Cap1 & CCA return

[patrickq1]

did not have time to finish what does thr acrued intrest mean got me thick head on today

[patrickq1]

hi seahorse i sent you that form from barclays to be honest i have never seen one like that in my life i did not realise they done them like that all i have ever seen is just a short paragraph and thats it...if i had one of them i think you can imagine what i would do with toiletpaper

[patrickq1]

to moonhawk just found this on another cag page and as ive posted to seahorse i can honestly swear on the bible i really have never seen one of these in this form all i have ever seen is a short paragraph on an agreement /application i am really shocked at its content i could never imagine signing one of those not in my lifetime even if my life depended on it,i could nt goes against all my principles

 

My wife is concerned about debts that she thinks maybe outstanding she has found agreement and it states that:

 

PERSONAL DATA

 

I agree you may hold and process, by computer or otherwise any information about me as a consequence of the application and/or agreement “Personal Data”. I agree that you may

 

(i) Include Personal data in Barclays Group customers systems which maybe accessed by other companies in the Barclay Group for banking and credit assessment, statistical analysis including behaviour and credit scoring and to identify products and services (including those supplied by third parties) which may be relevant to me, and

 

(ii) With my consent, permit other companies within the Barclays Group to use Personal Data and any other information you hold about me on Barclay Group systems to bring to my attention products and services which may be of interest to me.

 

You may disclose personal data outside the Barclay Group only:

(a) for fraud prevention purposes;

 

(b) to include reference agencies, if I am in breach of an agreement; or to the extent that I have give my consent,

© under a strict code of secrecy to sub-contractors or person acting as your agents;

(d) to any person who may assume your rights under this Agreement; and

(e) if you have a right or duty to disclose or are permitted to compelled to do so by law.

The above paragraphs (i) and (ii) do not apply to any information specific to business accounts of branches of the Channel Islands or of the Isle of Man unless such customers have informed their branch that they wish to be included in the Barclays Group customers systems.

 

Personal Data will be deleted from the Barclays Group customers systems as soon as reasonably possibly after you cease to be a Barclays Group customer.

 

I confirm that the information give in true and complete and authorise you to make any credit reference and other enquires in accordance with the normal procedures in connection with the application

I understand that I can request not to receive details of products or services, other that with my statement, by writing to Barclays.

 

The tick/cross in this box means that I agree that Personal Data and any other information you hold about me on the Barclay Group customer systems may be used within the Barclays Group to bring to my attention products and services my bay be of interest to me. o

Signed….................. . Date…………………..

[patrickq1]

thanks roe it was off that page you just pasted

[patrickq1]

i think the whole reason for us being here is to see a real change and that is happening .but we know the unlawful acts are happening this will always be the case until TS/ICO/ OFT and others POLICE the banks and finance companies but i imagine defaults being one of the subjects are or could be as many as 2000 defaults daily most of them not going through the lawful chanels of you first receive and have the opertunity to challenge no this is not happening but i think this is why the ICO have now begun a new Information enquiry ,they will be waiting for resposes from the likes of CAG and ordinary people in general because if we do not write then the only ones left to try to influence the ICO will be the Banks and others in finance industry,then we will have brought it on ourselves for being sleeping dogs .i think the enquiry info is on this thread somewhere not sure if lookingforinfo put it here but if it isnt im sure someone else can post it then it is upto everyone to discuss their point of veiw until we can make up a consentious and then the Mods can forward and clean it up to present as one body

[patrickq1]

sorry to disagree with you on this statement uni the reason for this is i would nt like to see politics being entered into the forum and would say 99,9% are doing their best whatever there political persuasion ,but what we need to do is insure that the OFT FSA (WELL NO NOT FSA)ICO TS and all other bodies of goverment to have a complete and thorough investigation into the finance industry and its associations..and force them to act with what we all want with TRANSPARENCY FAIRNESS AND HONESTY,but i think you would have to have someone like george galloway in the chair ,can you imagine him being in the chair ,i think he would jail the bankers lol

