Baby v Studio

[babyonlyne]

learning more and more every day, thank you so much for creating this site!

 

just received my 1st response to my account in dispute letter sent to studio.

 

in it states "We are satisfied upon discussion with the ICO and on legal advice that it can still be registered as a default with CRA."

 

according to the Account in dispute letter template, the following is stated:

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

and as take from scott's letter (from this site):

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

 

Q1: if an account is in dispute due to no signed agreement, how/why can the ICO approve defaults being registered with a cra when being in dispute states contrary?

 

Q2: are there any statutes to back up the can/cannot do's for when an account is in dispute ?

 

Q3: again if according to the extract from scott's letter the DPA prohibits such without consent, how does the ICO validate a creditor doing it?

 

all of this is assuming that STUDIO haven't magically created this information. not very clued up on DPA, ICO, OFT or FOS. so im sorry if it turns out to be a silly question but it seems me that something's contradictory

[citizenB]

There have been a lot of changes and a recent court case allowed that registering defaults at CRAs is permitted even whilst there is a dispute in respect of the s78 request.

[babyonlyne]

hi thanks for quick response. ok so now that you've cleared up that they can register default with a cra even when in dispute, what about the dpa side? assuming that signing an agreement verifies your consent for them to store & share you info, doesnt no signature mean no consent/approval?

[citizenB]

hi thanks for quick response. ok so now that you've cleared up that they can register default with a cra even when in dispute, what about the dpa side? assuming that signing an agreement verifies your consent for them to store & share you info, doesnt no signature mean no consent/approval?

 

You might want to track down the following CAGers who are much more up to date on this side of things than me

 

diddydicky

vint1954

 

HTH

[babyonlyne]

here's what i've had back from them so far (hope i've done this right):

 

 

 

 

[babyonlyne]

You might want to track down the following CAGers who are much more up to date on this side of things than me

 

diddydicky

vint1954

 

HTH

 

how do i do this? really interested to know if the dpa will provide a toe (or better yet a leg) to stand on with regards to defaults because i'm sure the quoted line will come up again when i'm querying 10 accounts.

[citizenB]

to pm another cag user go to the top of the screen and you will see a link marked "notifications" click on that and go to your inbox.. then look to the left of the new screen you will get and you will see something like compose or send new message. Then just send a private message with a link to your thread.

 

these are the correct spellings of the two users I referred you to

 

diddydicky

vint1954

 

You can send the one message, by entering into the "send to box" in the following manner and it will be sent to both of them.

 

diddydicky ; vint1954

[babyonlyne]

FOUND THIS ON WIKIPEDIA:

 

Data protection principles

1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless-

1. at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

2. in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

6. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act.

7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

8. Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.

 

Conditions relevant to the first principle

Personal data should only be processed fairly and lawfully. In order for data to be classed as 'fairly processed', at least one of these six conditions must be applicable to that data (Schedule 2).

1. The data subject (the person whose data is stored) has consented ("given their permission") to the processing;

2. Processing is necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract;

3. Processing is required under a legal obligation (other than one stated in the contract);

4. Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject;

5. Processing is necessary to carry out any public functions;

6. Processing is necessary in order to pursue the legitimate interests of the "data controller" or "third parties" (unless it could unjustifiably prejudice the interests of the data subject)

 

SHECULE 2 clearly states in point 1 that a data controller cannot process info without consent. however now concerned that they may use point 6 to validate the recording of info on cra... but at the same time it could be argued that no signature =no consent , and on a written contract no signature = non binding contract and after that its up to them to prove what their legitimate interest is. but from where i stand no signature is the bottom line that states no consent so they shouldnt have been recording/storing any information anyway. and if this is the case, how does the ICO verify allowing defaults onto a cra? please correct me if i'm wrong

[diddydicky]

Hi,

 

first thing to establish is the DIFFERENCE between an agreement, and the enforceability of an agreement

 

an agreement can "exist" even if it is not committed to/confirmed in writing

 

so the first question is-

 

can it be shown that an agreement existed (other than a written agreement)

 

in other words- will the creditor be able to show documents showing that you used a credit card or loan - ie receipts and payment records of purchases and cash withdrawals?

 

a history of you making payments to the creditor ( can you show evidence that any such payments were made to the creditor for some other reason/account?)

 

++++++++

 

In 99% of cases the creditor will easily show that you borrowed money/used a card and that you knew you had because you also made payments to them

 

if this is you then i suggest you stop right there and throw in the towel as far as attempting to get any adverse information removed from your credit files

 

it aint impossible - but very unlikely and expensive- for the simple fact of the matter is that the judge will take ask the same questions and reach the same conclusions as i just did!!

 

you borrowed money (irrespective of whether the creditor can enforce the agreement) and he is therefore entitled to warn other potentiial lenders of your failure to repay on time/at all

 

sorry if that is not want you want to hear

[diddydicky]

sorry didnt realise i posted twice

Edited August 26, 2010 by diddydicky
duplicated

[babyonlyne]

hi!

thanks for the response... no not what i wanted to hear but who ever wants to hear this...

i fully get what you are saying though