may I ask, who should I be talking to at Experian if I wish to make a complaint about someone from the Directors' Office, either because of what they've said to me in correspondence or just the way in which they're dealing with my queries/requests?

[Guest Alison82]

That doesn't make a difference a default is a default, you only need to look around here to see how much damage they can do especially if they are unjust.

 

CRA’s seem to have the view that customers are untrustworthy and if we challenge incorrect information you automatically side with the organisation without any proof.

 

Why is this?

 

Something that is so important as people’s livelihoods and futures why would you hold it in such disregard??

[Number6]

If we're holding public personal data for six years it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time.

 

What if a person has no CCJ's etc but one £25 default that happened 4 years ago for a valid reason (loss of job or similar say). What gives you the RIGHT to screw that persons life up for the sake of that?????

 

Pete

[Number6]

A lender will just see "DEFAULT" and push the eject button!

 

Pete

[JamesJ]

Even for something so trivial that can have a serious negative impact on a person’s life and their families lives??

 

People's credit reports are only linked if they actually apply for joint credit, so your family is not directly affected by your credit behaviour. I do think there should be more credit education for young people, particularly at school. But by the age of 18 most are responsible enough live adult lives - to vote, drink and manage credit etc.

[SurlyBonds]

If we're holding public personal data for six years it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time.

 

Wrong!!!...politician's answer...

 

"it makes sense to" does not equal "it is legal to" or "we are legally entitled to".

 

When will you likewise admit on this forum that Experian and all the other CRAs have absolutely NO legal permission other than what was agreed in the contract between the two original parties... a contract that the CRAs were not a party to?

 

Is the question really THAt difficult to understand?