[patrickq1]

we all need a lf every now an then talk about endownments thats another story would nt even know where to begin with that one so i wont what a bunch of mugs we were in the 80s what a con mine is up next year has nt even made a third ggrrrr glad you had a lf moon at least you got a sense of humor lol nice to cheer someone up i deserve a medal for being so brave lol

[patrickq1]

hence the reason i have been bangin on about the processing of data ..it should be a seperate contract and should never be allowed on any credit aplication nor contract...this is one of the reasons i say about the charter petition it should be on thier no rights to process information without a court order then the finance co/bank would have to prove the debt it would be pointless informing the FSA as they would favour the banks /finance I wonder why.since they have already got a done deal with the stay and court action to discover that they are actin in good faith seems TRANSPARENCY part went out the window on the second statement produced by the FSA,when we all consider the TRANSPARENCY as being gettin to the truth IE BANK CHARGES ETC

And never underestimate the power of financial institutions, CRAs and DCAs to

maybe not coerce, but certainly influence, the way in which particular areas

of doubt can be interpreted. Some of these companies are in touch with

the Information Commissioners Office etc perhaps on a regular basis and so it becomes possible then either

over dinner or an invite or tickets to some function say [sports or music for

example] to get officials to come round to their way of thinking

THIS goes without saying a cosy cosy situation

if anyone was taking anyone to court for CLARITY and TRANSPARENCY i suspect it should have been TS AND ICO but sadly they do not know what their own advice is

i think none of us have a cat in hells chance of getting satisfaction because of they way all this was announced,it cut a wedge right through our RIGHTS TO TRANSPARENCY FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE,perhaps they will get the judge from HULL who already ruled in the banks favour only for it to be overturned and when people started to scream you will notice the only way to difuse the situation was to announce that a HEARING will take place to see who is right and wrong but right and wrong over what,certainly not TRANSPARENCY..we are having the wool pulled over our eyes,we have been tricked into beleiving that fairness and transparancy will be the order of the day...TRANSPARENCY is no longer an issue,because it has been dropped from the mandate

[patrickq1]

I am also slightly angry that CAG has not stood up to this abuse of power,a new charter /petition should be in order to stop all abuses that we have seen take place especially over this last twelve months so much so that the banks/finance co and DCA are making an ass of the law WHAT LAW they are useing the system to their own advantage and it is time the ICO AND TS got their act together and put the finance co and all the rest in their place..once and for allfor whatever reason why have the ico & ts NOT BEEN CLEAR ENOUGH AND ASKED THE SIMPLE question LETS SEE HOW YOU WORK OUT YOUR ACCOUNTS TO JUSTIFY THIS CHARGE/PENALTY they can do this without any such order from courts..is it such a difficult question to ask? i will let you all ask amongst yourselves as to WHY NOT

[patrickq1]

thank you both peter and moonhaw,still their is need for this to be clarified with regards to the ,IMPLIED STATEMENT OF TERMS IN THE CONTRACT of their right to process your data this is a non negotiable term and also should be deemed an unlawful term because you are not allowed to negotiate this term it is a forcefull clause ,but some people are of the beleif of (caveat something i cant think of the full and proper term "let the buyer beware" )this is the part that is allowing unlawful material to be passed not only is it passed to a third party it is passed to all and sundry institutions regardless of the act,i also can remember the time when the bank had to ask your permission to make enquiries.in 1992 i asked the bank for a refference about a customer of mine (who banked with this bank same as me) to see wether he was good for the credit of £5000 on the sale of my products,he came back with a report he was good for the money at that time,i got this persons cheque and it bounced on me ,and i was left 5000 worse of but they covered themselves by saying at that moment in time i banked same day...so it was my loss.needless to say i never ever got my money back,but it is my loss but it is also part of a claim i have against this particular bank...

