Re: Robinson Way

[the-special-one]

Hi,

 

Appologies for posting on this thread but most relevant one i could find in regard to Robbinscum and i need some advice and hoping someone can help.

 

I found a default notice on my file managed by Robinscum from a next account and sent the "Prove it" letter as dates didn't match mine which i closed four years previously. Robbinscum sent me an appologetic letter two weeks later saying they have no CCA and have ceased collecting on this account.

 

I then wrote to them demanding that as there is no CCA there and i dispute the account is mine that they remove the default. I advised that as they are the managers of the default it is their responsibility to ensure that it was placed correctly and no credit agreement meand nothing to default on!

 

They replied by saying NEXT sent me letters at my previous address and as i never complained (never recieved any letters) or contacted them then the debt is valid.

 

They go on to say "Whilst we accept we have been unable to provide a copy agreement rendering this account unenforceable this does not mean the debt does not exist and under the data protection act and the OFT guidlines we have a responsibility to update your credit file accordingly".

 

This is obviously ridiculous as you cannot default on an agreement if there is no agreement to default on.

 

Any advice on how to respond to this would be appreciated, if there is a letter for this could someone please point me in the right direction.

 

Regards

[harrassed senior]

Hi, many many threads on CAG on this subject, there is something called and S10 which you can send, but I expect that you would receive the same response. Many of us agree with what you say, a few have managed to get this information removed, but many more have not.

 

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/Data_Protection_Act_-_S10_Notice

[alfwithhair]

Started your own thread for you Special One

[the-special-one]

Thanks Alfwithhair.

 

Also thanks to Harrassed senior however, that s10 would imply that i actually had an account with them and that this problem is due to charges would it not? I assume that the principles are the same though so will tweak it and send it on, with a charge for constantly having to take time to write to them!

[Tingy]

I'd be inclined to send Next an SAR so that you get everything they hold about you. If this includes statements of accounts etc.... then they could possibly reconstitute the agreement and it could still be enforced. If they hold little or nothing on you then ask their data controller to ensure all information regarding this is removed from your CRF, otherwise they will be reported to the ICO. Make sure as part of your SAR you ask specifically under CPUTR 2008 whether they hold an true agreement for this account, and if they do could they ensure they send it.

[Bazooka Boo]

Contact the CRA's and tell them to remove the incorrect data immediately or you will seek legal advice with a view to suing them for damages, you are correct that if they do not have a CCA and therefore cannot prove this account existed then they are breaching the DPA, once you have complained to the CRA's and they fail to remove the incorrect data, you can add a notice of correction something along the lines of, " inaccurate DATA, ICO investigating"

And lodge a complaint with the ICO http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

[the-special-one]

Cheers Bazooka Boo, gonna do that tomorrow! Will let you know how it goes.

[Bazooka Boo]

You will be astonished at the level of near impunity they act with!

[Tingy]

BB,

 

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about contacting the CRA's and demanding removal of inaccurate info.

 

However, and again it's not disagreeing, it's just a statement of fact, I'm in the middle of a long standing legal battle over exactly this issue. I'm arguing the CRA's are acutally processing the data so their data controller can be sued under DPA 1998. They argue that for them the data controller is -eg- the bank that gave them the data and it is their data controller that should be being sued for inaccurate information.

 

OP Don't expect them to roll over and remove it, this is highly unlikely and is unclearly worded in the DPA so needs a precedent judgment. That's why I suggested going to Next rather than the CRA, due to what I'm going through and it may prove VERY expensive if I lose.

[the-special-one]

I'm no legal expert or i wouldn't be having to ask this, but isn't aiding and abetting a breach of the DPA guidelines just as bad for any data controller who has been made aware of a possible infringement of rights?

Like most people on this forum i'm astounded that there is no legal/government statute to protect consumers from the miss doings of the DCA's and CRA's who are intrinsically linked through shared business. However i don't want to get in to the political debate.

I assume they have some auto cop out for this statement (that they are conspiring in a breach of the DPA)? Has there ever been any successful legal bouts regarding this?

[Tingy]

The ICO is supposedly there to protect us, the public, but often they're as useful as a chocolate fireguard! You can't aid and abet a breach of the DPA as such due to the way it is written. Somebody (the data controller) is responsible for what is there. The problem here arises as the CRA claim they are not handling the data as such, just passing on what is given to them. My argument is that by passing it on they are, by definition, processing it in some way, and are thus liable for its accuracy. It's being tested in court by me at the moment, but is likely to end up in a higher court and maybe even the European Court as the DPA is enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

 

Nothing is simple!

[the-special-one]

With regard to my last statement about no legal/goverment statute against miss doings of CRA's and DCA's, obviously i'm aware of the ICO, FOS, DPA and TS, but they don't have the openess or the teeth that are required at times.

 

The average person doesn't have the time to fight in the way we need to to get any resolution and most don't even have the knowledge to find support sites such as the CAG.

[Tingy]

I know what you mena. I don't think the problem is they don't have the teeth. I think the problem is they don't use them enough and they have a massive backlog of work, so while you're waiting for something to happen with,eg, the ICO, something else terrible may happen because they haven't been able to act fast enough.

 

To me there is no point having teeth if you don't bite someone occasionally (or even often!)

[the-special-one]

Tingy; what way is the DPA linked with the human rights act, sections would be good. As a nurse i'm only familiar with 3&4.

[Tingy]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/72/72.pdf

 

Happy Reading!

[the-special-one]

Hmm, lots of text!!! but paragraph 9 & 10 stands out after a brief read and time out on csi.

 

I saw that it says

 

The Data Protection Act provides practical guidance to public bodies on how to meet their

obligations under the Human Rights Act to respect personal data. “It is fair to say”, it

concluded, “that there is a mutually supportive interplay between human rights, data

protection and the work of the Information Commissioner”.

Our support!

 

Also the statement and table 1 shows who they are advised to release data too!

Interestingly it states;

16. The Government’s response has generally been to resist our recommendations. It

points to the fact that public authorities must comply with the provisions of the Data

Protection and Human Rights Acts and argues that, as a result, it is not necessary to put

specific safeguards in primary legislation.

 

So there basically saying they know our rules and we trust them! But they don't have to check them! shreaks incompetence!

 

Good luck Tingy, hope you take them to the cleaners!