Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[dayglo]

I am one of the many people here that will shortly (if not already) owe a great debt of thanks to Surly Bonds.

 

I absolutely fall into his category of people who have had a rough time in the past, paid every penny back that he owes but continues to have his character stained by the existence of out of date, expired data on his credit file.

 

I have four companies that have registered defaults against me. I have paid back every penny to them.

 

Thanks to Surly I have written to each of them with a variety of letters assembled from the suggestions and templates written by Surly.

 

Presently, they've all refused to remove the defaults and I continue writing and phoning everyday to try to get back some financial dignity in my life. I have a good job, a stable home life I also recently set up and run a charity that helps local kids. I really don't think that I deserve to be in a position where I am presently unable to obtain even a cheque book.

 

The constant embarassment whilst out on social evenings, events etc as I have to explain - no I don't have a credit card or debit card, cheque book etc. is becoming too much to bear.

 

anyway, I thought I would share with you some events of the last couple of days.

 

I have come to the end of what letter writing can achieve with Vodafone and NatWest with the receipt of thier final responses. I was planning to go to court but I am terrified of getting this wrong and being exposed to thier legal fees.

 

I know that a non-monetary claim costs £150 but I don't know if that will still stay on the small claims track and protect me from their legal costs?

 

Whilst I was pondering this, a lady from the Information Commissioners Office phoned me and asked me would I consider making a written complaint and becoming a test case as she has had numerous telephone calls this morning regarding the admission from Experian.

 

until today/yesterday - the Information Commissioners Office were happy that the processing of default notices for up to 6 years after the ending of the contract was ok. They said they needed a test case to allow them to re-examine this whole practice.

 

I told them my story over the phone. I explained that I had settled and closed all the accounts in question but that they had all refused to remove the defaults on the basis that "the Information Commissioners Office say it is ok"

 

So there you go - I have written the following letter to the Information Commissioners Office and sent all my correspondence along with it.

 

I don't know what else to do regarding court. The Information Commissioners Office could still investigate and then rule in favour of Vodafone, Natwest et all, after all they have been saying that 'the six year rule' is ok for as long as the Data Protection Act has been in force.

 

The lady at the Information Commissioners Office said that they wish to investigate the whole practive of processing data outside of an expired contract including the CRAs and the credit suppliers, in my case Vodafone & Natwest mainly.

 

I don't know how I feel about being a 'test case' - a bit nervous, a bit excited and definitly apprehensive. I know in my heart I'm doing the right thing - I just want my life back.

 

I've also sent a letter to experian today asking them to remove all the old and out of date information. I have copied both letters below in this post.

 

Dayglo's address

 

07/09/2006

Experian Limited

Consumer Help Service

PO Box 9000

Nottingham

NG80 7WP

 

reference no: xxxxxxx

Dear Sir,

 

I wish you to remove the following entries from my credit file as they relate to contracts that have either ended or expired. With the ending of each of these contracts, so does my permission for my data to be processed. There was no section within the Terms & Conditions of the civil contract I entered into that contained any right or perceived right that the supplier would continue to process my data following the ending of our contract.

 

Quote from Experian Consumer Compliance Executive on 6th September 2006

 

“I can also confirm that as far as we are aware there is no specific piece of documentation or legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled.

 

It was agreed throughout the credit industry that six years is considered a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle.

 

This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held.”

 

Therefore please remove from my credit file all entries listed below for the reasons identified above:

 

C1: Barclaycard: Settled 04/04/06 – please remove this entry as my contract with Barclaycard has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C3: London Scottish Bank: Satisfied 26/12/04 - please remove this entry as my contract with London Scottish Bank has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C4: Moorcroft: Satisfied 17/10/04 - please remove this entry as my contract with Moorcroft has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C5: Vodafone 02/12/2004: Satisfied please remove this entry as my contract with Vodafone has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C7: Ikano Financial Services Settled 23/03/06: please remove this entry as my contract with Ikano Financial Services has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C12: National Westminster Bank Settled 02/03/2003: please remove this entry as my contract with National Westminster Bank has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

C13: HFC Bank – Endeavour Personal Finance settled 17/01/03: please remove this entry as my contract with HFC Bank – Endeavour Personal Finance has ended and so has my permission for them to share my data with you. There is no public information associated with this account such as CCJs, Bankruptcy orders etc.