[patrickq1]

Freedom of Information Act - Information Commissioner's Office - ICO

[patrickq1]

good flag stirs the heart lol

[patrickq1]

ICO Disclosure Log - Response to Request

Request Ref: FOI/443

Date of Response: 01/09/06

Please inform me of the approximate number of prosecutions made under the

Act relating to unsolicited faxes and telephone calls made to individuals who

have indicated they do not wish to receive such communications and have

informed the offenders accordingly.

Has any company or individual has ever been fined or disciplined under the

regulations.

1. ‘The approximate number of prosecutions made under the Act relating to

unsolicited faxes and telephone calls made to individuals who have indicated

they do not wish to receive such communications and have informed the

offenders accordingly’ – The relevant legislation for enforcement purposes in

these circumstances is the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC

Directive) Regulations 2003 and the Enterprise Act 2002. No ‘prosecutions’

have been undertaken as the legislation does not provide for criminal action.

Therefore the Information Commissioner does not hold this information.

However, please see 3 below.

2. ‘Whether any company or individual has been fined…’ Again the relevant

legislation is as stated in 1 above, and as the legislation does not provide for

criminal prosecution and it is in this context that fines would be ordered, no

individual or company and been ‘fined’ and therefore the Information

Commissioner does not hold this information. However, again please see 3

below.

3. ‘Whether any company or individual has ever been … disciplined…’ At the

present time a number of companies have been served with preliminary

enforcement notices for alleged breaches of the above noted regulations. This

is an informal step which may result in formal action under the regulations,

should they fail to respond to those notices.

in other words the ICO are not capable of prosecuting anyone or have no real intentions of prosecuting i also did not realise that they have been talking to companies about the removal of the restrictions of the data processing act concerning any agreements from 1999 and backwards meaning another 40,000,000 accounts that will now go on the sharing register wether you like it or not

COME ON WHAT IS THIS ? They are not responding to our data being processed because they are discussing ways to make information available without your say so

[patrickq1]

i thought the whole reason for the act was to safeguard our data not to allow the sharing of it

[patrickq1]

good morning peter,i read a consultation document between ICO and BAnks/finance co that has been produced by the ICO,it concerns the sharing of dATA pre 1999 and the reason i think reading between the lines was pre 1999 contracts must have had some non negitiable part in the contract that prevents the banks/finance co from processing this data from that period and before, it amounts to 40 millions credit cards pre 1999 but it also states that they will somehow produce a waifer and allow this data to be processed regardless of anyones opinions,like the way they entered into after 1999 that it was acceptable to insert a precondition of data sharing as a non negotiable and implied term in the contract,is this allowed without precice goverment legislation they seem to be of the same opinion as the banks since their is already 250 million cards being processed yearly

[patrickq1]

perhaps its the goverment way into sharing data for the proposed ID CARDS by allowing DATA SHARING with the three main bodies and eventually amalgamate all this into a new DEPT OF ID CARDS...just me being so suspicious of all this data sharing that even the ICO is now turning the corner and allowing this practice to continue and expand,When you consider the ICO top dogs are all ex banking backgrounds ,so surely their is a possibility of question of conflict of intrest

[patrickq1]

my wife and i applied for a loan some six weeks ago we got the loan at an extortinate rate 22.9% because of adverse credit reports on my file...but ever since then we have had about 30 e mails from lending companies and insurance companies...this information can only have come from the CRAs and this is why i am very angry that they even have access to your borrowing requirements...and like the previous writer says it will be insurance companies with access to all your medical data...this is one of the reasons i ask for some sort of enquiry into the complex relationship of banks finance and insurance ind and dca...i also distrust the ICO and the FSA it seems they have some sort of agenda and are witholding information concerning their secret meetings with the Bank for what purpose no one knows yet

[patrickq1]

it would may but cag are still sitting on the fence,so much so that one becomes dis heartened by mid oct 07 we will probably see an event where the ICO and FSA and Banks have come to an understanding ,this case will not see the inside of a court room unless someone does something spectacular and calls the banks to account through the high courts ,,then the usual apeal law laords etc..i dont hold out much hope having gone through page by page in the ICO website and following threads from their it leads to the ICO doing things that we would all consider to be against what we thought they were doing,they have sugested in one article they have produced that they do not want TRANSPARENCY as they see this and agree with the financial institutions that this would harms the banks etc competitiveness and undermine the banks ability to atract customers

