T-Mobile data removal. - **WON**

[Ferru]

I'm surprised no-one has come up with any suggestions, given that there are so many people on this site who know their stuff regarding claiming money back from big companies.

 

Have there been any developments since your last post?

 

Regards

 

Jeff

[Bookworm]

Looks to me as if your claim is back on track (ha ha ha). Well, that's how it looks to me anyway.

 

Time to get cracking on your court bundle and statement of evidence, both to be found in the Library. ;-)

[un1boy]

Fantastic, thanks Bookworm.

 

You mention the court bundle etc is in the library - is that only for charges?

 

I am claiming removal of data....

[Bookworm]

Oh bother, got confused. (nothing new, some might say )

 

Ok, for your case, not my court bundle, no.

 

I think you know more about default removal than I do, so you'll probably have a better idea than me about what documents you'll want to use for that.

 

I'm not being terribly helpful, am I. :-|

[un1boy]

Right guys....these are the arguments i want to use, any and all comments welcome:

 

1. T-Mobile (UK LTD) have failed to keep me updated whenever the terms and conditions changed, therefore I had no chance to contest or agree to any terms or conditions that may have changed. The Information Commissioners Office guidelines to the Data Protection Act say:

 

“The interpretation of the Second Principle further provides that in deciding whether any disclosure of personal data is compatible with the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained, consideration will be given to the purpose or purposes for which the personal data are intended to be processed by any person to whom they are disclosed. Such decisions cannot be made retrospectively by data controllers once the data are obtained.”

 

2. T-Mobile (UK LTD) are in breach of Section 16 of the Data Protection Act in that they failed to provide with the relevant details of their Data Controller etc.

 

16. - (1) In this Part "the registrable particulars", in relation to a data controller, means-

 

 

(a) his name and address,

 

(b) if he has nominated a representative for the purposes of this Act, the name and address of the representative,

 

© a description of the personal data being or to be processed by or on behalf of the data controller and of the category or categories of data subject to which they relate,

 

(d) a description of the purpose or purposes for which the data are being or are to be processed,

 

(e) a description of any recipient or recipients to whom the data controller intends or may wish to disclose the data,

 

(f) the names, or a description of, any countries or territories outside the European Economic Area to which the data controller directly or indirectly transfers, or intends or may wish directly or indirectly to transfer, the data, and

 

 

It is my contention therefore that T-Mobile (UK LTD) are in breach of the DPA Act, and should not be processing my data, regardless of Sch2 [6][1].

 

3. The defendant states that they have a right under Sch2 (6)(1) to process my data. The Information Commissioners Office guidelines on this are as follows: “Meeting a Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 condition will not, on its own, guarantee that processing is fair and lawful. The general requirement that data be processed fairly and lawfully must be satisfied in addition to meeting the conditions.”

 

• The defendant failed, despite my various requests, to supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions which were relevant at the time of the original agreement. However as part of their defence, they supplied the terms and conditions I had previously asked for.
   
  5. I was not made aware that any account information would be supplied to a third party, let alone that it would be processed for six years after the agreement was terminated. The follwing are references from the defendant’s website regarding personal data:

“Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time. Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us.”

 

 

"Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a

period of time".

 

"We share information with our parent company and business associates”

 

"Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us."

 

The above references do not specify anything in particular and are confusing. The Claimant contends that the defendant’s continued processing of his data is unlawful because t is difficult to ascertain from the statements above that his data would be processed to CRA’s and kept for 6 years after the cancellation of the contract; This goes beyond my legitimate expectations.

 

• The defendant failed to disclose that they had a contract with the CRAs that my personal data could not be removed by CRAs without the defendant’s permission, regardless as to its accuracy, or how defamatory it was. For these two reasons, it is the Claimant’s contention that his data could have been processed unfairly and unlawfully. If this is the case then the defendant’s defence under Sch2 [6][1] is not covered.

In addition, as the defendant failed to disclose the examples above, it is the Claimant’s contention that his data is being processed unlawfully under the terms of legitimate expectation-

 

“c) Legitimate expectation, that is, the expectation of the individual as to how the data controller will use the information relating to him.”

 

The Claimant also maintains that the defendant is practising unlawful processing in a way that is acting above its powers in terms of processing information after the end of a contract, under the terms of Ultra Vires:

 

“b) The ultra vires rule and the rule relating to the excess of delegated powers, under which the data controller may only act within the limits of its legal powers..”

