DCA demanding personal info via Data Prot

[scrambledbyegg]

Arden on behalf of Mint have been pestering to agree repayments for a multiple agreement loan. I have made several "without prejudice" offers which they refuse to accept unless I provide them with details of my income and out goings. I have refused to do this and told them so on several occasions. They have now sent a letter stating that I must comply since they have a right to demand such information under the data protection act! Is this true?

[count orlok]

Simply put; NO

[unclebulgaria67]

No. What has it got to do with the Data Protection act.

 

Is the offer you are making a full & final settlement or just a monthly payment amount? If it is an F&F, then your financial details are none of their business. If it is a monthly payment amount, then yes it is standard practice for them to ask for income and expenditure details, but up to you, whether you want to do this.

[huggys boss]

Complete and utter codswallop!

 

They have no more right to demand you income and expenditure than I have. They are trying to intimidate you.

 

You have made an offer and they are now trying to get your info so they can demand more than you can/want to afford!

 

Stick to your guns.

 

How old is this loan, and when did you last pay it?

 

Have you CCA'd them?

 

Keep a copy of that letter, I am sure they have broken some guidelines with that one!

[harrassed senior]

You should also report this letter to OFT and Trading Standards at Consumer Direct

 

Also report to ICO at Complaints - Privacy & electronic communication - ICO

[scrambledbyegg]

Here is the letter in question, its very subtle wording, it seems to only imply a right to demand information, all so interesting to note that they say they were being paid, not Mint, are arden part of Mint? They fail to mention that the alleged contract would appear to be a multiple multiple agreement since it includes PPI.arden_ed.pdf

[ashmk]

They can request all they want just like I could request all I like but that does not mean you are obliged to do anything about it.

 

This is a simple attempt to confuse you with jargon.

[kardashian1]

You should also report this letter to OFT and Trading Standards at Consumer Direct

[unclebulgaria67]

Here is the letter in question, its very subtle wording, it seems to only imply a right to demand information, all so interesting to note that they say they were being paid, not Mint, are arden part of Mint? They fail to mention that the alleged contract would appear to be a multiple multiple agreement since it includes PPI.[ATTACH]20713[/ATTACH]

 

The letter is perfectly correct that if you want to make reduced payments, they can ask for income and expenditure details. Under DPA, they can only use this information to make a decision and they cannot use it thereafter. BUT it is entirely up to you whether you provide or not. If you don't, then they will probably use this as a reason not to accept reduced payments.

 

If they take this to court, Arden could use this against you.

 

The other thing, you should look into is how Arden have become involved in this. Have Mint written to you to confirm that they have assigned your account to Arden.. They are required to do this, before Arden are able to arrange for you to pay them. You should contact Mint to check this, before you do anything.

[PGH7447]

seems pretty straight forward, you are asking for reduced payments and they just want to see what you have left at the end of the month in relation to your offer, I dont see this has a letter Demanind info just requesting it to assist them in coming to a "reasonable" reduced monthly payment.

 

Your call I am afraid, you are asking, they are querying if the offer is acceptable.

[scrambledbyegg]

The thing is the offer is for £150 which is the same I pay for a similar debt with another account, so I think its reasonable. The issue I have with sending a breakdown is I am currently contesting some alleged debts, so if I put down no repayments for them and I end up paying then the info will be invalid, however, I don't want to put down what repayments may be as it may be construed as accepting liability for the ones I am contesting. I will write back again with the offer and inform them that I am going to complain to the RFT as I believe they are trying to be misleading w.r.t. DPA. What I do find amusing is they sent an account breakdown, the same one Mint sent under SAR 6 months ago, which contains information Mint are now "struggling" to find for over 6 weeks in relation to my PPI claim! The account was originally with Moorcroft, the repayments were too high and I was occasionally late or missed them, Mint transferred it to Arden, hence my reasoning to make the repayments more affordable. As for court action, the "agreement" contains monies for restricted and unrestricted use so I suspect its not valid.

[unclebulgaria67]

The thing is the offer is for £150 which is the same I pay for a similar debt with another account, so I think its reasonable. The issue I have with sending a breakdown is I am currently contesting some alleged debts, so if I put down no repayments for them and I end up paying then the info will be invalid, however, I don't want to put down what repayments may be as it may be construed as accepting liability for the ones I am contesting.

 

I doubt Arden will know anything about any other debts that you might currently have in dispute.

 

What you could do similar to company accounts, is just enter an amount under expenditure, as a notional amount to x company, currently subject to negotiation. You don't need to be actually paying these amounts, they are purely notional amounts. You could be setting aside the amounts, just in case you have to pay them.

[hillards]

...As for court action, the "agreement" contains monies for restricted and unrestricted use so I suspect its not valid.

If you have reason to query the agreement then I would personally take that route, therefore putting the account in dispute while Mint sort it out.

 

Arguing with debt recovery companies is usually pointless, they just want paying 'or else' and if you can prove that the claim is flawed they are not likely to take court action anyway.

 

I take the point raised with other posters that refusing to supply personal I&E information would not look good in court, but I'm also of the mind that DCA's are not entitled to demand, or even request, such details if you don't want to give them. I know I wouldn't!

 

It's another instance where the sheer greed of these companies may see them lose out if you follow up the invalid agreement side of this and they end up with nothing. Lots of info on CAG to help you through contesting the agreement direct with the original creditor, as the DCA's never want to know about that - even though they claim that they are now owners of the (alleged) debt.

 

I hasten to add that this is my opinion and not concrete instructions to follow

[scrambledbyegg]

All good points, and a lot to think about. Just to be clear, its not just a case of me being awkward, I am self employed and owe the HMRC back taxes, so I may disposable income is dependent upon payment agreements with HMRC, this info I consider to be none of Ardens business. This DCA troubles me a lot, they also are trying to levy 6% interest, but I can find no reference to that in the original text, which is another reason to challenge the agreement I guess. I may just fill out some arbitrary numbers and send it off, obviously with the conclusion that 150 is too much.

 

On a lighter note, my Angelfish laid eggs last night, unfortunately I think the male is infertile, perhaps I should call him Arden!