 

Regards,

 

Dayglo

 

 

and the complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

 

 

 

07/09/2006

 

 

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear xxx,

I wish to complain about the current practice that exists within the credit industry that appears to allow my data to be processed by both credit suppliers and credit reference agencies without my permission or that such processing continues after my permission has expired.

I experienced a period of falling behind with my payments to a variety of credit suppliers a few years ago. Some of these companies recorded late payment markers and 4 recorded defaults against my

name. In each case I have paid back the money owed and each account is marked as either satisfied or settled.

I have approached the companies that have recorded defaults against me and the credit reference agencies and each has, in it’s own slightly different way, said “It is industry practice for defaults to remain on my file for six years”

 

It is my position that, as defaults are not ‘public information’ then there is absolutely no document or legislation that exists that allows this data to be held on my file after the contract in which I enter into with a credit supplier has ended. In particular I wish to complain about Vodafone Limited and National Westminster Bank. Both these companies continue to process default markers on my credit file despite the contract that used to exist between us having ended. With the ending of the contract – so does my permission for them to process my data. I will copy my correspondence with both companies to you, but to summarise, it is Vodafone’s position that the Office of the Information Commissioner is both aware and in agreement with this practice and Natwest claim

 

 

“The Treasury Select Committee and the British Bankers Association are fully aware of, and are in agreement to data being recorded with the CRA in this way”

 

 

 

 

 

I wish to challenge this understanding. Without a specific act of parliament allowing my data to continue to be processed, in particular, in a way that causes me harm or risks defamation of my character, once the contract that allowed such processing has ended, is wrong and should not be allowed by the Information Commissioners Office. I am aware that the Consumer Compliance Executive from Experian has now finally accepted this and I quote from an e-mail and letter from him on the 6th September. “I can also confirm that as far as we are aware there is no specific piece of documentation or legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled. It was agreed throughout the credit industry that six years is considered a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle. This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held.” I am happy to share all my correspondence with you as I try to seek an acknowledgment that this current practice is not lawful and that the current advice from the Information Commissioners Office regarding the retention of nonpublic data for six years is wrong.

 

[Lizzy]

How very very interesting.........a test case. I would PM SurlyBonds with this and see what he says about it before you put your neck on the block.

 

You are right The ICO have agreed with the CRAs up until now, what are they up too ?

 

I owe a great deal to SurlyBonds, his template letter got my defaults removed. I am sure he will be interested in this.

 

Good luck

 

Lizzy

[aardvark the lecturer]

Bl**dy hell!!!! :o

 

This seems like the perfect opportunity to end all the petty squabbles and mis-information the cra's and lenders have been trying to fob off the poor suckers like yourself with since this whole debate started. Once and for all this can finally be resolved with a clear answer, and not rely on individuals having to 'go it alone' against obstructive and unrelenting organisations, where some may succeed and others be bullied into relenting against uncertainties and costs to pursue.

 

I am one of the many people here that will shortly (if not already) owe a great debt of thanks to Surlybond.

 

 

Your absolutely right in your thanks to Surlybonds, and I join you in thanking him for being a pioneer in the fight against this unlawful practice.

 

Hold your nerve, it's likely to be rough along the way, but the test-case you are instigating is wholly the right thing to do and I'm sure others will join me in supporting you throughout this.

 

I am a friend of Dayglo's and live close by, so am more than happy to support you in any court appearences that will surely be needed along the way.

 

There is, of course, huge uncertainty in this action and as you quite rightly said;

The Information Commissioners Office could still investigate rule in favour of Vodafone, NatWest et all, after all they have been saying that 'the six year rule' is ok for as long as the Data Protection Act has been in force.