 

 

7. The defendant faile to provide me with the “fair processing information”, which consists of:-

(a) the identity of the data controller,

(b) if the data controller has nominated a representative for the purposes of the Act, the identity of that representative,

© the purpose or purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and

(d) any further information which is necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.

 

In deciding whether, and if so, what, further information is “necessary” to satisfy (d) above, data controllers should consider what processing of personal data they will be carrying out once the data have been obtained and consider whether or not data subjects are likely to understand the following:-

(a) the purposes for which their personal data are going to be processed;

(b) the likely consequences of such processing such that the data subject is able to make a judgement as to the nature and extent of the processing; and

© whether particular disclosures can reasonably be envisaged.

It would be expected that the more unforeseen the consequences of processing the more likely it is that the data controller will be expected to provide further information. This aspect also has a bearing on the question of what amounts to consent (see specific consideration of this issue at paragraph 3.1.5 above); in the same way that consent must be “informed”, so data subjects themselves must be fully aware of the ways in which their personal data may be processed in order for that processing to be considered fair. In the context of the 1984 Act, the Data Protection Tribunal has supported the Commissioner’s view that personal information will not be fairly obtained unless the individual has been informed of the non-obvious purpose or purposes for which it is required, before the information is obtained. (Innovations (Mail Order) Limited v The Data Protection Registrar (September 1993))

 

• The defendant states the following about changes to its privacy policy:
  “If we decide to change our privacy policy we will publish the changes pn our website so you are always aware of the way we collect, use and disclose data.” It is the Claimant’s contention that for the defendant to simply publish changes on their website is ineffective as, many members of the public (including the Claimant at the time) do not have access to the internet.
   
  10. The defendant failed to process the Claimant’s Subject Access Request under section 7 of the DPA.

11. The Claimant contends that his consent was not freely given and that his consent ended with the contract.

 

12. If the defendant states that they obtained the Claimant’s consent to their T&CS by the use of their phone, they failed to specify their intentions to the Claimant about processing his data.

 

The Claimant contends that the processing is unfair due to the lack of detail in the defendant’s rules that there is no way he could possibly have envisaged “such treatment” as per the Information Commissioners’ guidelines.

 

13. If the defendant’s actions are deemed not to be unfair or unlawful, then it is the Claimant’s contention that they are unwarranted penalties as he cannot now obtain:

a) an overdraft from your bank

b) open another bank account elsewhere

c) paying higher interest rates on credit

 

14. The defendant failed to satisfy the Claimant’s request under section 78(1) of the CCA, stating that they are not covered by the Act. The Claimant maintains that the defendant’s actions constitute those of an agreement governed under the Act, in that:

a) The defendant performs a credit check in order for a customer to use their services, and use that information to decline or grant their service where appropriate

b) Process information to their customer’s credit files

c) The defendant sets a credit limit on the account and once it’s reached, suspends services

d) The defendant states in section 14. of their defence that “the defendant registered details with the Agencies relating to the Claimant’s application for credit.” The claimant fails to understand how the defendant can provide credit without issuing a credit agreement regulated under the CCA.

 

15. When approaching the defendant’s staff member, Darren, in their Manchester Arndale retail shops, the Claimant was told that the agreements entered into were “completely covered by the CCA”

__________

 

 

 

Claimant maintains Defendant is in breach of the First Principle that data shall

be processed lawfully and fairly.By admitting Defendant operates within a

paperless environment in conjunction with denial of access to full access to

Defendants Terms and Conditions including details of how personal information

is used, is confirmation of unlawful and unfair processing in as much as the

Claimant has no way of understanding the terms and conditions since they have not been supplied. Consent by a data subject is defined as .." any freely

given and specific informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed." Claimant therefore maintains that consent to process

peronal data has not been consented to by reason of insufficient information

supplied by Defendant.

Claimant further maintains that the processing is unlawful since his legitimate

expectation was that all processing would cease on termination of contract

and there is no indication that processing would continue for six years from this term "that the claimant's personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time;.

 

Claimant also claims the processing is unfair because

a] being paperless, no details of the "Fair Processing Information" has been

received. As a result, the Claimant was unable to make a judgement as to the

nature and extent of the processing.

b] the Claimant has the right to expect to have been provided with furthe

information spelling out that processing would continue for six years, and if

there was detrimental information thereon, that potential lenders would

charge higher rates of interest, or refuse loans completely, even if the

Claimant had resolved any financial shortfall within months.

 

 

I'll put that in now to see what you think and see if that covers most of what you need.