[patrickq1]

the only way forward now would be an INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION by a MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERMENT in the light of this Information Commissioners Office,it concerns the sharing of dATA pre 1999 and the reason i think reading between the lines was pre 1999 contracts must have had some non negitiable part in the contract that prevents the banks/finance co from processing this data from that period and before, it amounts to 40 millions credit cards pre 1999 but it also states that they will somehow produce a waifer and allow this data to be processed regardless of anyones opinions...this is being done without any legislature and it is what has already happened right under our noses after the 1999 and 2000 acts became acceptable under the FOI..this act has been disected and accepted by the ICO office as acceptable for the BANKS TO HAVE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS TO USE OUR DATA and that is regardless wether you sign their terms and conditions or not...proof is in the pudding defaults as apposed to zeros ines twos and threes on your credit card reference sheet with banks,so it is now the norm to issue defaults first and be dammed later as no one is their to damm the finance industry...i could go on like peter i have to stop myself and say that nothing short of an INDEPENDANT COMMISION AND A GOVERMENT AUDIT into the ICO AND THE FSA AND BANKS who are collectively all peeing in the same POT;;GGRRRR

[patrickq1]

EUR-Lex - Recherche simple

have a read at this peter some intresting points that i never knew existed

(10) It is necessary to ensure that the relationship between this Directive and existing Community law is coherent, particularly where detailed provisions on unfair commercial practices apply to specific sectors. This Directive therefore amends Directive 84/450/EEC, Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts [4], Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests [5] and Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services [6]. This Directive accordingly applies only in so far as there are no specific Community law provisions regulating specific aspects of unfair commercial practices, such as information requirements and rules on the way the information is presented to the consumer. It provides protection for consumers where there is no specific sectoral legislation at Community level and prohibits traders from creating a false impression of the nature of products. This is particularly important for complex products with high levels of risk to consumers, such as certain financial services products. This Directive consequently complements the Community acquis, which is applicable to commercial practices harming consumers' economic interests.

(11) The high level of convergence achieved by the approximation of national provisions through this Directive creates a high common level of consumer protection. This Directive establishes a single general prohibition of those unfair commercial practices distorting consumers' economic behaviour. It also sets rules on aggressive commercial practices, which are currently not regulated at Community level.

(12) Harmonisation will considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and business. Both consumers and business will be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating all aspects of unfair commercial practices across the EU. The effect will be to eliminate the barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules on unfair commercial practices harming consumer economic interests and to enable the internal market to be achieved in this area.

[patrickq1]

you wont be far wrong may compound intrest i am the same as you doh lol

our mortgage by the time we have paid it all ofit will be in the region of approx 166,000 this is for 18,000 and a borrow of 25000 so in about 7 years it will all have been paid off ..cant wait but i am now thinking of useing some of my equity now to import some products from china gps

[patrickq1]

Compound interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[patrickq1]

and if you can work that lot out may lol enlighten us please

[patrickq1]

this is a scandal on a massive scale . i have sent a query to brussels and asking can they clarify that this is acceptable behaviour from the brittish goverment ,they are going at it as fast as they can,before i think the october deadline and i think this also concerns the statute of limitations,i lost a lot of my data last night dammed mad cause i had all the files on the ICO ,read the front page of the ICO web site you will find some really intresting bits in thier ...what is going on i shall also write to the various departments of the home office to try and get some response as to what are the ICO upto,the DATA PROTECTION ACT no longer affords us security in fact the ICO are chipping away at the cornerstones of the whole DPA and for what purpose ,who is directing all this because it has only begun in the last 8/10 weeks..

[patrickq1]

GNN - Government News Network