Dayglo's mission to get his life back!

[un1boy]

Indeed - but, the problem is they all think they above the law and they don't like us standing up to them, do they?

[un1boy]

Where is Surly - he doesn't seem to have been posting much lately!!

[un1boy]

don't worry, he's fine.

 

That's good to hear - what's the crack then, is he still around on the forum and coming back?

[un1boy]

lmfao!!

 

What was your reply?

[un1boy]

I have to be careful here as well, as VF are reading this thread.

 

What makes you say that?

[un1boy]

a) because they are not idiots and they can find out exactly what's going on in people's minds that are bringing claims.

 

b) I would if were them

 

c) They have quoted things back to me that I've only mentioned via here.

 

oh and by the way, the NatWest default has now vanished from all three CRAs

 

Fair enough - I didn't know about c)!!!

 

congrats on the natwest thing!!

[un1boy]

I agree, but we ought to try and remember that there are decent folk working for organisations that we may happen to disagree with. Just because they let us down doesn't give us (or me) the right to be rude or unpleasant to any of their staff.

 

I understand what you mean Dayglo, but these organisations can really effect people's lives....more so than retail organisations etc, yet the abuse I used to get when I was retail assisstant just because we had sold out of liquerice allsorts or whatever was not warranted - working for financial and "governmental" organisations like the ICO, I am sure people 'expect' it more, and as far as I am concerned I wouldn't bother apologising......the people working could make sure it was doing it's job, just by raising awareness and stuff, that they don't so, I wuold just spend the cash on your missus fella.

 

Hope you understand where I am coming from, don't think I've explained it that well!! :-/

[un1boy]

Btw, about the flowers.....do what YOU think you ought to.....

Actually, I agree!!

[un1boy]

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, laid under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; (3237)

 

This means they are regulations UNDER the CCA. So VF can't say they apply but CCA doesn't.

 

Hiya mate, I've just been reading back through the whole thread - sorry to trudge up the past but where did you find that Vodafone are regulated under the CCA? T-Mobile have told me they aren't and they cannot provide a copy of my application.....I asked them to remove my info but they reckon that consent can be obtained verbally or even by consent (ie. using the phone!)

 

Is this right?

[un1boy]

Ok....they reckon that by me using the phone I consented to them storing my information.....I'll ask them exactly how they can prove it then!!

 

Thanks Tink

[un1boy]

Hey man, that's great news!

 

Just ask and we'll all help where we can!!

[un1boy]

well the AQ has been with the court for a week now as has the letter to the legal team at vodafone... no news as yet.

 

does anyone know the typical turnaround time for an AQ and when I'm likely to hear about the allocated track?

 

My understanding is that they get 14 days to issue their AQ, if they don't then the court send them an "Unless Order" giving them another 7 days to issue. If they don't issue it after the 7 days then you can apply for judgment!

[un1boy]

my local court is tiny. I think I'm the only one who ever phones them up.

 

lmao

[un1boy]

SB was certianly an inspiration and a driving force to me. His posts often took me a couple of hours to get my head around but always led me in the right direction.

 

Pete

 

Yes guys, I agree- I wonder where he is and although I am little more nervous without him, we have all learned enough from him to help each other through - I'm sure he will post when he's brought the CRA's down, lol!!

[un1boy]

ok everyone - fairly bad news I'm afraid - I got this from my local court today

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what to do.

 

 

Whaaaaaaaaat???? Is this basically the Court saying that they do not have power to hear it or is this a request from Vodafone?

[un1boy]

Seems Vodas defence was to question the courts jurisdiction.

 

but what is the point of a Court if it has no juristiction - who would have it? That's what I don't understand......so the court are asking Dayglo to prove that they do have juristiction?!

[un1boy]

my conspiracy theory is this - Surly Bonds and JamesJ were the same person.

 

They only ever appeared together and now neither of them have been seen in ages.

 

lol

[un1boy]

btw - I did watch LOTR ROTK last night - sorry, still can't see what all the fuss is about - I could have told that story a bit quicker I think....

 

how about "small people try to melt a ring whilst some grown ups have some battles...."

 

it reminds me of a great review I read of Star Wars ep III

 

"insolent teenager gets new hat!"

 

hey ho... back to business i 'spose.

 

I agree...I tried reading the first one but couldn't get into it at all. which surprised me because I loved the Hobbit so much - it's absolutely fantastic - I want to read it again!!

 

Does anyone know why thye haven't made the Hobbit as a film yet?

[un1boy]

Efficient indeed. You don't work for the government then...??

 

Hardly Number 6 - he said efficient!!! hehe

[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.

[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?!

[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!

[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!

[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.

[un1boy]

not a bad post there Mr. Un1boy.

 

Thank you.

 

however - you may be right in that people's circumstances do go through ups and downs but if it was your job to design a system that could predict, reasonably accuratly, the likelihood of someone paying back debt on time every month you would want as many data points as possible, you would in all likelihood 'weight' the more recent data points as more valuable than those further back in the past. You would not willingly ignore data points that showed poor payment history in the past because of life's challenges (believe me I know all about those!) of course, most of this applies to 'automated decision making' you do have the right to insist on manual decision making (like that's gonna make a difference!)

 

A court has to weigh up competing interests sometimes between the data controller and the data subject. I would be in favour of a sliding scale depending on the size of the 'default'

 

one of my defaults was for £16k - I'm properly ashamed of that and I can see an argument for that remaining for 6 years - based on a data controllers legitimate interest etc.... but my vodafone default was £300. should that stay for 6 years too?

 

the fact that the credit reference agency has, in the eyes of many influential bodies, become skilled in the difficult art of predicting peoples' behaviour. They are good at it and their customers pay handsomely for the information because they know it saves them more money in the long run.

 

No-one in that chain is going to willingly give up the fact that '6 years is industry practice etc.' without a fight, and ask yourself this.... if you were the judge and you had to set a 'standard time' for the retention of personal data by credit reference agencies, given all the competing pressures on you - I bet you any money you like, you would come up with the answer '6 years' - because it's then answer that cause the least disruption to the status quo.

 

I wasn't aware that they actually predict anyhting - they just keep information don't they?

 

Also, what you have to remember is that it if someone has a defualt on their credit file, the companies lend them at higher interest rates so it's in their interest to issue them sometimes.

 

I don't think to be honest that they actually would consider each entry and their dates etc, taking the most recent first - what they do is check if you have a default, if you do then they charge you more interest etc. Maybe if they check them manually they might consider the extra "fiddly" details, but automated searches won't. I've learnt this whilst applying for credit and things when they say, "well, if you've got a default then we can't lend to you!"

 

If they didn't get to charge more interest on borrowing then they wouldn't bother issuing them, and certiainly wouldn't fight as hard as they do when you try to get them removed!!!