 

 

but I feel this IS the BEST and ONLY way to to get a definitive answer that will regardless of the outcome help all the people who are in the same position as yourself.

[SurlyBonds]

Dayglo, as I told you by phone.. I am also subjecting a full formal complaint to the I.C.O. and using Experian's Director's office letter as evidence that they now agree that it should be dependant on the actual Ts & Cs of the contract.. at least the letters coming through now seem to be acknowledging this.

 

It would be quite hilarious to see the I.C.O. still insist on the six years, when the CRAs are now writing "okay, no such precedent exists"... ho hum..

 

So, you go for it, as will I... I am also taking this via my MP and the DTI, and via the press... the Daily Mail want me to write this up, although I am awaiting a discussion with Admin... as this is their site after all. I think a concerted effort is needed from all.

 

Good luck... although, at the end of the day, I.C.O. advice and recommendations does not have to be accepted by a judge.

[SurlyBonds]

The Information Commissioners Office could still investigate and then rule in favour of Vodafone, Natwest et all, after all they have been saying that 'the six year rule' is ok for as long as the Data Protection Act has been in force.

 

This doesn't actually matter... don't worry too much about this... THERE IS NO SIX YEAR RULE... IT ISN'T WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE, LET ALONE IN THE ACT.

 

People, please understand, that unless the CRAs have got a test case (a legal precedent) then it doesn't matter what the CRas thought they had rights to.

 

Unless it's in Statute or in precedent, it might as well be written on the walls of the toilets at Waterloo station... because it's about as significant as that.

 

By the way, if you want a copy of the letter from Experian (which should just about argue their own case against themselves - and the I.C.O. will HAVE to take that on board) then PM me your email addy, and I will let you use a scan in your evidence.

 

I am sending the I.C.O. a copy anyway, but either way, I am making it avilable for public use - I believe Experian have not only shot themselves in the foot, but just about blown both legs off with both barrels.

[SurlyBonds]

You are right The OFT have agreed with the CRAs up until now, what are they up too ?

 

 

 

Erm... oh no they haven't. The CRAs try telling people this, but I was on the phone yesterday to the OFTs records archive section and they denied it, even when I asked would a disclosure request under the FOI Act make them find it.

 

They stated quite clearly that they know of no agreement to which their dept. was party to in relation to data processing and insisted that it was an I.C.O. issue only.

 

What's more, they are happy to put this in writing to me. I have written to them asking for them to do so and confirm their comments in the telephone call.

 

Don't believe anyhting the CRAs tell you, unless they can back it up... they are starting to realise that people are simply NOT prepared to listen to spin and bulls**t anymore and want some hard facts.

 

We are slowly getting facts. Note the response from Experian in the Victory thread...

"As discussed I can also confirm that as far as we are aware there is no specific piece of documentation or legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled." Experian letter, 06/09/2006

Documentation means any written agreements or recommendations from the OFT, I.C.O., Secretary of State, Father Christmas, or the Tooth Fairy for that matter.

 

It is clear that the I.C.O. (let alone the OFT) hasn't actually issued any directive or previous ruling, or memo, or email, or nothing... the CRAs are making it up, or this guy is now lying in his admission letter.

[dayglo]

thanks for your advice today surly - I am now crystal clear about my position and next few steps - one more round of letters demanding the evidence from the lenders and the CRAs that they obviously won't be able to come up with and then an N1 with £150 initially to NatWest & Vodafone, small claims track on the AQ and that should be that.

 

As for being an Information Commissioners Office test case - why the hell not. I've sent them my initial letter - I'll turn it into chapter and verse with dates, times, contracts and everything else I can find and see what happens. I now realise, even the people who really should understand the Data Protection Act actually, when challenged, don't appear to - I feel a lot less nervous than I did earlier today - thanks everyone.

Dayglo.

 

p.s. within about an hour of the phonecall from surly - I had a DCA on the phone letting me know that they have agreed to remove my default!! 1 down - 3 to go.

