Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[Guest willowb]

Rite Im covered in paint and Im off to bed!!

hummmm not tried that one!

 

is this thread still about Dayglo? just want to know how his claim is going but it's all chat

 

Hello:) how's the weather?

 

It's been commented to me recently that in 'our' threads, Dayglos, my Abbey one etc etc do tend to go CrAzY because of the pressure of what we are doing. The support network (mostly down to DG I have to say:) ) is amazing and that's how we all 'get through it'.......but the work gets done in the end!

 

Wxxx

[dayglo]

hummmm not tried that one!

 

 

 

Hello:) how's the weather?

 

It's been commented to me recently that in 'our' threads, Dayglos, my Abbey one etc etc do tend to go CrAzY because of the pressure of what we are doing. The support network (mostly down to DG I have to say:) ) is amazing and that's how we all 'get through it'.......but the work gets done in the end!

 

Wxxx

 

it's a fair point - this thread is hard to follow from a practical point of view and I'm sure many have given up and gone away. I'm sorry about that.

 

Willow is right in some ways, the effect of taking a company to court on this issue when they are fighting back as hard as vodafone are doing is not insignificant. As you can imagine, there aren't many people in my 'offline' world that I can talk to about this and find encouragement to carry on etc.

 

The result of fantastic support from a handful of people on this forum/thread (you know who you are!) has had a huge effect. 1) it's kept me going 2) it's forced me to understand the DPA to such a level that I've been able to help many people privately to remove their defaults and 3) during some pretty miserable times, there's been folk here to make a difference.

 

in conclusion, sorry if the 'chat' makes this thread hard to follow - but from my point of view it's been a huge help.

[dayglo]

The support network (mostly down to DG I have to say:) ) is amazing and that's how we all 'get through it'.......but the work gets done in the end!

 

Wxxx

 

behave! but you're right in that the work gets done in the end

[dayglo]

oh and by the way to top off a bad day, I was robbed and beaten up today. wallet and phone nicked, car windows smashed and my file with all my CAG stuff (identity theft delight) taken.

 

feeling pretty down tonight.

[dayglo]

Have decdie to stick around for a bit DG can explain why as Ive PM him - and feeling bit lazy rather than type it all out agin!!

 

PMs remain P! but the sentiment is noted.

[Guest willowb]

oh and by the way to top off a bad day, I was robbed and beaten up today. wallet and phone nicked, car windows smashed and my file with all my CAG stuff (identity theft delight) taken.

 

feeling pretty down tonight.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! dayglo!!! you ok????

[dayglo]

edit

[Guest ian cognito]

Dayglo, really sorry to hear that - and thats huge understatement but what can I say, not a lot we can practically do to help but we're here for you if it's any use.

[Allyxia]

Oh DG Im soo sorry I wondered why I hadnt heard from my Texts to you!!!

 

I shall send some rather abusive one to your phone now grrrrrr

 

I will Pm you my number agin and you can contact me for a chat f it helps.

 

Take care God bless hun!!!

[gizmo111]

oh and by the way to top off a bad day, I was robbed and beaten up today. wallet and phone nicked, car windows smashed and my file with all my CAG stuff (identity theft delight) taken.

 

feeling pretty down tonight.

 

How awful, hope you are not too hurt.

[sam19677]

oh and by the way to top off a bad day, I was robbed and beaten up today. wallet and phone nicked, car windows smashed and my file with all my CAG stuff (identity theft delight) taken.

 

feeling pretty down tonight.

 

 

Oh sweetie I'm so sorry. Thats really awful.

 

I know there,s nothing I can do but I just wanted to let you I'm here if you need me.

 

Take care Paul

 

Love Sam xxx

[un1boy]

oh and by the way to top off a bad day, I was robbed and beaten up today. wallet and phone nicked, car windows smashed and my file with all my CAG stuff (identity theft delight) taken.

 

feeling pretty down tonight.

 

Oh Dayglo, I am sorry to hear that. Hope you're ok now though.