[SurlyBonds]

thanks for your advice today surly - I am now crystal clear about my position and next few steps - one more round of letters demanding the evidence from the lenders and the CRAs that they obviously won't be able to come up with and then an N1 with £150 initially to NatWest & Vodafone, small claims track on the AQ and that should be that.

 

As for being an Information Commissioners Office test case - why the hell not. I've sent them my initial letter - I'll turn it into chapter and verse with dates, times, contracts and everything else I can find and see what happens. I now realise, even the people who really should understand the Data Protection Act actually, when challenged, don't appear to - I feel a lot less nervous than I did earlier today - thanks everyone.

Dayglo.

 

p.s. within about an hour of the phonecall from surly - I had a DCA on the phone letting me know that they have agreed to remove my default!! 1 down - 3 to go.

 

Good stuff...

 

dayglo----->

[dayglo]

ok, phew my head hurts!

I've written 5 page letters to all 3 CRAs today demanding that they remove all data relating to settled or satisfied accounts.

I've also written 2 x LBA to Natwest and our friend Amanda Chandler at Vodafone giving them 7 more days to come up with the evidence. (I know they don't have it)

I've printed 4 copies each of an N1 claim form (1 for V/fone and 1 for N/west) they will, unless they come up with the goods mighty quickly, be served next Friday.

I've also written to each of the companies that have data on my file relating to settled or satisfied accounts (not just defaults - the ones with late payment markers too) demanding that they remove this data pronto!

 

I'm still prepared for another few rounds of letter writing before I get anywhere, but I know I will in the end. Last nights phone call from a DCA that had previously claimed all sorts of reasons why he couldn't remove the default, had suddenly found a way. It couldn't have anything to do with the volume of letters demanding that they comply with my rights under the law coud it? hee hee.

[dayglo]

ok, phew my head hurts!

I've written 5 page letters to all 3 CRAs today demanding that they remove all data relating to settled or satisfied accounts.

I've also written 2 x LBA to Natwest and our friend Amanda Chandler at Vodafone giving them 7 more days to come up with the evidence. (I know they don't have it)

I've printed 4 copies each of an N1 claim form (1 for V/fone and 1 for N/west) they will, unless they come up with the goods mighty quickly, be served next Friday.

I've also written to each of the companies that have data on my file relating to settled or satisfied accounts (not just defaults - the ones with late payment markers too) demanding that they remove this data pronto!

 

I'm still prepared for another few rounds of letter writing before I get anywhere, but I know I will in the end. Last nights phone call from a DCA that had previously claimed all sorts of reasons why he couldn't remove the default, had suddenly found a way. It couldn't have anything to do with the volume of letters demanding that they comply with my rights under the law coud it? hee hee.

[dayglo]

just had an amazing phone call from our friend - the Consumer Compliance Director of Experian (the same chappy that got the earful from Surly this week)

well... he had received my FAX and was in agreement with me that for all my satisfied or settled accounts, providing the companies in question can't prove that there is a contract containing an 'in perpetuity' clause (which there isn't 'cause i didn't sign any) , then he will advise the company accordingly and remove the entry from my file. All of them, without complaint.

 

This is not 'amazing, and wow etc' this is justice, nothing more nothing less. Experian now fullly accept these arguments and are advising their employees, clients etc accordingly. It will take some time for this to filter through but it WILL happen.

 

Equifax on the other hand - I think they have some catching up to do, but my letter is on it's way and they too will fall in line very soon.

 

Mycallcredit - they've been in touch with Mr. Compliance man at Experian asking for advice on how to deal with the flood of letters that they are now receiving - he told me that he had told them that, well..... I'm sure you can guess but MCC will be coming into line very soon as well.

 

Still might have to go to court with NatWest & Vodafone next week though depending on their links with equifax. I'm sure the unlawful defaults will disappear from the experian file.

 

nearly there....