[dayglo]

Thanks for all your nice messages (tear in my eye again - let's not go there!)

 

I'm a lot cheerier tonight. Thanks again.

[Guest willowb]

 

Wxxx

[Allyxia]

Oh bless -

 

Supertramp....

 

Whoops wrong thread or is it (cant tell since anarchy riens here as well)...

 

So We not going let this slip up stop you from getting your life back eh DG?

[nevos]

Woweee finally the last page, just want to say I read this thread from start to finsih and want to thank you for posting the cartoons, pictures as this allowed me to skip those pages oh yes and Merry Xmas to everyone!

 

Im no expert or even too smart but, my opinion is this for whats it worth.

 

I guess Vodafone dont like being challenged as do any large company because they think they are bullet proof and tie everyone up in red tape written by their expensive lawyers etc.

 

I think the key to this is in the contract, reading the Vodafone responses in the two letters posted here, they refer and rely heavily on the contract you signed which, gives them the right to reference your details with the CRF's. I would argue that as the contract is ended there is no obligations on either side and therefore they should delist you. I dont think it is right that they can continue this under the flag of statute of limitations i.e. a 6 year period. In short their rights under the contract have now ended and cant refer to the data protection act and perhaps you cant either.

 

If it were me I would be trying to get press coverage of this case and give them some adverse publicity.

 

This is my 10 pence worth and it may be rubbish but there it is!

[Guest willowb]

Hi Nevos...welcome aboard and Merry christmas to you too!

 

What you say is essentially true and was the forward thinking of surlybonds....have you read his thread in the stickys? The fact that these financial bodies have got their fat a**** together and said '6 years!!' isn't a legally binding decision....there is no law to uphold this contention and so that is what a lot of us are fighting them about.

 

The 'fat cats' certainly do put up a fight but we are sticking together and marching on!

 

Good luck with whatever you are doing.

 

Wxxx

[dayglo]

hello nevos.

 

Thanks for yuor 10 pence worth. (as aside, how do you assign such precise value to a post and when will i get my money? )

 

I'm afraid I disagree with you about the contract being the main issue at hand.

 

It's fair to say that at an earlier stage in this 'campaign' the main thrust of attack was the issue of 'consent' and without the contract in place of course 'consent' cannot be given.

 

Then we had the news from the ICO that consent isn't even needed if they can show that para 6 from schedule 2 is met "legitimate interest" etc....

 

so, the main issue is now the S.10(1) notice and whether or not Vodafone response was an acceptable one under section 10(4)....

 

anyway.... I'm sure there's a long way to go yet.... welcome aboard.

[un1boy]

hello nevos.

 

Thanks for yuor 10 pence worth. (as aside, how do you assign such precise value to a post and when will i get my money? )

 

I'm afraid I disagree with you about the contract being the main issue at hand.

 

It's fair to say that at an earlier stage in this 'campaign' the main thrust of attack was the issue of 'consent' and without the contract in place of course 'consent' cannot be given.

 

Then we had the news from the Information Commissioners Office that consent isn't even needed if they can show that para 6 from schedule 2 is met "legitimate interest" etc....

 

so, the main issue is now the S.10(1) notice and whether or not Vodafone response was an acceptable one under section 10(4)....

 

anyway.... I'm sure there's a long way to go yet.... welcome aboard.

 

Dayglo, I'd be interested to know why you seem to think that the ICO's views on consent are binding, when you dopn't think much about their other views on the 6 ruling?!

[dayglo]

Dayglo, I'd be interested to know why you seem to think that the Information Commissioners Office's views on consent are binding, when you dopn't think much about their other views on the 6 ruling?!

 

because despite all their other failings they do actually have the ability to read and the Data Protection Act itself could not be any clearer.

 

THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES PART I THE PRINCIPLES 1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless-

(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and

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

 

so, you may only process personal data fairly and lawfully (ok) and in particularly - only 1 of the conditions described in Schedule 2 have to be met.