[Tinkerbelle]

just had an amazing phone call from our friend - the Consumer Compliance Director of Experian (the same chappy that got the earful from Surly this week)

well... he had received my FAX and was in agreement with me that for all my satisfied or settled accounts, providing the companies in question can't prove that there is a contract containing an 'in perpetuity' clause (which there isn't 'cause i didn't sign any) , then he will advise the company accordingly and remove the entry from my file. All of them, without complaint.

 

This is not 'amazing, and wow etc' this is justice, nothing more nothing less. Experian now fullly accept these arguments and are advising their employees, clients etc accordingly. It will take some time for this to filter through but it WILL happen.

 

Equifax on the other hand - I think they have some catching up to do, but my letter is on it's way and they too will fall in line very soon.

 

Mycallcredit - they've been in touch with Mr. Compliance man at Experian asking for advice on how to deal with the flood of letters that they are now receiving - he told me that he had told them that, well..... I'm sure you can guess but MCC will be coming into line very soon as well.

 

Still might have to go to court with NatWest & Vodafone next week though depending on their links with equifax. I'm sure the unlawful defaults will disappear from the experian file.

 

nearly there....

 

This is excellent news!!

[mstringer]

Dayglo:

 

I hope you don't mind if I use your letter to Experian as a base for my own?

 

I wish you all the best in your test case, I absolutely think your doing the right thing here. Some of the actions happening in this forum right now and fantastic, and at last puts us _the consumer_ back into a level and legal playfield with these great corporate entities. I think most of us would agree we are not trying to bring about an anarchic revolution, just a fair and legal system for all to follow. Your action as well those of a few others (SurlyBonds, whom can never be given enough praise etc) are enabling us all to finally be treated fairly. For that I personally Thank You!

 

MS

[dayglo]

yep, no problem with that.

 

regarding the Information Commissioners Office test-case, please don't get your hopes up that they will rule in my favour. I fully expect this barely competent and toothless lot will say "we understand the issue (they don't) but the Information Commissioners Office believe that six years is a 'reasonable' amount of time for lenders to process data after the permissions have ended. They have hinted as much in two hours of phonecalls. They are under pressure from the govt. to find ways of reducing the national consumer debt (quite rightly in my opinion) and the only way they can find to do this is let the CRAs have as much data as possible to ensure that lenders have as much information as possible regarding risks. If they agree with me, and instruct the credit industry to destroy data as soon as a contract ends, in all likelyhood - more people will successfully apply more for credit and that is completely against what they are being asked to do... Now a court though, that's a completely different story - all a judge is interested in is the Law.

 

This is where i despair with the Information Commissioners Office. In my conversations with them, they said "oh this is good - we need a test case to fully investigate the huge number of complaints that we are receiving (and under resourced to cope with) you taking NatWest and Vodafone to court will help everyone else"

 

"no it won't i said, and the Information Commissioners Office should be LEADING from the front not following on from one member of the public and awaiting a judgement. the reason it won't is based on the same principle of the Banks' behaviour regarding bank fees. What will happen is this :-

 

1) I issue an N1 to NW & V/fone

2) they ack, intend to defend etc...

3) offer to remove my default without admitting liability

4) I will obviously accept this

5) they do the same to everyone else i.e. force them to go to court because although some will, many many will not.

6) Information Commissioners Office declare "six years is reasonable"

7) Lenders quote that back to everyone that tries to follow suit

 

The only real way to go here, as Surly says, pay off your debt, write to the lenders and CRAs individually, again and again and again, be prepared to go to court but you will win.

 

I don't think there will be a nationally agreed change of direction stated publically from the credit industry (CRAs, LEnders & Information Commissioners Office) for a long time yet.

 

Just my thoughts...

 

still doesn't mean we shouldn't still fight the buggers eh?

[DoctorWhat]

dayglo,

 

Major props to you for your tenacity and the result that you've had so far. I hope you don't mind me using the text of your letter to Experian as a template for my own complaint regarding settled defaults.

 

But - and I'm sure I've missed something whilst reading about this fascinating episode - what is peculiar to the situation with NatWest and Vodafone?

 

My reading is that these defaults were settled and that you have no further contractual arrangement, etc... Are you saying that despite Experian agreeing to remove the other defaults from your file, they are refusing to remove these two? If so, why?

[mstringer]

Oh I totally agree, perhaps my tone is rather too over enthusiatic at this stage! As you did, I have paid off my defaulted debt I have been trying to rebuild my credit worthiness for two years but I am still not able to get a mortgage etc at anything near responable rates. It left me very frustrated and the feeling of completely powerless to do anything about it, this is why this forum is such a godsend as it gives us some hope.

 

I completely expect this to be a long road, however, its a road that has been started upon where as before we didnt even know this road might exist.

 

Personally unsecured lending (indeed secured these days too) is spiralling out of control and somethign needs to be done, I would not agree that loosening up the credit system in anyway would be a good thing, I think it should be much more tightly controlled if anything. But this control needs to be fair and legal to one and all and right now I think we can agree it certainly is not.

 

All the best

 

MS

[dayglo]

dayglo,

But - and I'm sure I've missed something whilst reading about this fascinating episode - what is peculiar to the situation with NatWest and Vodafone?

My reading is that these defaults were settled and that you have no further contractual arrangement, etc... Are you saying that despite Experian agreeing to remove the other defaults from your file, they are refusing to remove these two? If so, why?

 

I have 4 defaults - 2 of them are to little annoying DCAs and 2 are to NW and V/F. The two from DCAs are only 4 months away from falling off my file automatically. 1 of them has already agreed to remove it which just leaves 3 in total.

 

The reason NW/VF are mentioned are that they are the only ones fighting back to my letters, won't accept the experian letter as evidence and are happy to go to court with me. That's the only difference. It's just the fact that NW & VF happen to be the ones I'm complaining about to the Information Commissioners Office.

[SurlyBonds]

I have 4 defaults - 2 of them are to little annoying DCAs and 2 are to NW and V/F. The two drom DCAs are only 4 months away from falling off my file automatically. 1 of them has already agreed to remove it which just leaves 3 in total.

 

The reason NW/VF are mentioned are that they are the only ones fighting back to my letters, won't accept the experian letter as evidence and are happy to go to court with me. That's the only difference. It's just the fact that NW & VF happen to be the ones I'm complaining about to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

If the banks are continuing to play Three-Thick-Monkeys, then equally put the pressure on the CRAs. Ask the CRAs to prove they have permission from NW and VF to disclose your data, by sending the CRA a copy of the terms and conditions.

 

Make them do the work...not you.

 

Experian have now admitted that it is dependant on the Ts&Cs, and are also advising this to Equifax and CallCredit.

 

If it ain't in the Ts&Cs, no contest - they've said so themselves. After all, where are you trying to get the default removed from?? NW and VF, who I'd doubt you would ever use again - if your posts imply...

 

or the CRAs, that disclose it to all, and does actually affect you.

 

A bit of De Bono laterals methinks...;-)

[dayglo]

on the basis that Equifax and MCC have yet to declare that they understand our position, and would continue to mark the defaults against me, I'm going after the CRAs & the data suppliers. I am crystal clear about how this process is now working and I'm just covering my bases.

[dayglo]

apparantley the big cheeses of the ICO are back from holiday this week (can you imagine how much fun it must have been for whoever had to explain the goings on of the last 10 days? hee hee)

 

anyway, there's supposed to be a meeting this afternoon at the ICO to sort all this out...

 

the lady I've been talking to said "so... you're arguing that the six year rule breaks contract law, is that your argument?" strewth!

 

brace yourselves for the ludicrous outcome of an industry where the 'regulated' understand the 'regulations' better than the 'regulator' !!

[Tinkerbelle]

apparantley the big cheeses of the Information Commissioners Office are back from holiday this week (can you imagine how much fun it must have been for whoever had to explain the goings on of the last 10 days? hee hee)

 

anyway, there's supposed to be a meeting this afternoon at the Information Commissioners Office to sort all this out...

 

the lady I've been talking to said "so... you're arguing that the six year rule breaks contract law, is that your argument?" strewth!