 

So, what are the conditions described in Schedule 2 I hear you ask?

 

(I'd have thought you would know these off by heart by now people!)

 

but here we go.....

 

SCHEDULE 2

CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF ANY PERSONAL DATA 1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

5. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the administration of justice,

(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment,

© for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or

(d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person.

6. - (1) 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 by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

 

Consent (paragraph 1) is only ONE of the six conditions. If any of the others are met then consent is not needed. I've been banging on about this for bloody ages now!!!!

 

This of course only applies to the Data Protection Act 1998. The Consumer Credit Act has different rule pertaining to 'disclosure of data' under that act in that 'Consent' is always required. That's why there was an argument with Vodafone regarding whether the contract was a regulated product under the CCA or not. In the end, they are correct in that it is not covered by the CCA.

 

It's not a question of why I think the ico's decision is binding, it's written as clear as day in the flamin' act!

[un1boy]

because despite all their other failings they do actually have the ability to read and the Data Protection Act itself could not be any clearer.

 

 

 

so, you may only process personal data fairly and lawfully (ok) and in particularly - only 1 of the conditions described in Schedule 2 have to be met.

 

So, what are the conditions described in Schedule 2 I hear you ask?

 

(I'd have thought you would know these off by heart by now people!)

 

but here we go.....

 

 

 

Consent (paragraph 1) is only ONE of the six conditions. If any of the others are met then consent is not needed. I've been banging on about this for bloody ages now!!!!

 

This of course only applies to the Data Protection Act 1998. The Consumer Credit Act has different rule pertaining to 'disclosure of data' under that act in that 'Consent' is always required. That's why there was an argument with Vodafone regarding whether the contract was a regulated product under the CCA or not. In the end, they are correct in that it is not covered by the CCA.

 

It's not a question of why I think the Information Commissioners Office's decision is binding, it's written as clear as day in the flamin' act!

 

That's great, I understand why now, cheers mate!

[dayglo]

your second point which seems to be 'is 6 years reasonable or not'

 

well it goes without saying that anyone that is suffering harm as a result of six years will say it's 'not reasonable' anyone using a business risk model to maximise returns will say that it is. Like it or not, a court will take on board a view from the ICO regarding wether or not 6 years is a reasonable amount of time or not. The ICO say that they think 6 years is reasonable.

[un1boy]

your second point which seems to be 'is 6 years reasonable or not'

 

well it goes without saying that anyone that is suffering harm as a result of six years will say it's 'not reasonable' anyone using a business risk model to maximise returns will say that it is. Like it or not, a court will take on board a view from the Information Commissioners Office regarding wether or not 6 years is a reasonable amount of time or not. The Information Commissioners Office say that they think 6 years is reasonable.

 

I suppose. Shame though, becasue it isn't reasonable at all and I would have thoguht that a Court would have to view the case by interpreting law, and as there is no law that states that about the 6 years they shoudl not have to rule it is reasonable - I understand why they would take the ICO's view though!

[dayglo]

I suppose. Shame though, becasue it isn't reasonable at all

 

ok then, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit....

 

why isn't it reasonable? what time frame would be reasonable in your view?

[un1boy]

ok then, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit....

 

why isn't it reasonable? what time frame would be reasonable in your view?

 

It's not reasonable because a default on someone's file that was entered say 3 years ago is not an accurate reflection of their credit status now - they may not have missed one payment, or anything like that in the last 2 years. Plus they may have been going through a messy divorce, bereavement, or anything else like that when iot was entered. Yet, due to the default, they are still being penalised today when they are managin their money much better. Defaults are entered willy-nilly (and often, as we have realised recently, unlawfully) yet the way defautls are treated are the same as CCJ'S!

 

CCJ's are differenet becasue they are entered by a Court after the consumer having a chance to put their circs to a judge.

 

A reasonable time could be that agreed in the contract. At the end of the day, if there isn't one agreed in the contract then it should during the contract's active "life". If anything else has been agreed then that one should take precedence.