 

brace yourselves for the ludicrous outcome of an industry where the 'regulated' understand the 'regulations' better than the 'regulator' !!

 

LOL... :lol:

[SurlyBonds]

the lady I've been talking to said "so... you're arguing that the six year rule breaks contract law, is that your argument?" strewth!

 

brace yourselves for the ludicrous outcome of an industry where the 'regulated' understand the 'regulations' better than the 'regulator' !!

 

I'm just wondering how stupid these people really are? (oops! "stupid"? - am I allowed to use that word? - [checks abuse list]... oh yes, of course I am, as it doesn't identify an individual person who's registered on this site).

 

They've had no end of phone calls from us all, defining the very point, and it's only taken about a month to work it's way through the grey matter. (and for the pinkie/greenie witch-hunt brigade's sake, that's only my personal view that perhaps these people might not quite have a grasp of understanding the issues here...okay???...happy now???)

 

As you say, we seem to understand the DPA better than they do, and they get 'paid' not-insignificant sums to enforce the DPA, and protect us, the citizen, which is, after all, what this is all about.

 

After all, it only takes a reasonable understanding of the indiginous language to read what thay can in the Act, and then go buy a twenty quid law book about contactual Law and out the two together.

 

The problem with most regulators (and it applies to a lot of the industries) is that they focus too much on the specific Act that they 'look after', and don't realise that all legislation has other dependencies and inputs e.g. other Acts, contract Law, and the Common Law.

 

I do wonder if the CRAs have been invited to the 'meeting'... cue the Garibaldi's and Earl Grey. If so, I'll bet Mr ***** will get his best Cardin suit on and espouse his usual stream of reasoned thinking and logical argument... that's assuming he's not still doing his DPA courses.

 

[self-moderated:

Now, now...stoppit SB, stoppit now!!...now you're just being b*tchy!!!, and it's not nice, because he might start crying and then you'll get duffed up by the prefects..now go and see the House Master and take that smirk off your face, boy!.]

[dayglo]

surly bonds is funny and clever - I like it.

[dayglo]

Received this today from ICO

 

14th September 2006

 

 

Reference: xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Dear Mr Dayglo

 

I refer to your emails of 7th September 2006 and 8th September 2006 concerning the retention of account information by the credit reference agencies.

 

You complained that the credit reference agencies are retaining and sharing information about closed accounts in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act). You maintained that they only have permission to hold account information for the duration of a credit agreement and that once the agreement ends so does the consent to process information about it.

 

Your argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.

 

As you may be aware the first data protection principle states that

 

"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless:

at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met; and

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

 

One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is our view that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent. No one condition carries greater weight than any other. All the conditions provide an equally valid basis for processing. Merely because consent is the first condition to appear in both Schedules 2 and 3 does not mean that organisations should consider it first.

 

Consent is not defined in the Act and so it is helpful to look back at Directive 95/46/EC which defines "the data subject's consent" as:

 

".any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed."

 

In the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is because if you don't agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice.

 

It is our view that the condition for processing below (Schedule 2 part 6) covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

 

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

 

We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals.

 

The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.

 

The fifth data protection principle states that "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

 

Account information is held by the credit reference agencies for a period of six years after the account was last active. It does appear to be the case, at least at the present time, that in addition to current credit commitments the preceding six years of an individual's credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed. As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

 

I trust that this has clarified our position.

 

Yours sincerely

 

xxxxx xxxxxxx

Casework and Advice Manager

 

thoughts?

[jimfishybob]

One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is our view that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent. No one condition carries greater weight than any other. All the conditions provide an equally valid basis for processing. Merely because consent is the first condition to appear in both Schedules 2 and 3 does not mean that organisations should consider it first.

It is our view????

So, by that reasoning, all law is irrelevant if a statutory body deems that they don't have to do it? This letter makes plenty of references to views and reports and so on....but still doesn't answer the fundemental issue, where in law, or statute, or prescendent,(sp?), does it say this is allowed to continue?