 

 

Don't know if Zoot would agree but bearing in mind after termination of a contract

a]in the absence of terms allowing continued processing

b] bearing in mind that CRAS are still recording the specific performance of

monthly debt repayments for 6 years, which has no basis in law

could the company be accused of acting ultra vires?

 

 

 

 

Hiya guys,

 

Should I be supplying this as my court bundle?

[un1boy]

Right guys....these are the arguments i want to use, any and all comments welcome:

 

1. T-Mobile (UK LTD) have failed to keep me updated whenever the terms and conditions changed, therefore I had no chance to contest or agree to any terms or conditions that may have changed. The Information Commissioners Office guidelines to the Data Protection Act say:

 

“The interpretation of the Second Principle further provides that in deciding whether any disclosure of personal data is compatible with the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained, consideration will be given to the purpose or purposes for which the personal data are intended to be processed by any person to whom they are disclosed. Such decisions cannot be made retrospectively by data controllers once the data are obtained.”

 

2. T-Mobile (UK LTD) are in breach of Section 16 of the Data Protection Act in that they failed to provide with the relevant details of their Data Controller etc.

 

16. - (1) In this Part "the registrable particulars", in relation to a data controller, means-

 

 

(a) his name and address,

 

(b) if he has nominated a representative for the purposes of this Act, the name and address of the representative,

 

© a description of the personal data being or to be processed by or on behalf of the data controller and of the category or categories of data subject to which they relate,

 

(d) a description of the purpose or purposes for which the data are being or are to be processed,

 

(e) a description of any recipient or recipients to whom the data controller intends or may wish to disclose the data,

 

(f) the names, or a description of, any countries or territories outside the European Economic Area to which the data controller directly or indirectly transfers, or intends or may wish directly or indirectly to transfer, the data, and

 

 

It is my contention therefore that T-Mobile (UK LTD) are in breach of the DPA Act, and should not be processing my data, regardless of Sch2 [6][1].

 

3. The defendant states that they have a right under Sch2 (6)(1) to process my data. The Information Commissioners Office guidelines on this are as follows: “Meeting a Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 condition will not, on its own, guarantee that processing is fair and lawful. The general requirement that data be processed fairly and lawfully must be satisfied in addition to meeting the conditions.”

 

• The defendant failed, despite my various requests, to supply me with a copy of the terms and conditions which were relevant at the time of the original agreement. However as part of their defence, they supplied the terms and conditions I had previously asked for.
   
  5. I was not made aware that any account information would be supplied to a third party, let alone that it would be processed for six years after the agreement was terminated. The follwing are references from the defendant’s website regarding personal data:

“Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time. Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us.”

 

 

"Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a

period of time".

 

"We share information with our parent company and business associates”

 

"Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us."

 

The above references do not specify anything in particular and are confusing. The Claimant contends that the defendant’s continued processing of his data is unlawful because t is difficult to ascertain from the statements above that his data would be processed to CRA’s and kept for 6 years after the cancellation of the contract; This goes beyond my legitimate expectations.

 

• The defendant failed to disclose that they had a contract with the CRAs that my personal data could not be removed by CRAs without the defendant’s permission, regardless as to its accuracy, or how defamatory it was. For these two reasons, it is the Claimant’s contention that his data could have been processed unfairly and unlawfully. If this is the case then the defendant’s defence under Sch2 [6][1] is not covered.

In addition, as the defendant failed to disclose the examples above, it is the Claimant’s contention that his data is being processed unlawfully under the terms of legitimate expectation-

 

“c) Legitimate expectation, that is, the expectation of the individual as to how the data controller will use the information relating to him.”

 

The Claimant also maintains that the defendant is practising unlawful processing in a way that is acting above its powers in terms of processing information after the end of a contract, under the terms of Ultra Vires:

 

“b) The ultra vires rule and the rule relating to the excess of delegated powers, under which the data controller may only act within the limits of its legal powers..”

 

 

7. The defendant faile to provide me with the “fair processing information”, which consists of:-

(a) the identity of the data controller,

(b) if the data controller has nominated a representative for the purposes of the Act, the identity of that representative,

© the purpose or purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and

(d) any further information which is necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.

 

In deciding whether, and if so, what, further information is “necessary” to satisfy (d) above, data controllers should consider what processing of personal data they will be carrying out once the data have been obtained and consider whether or not data subjects are likely to understand the following:-

(a) the purposes for which their personal data are going to be processed;

(b) the likely consequences of such processing such that the data subject is able to make a judgement as to the nature and extent of the processing; and

© whether particular disclosures can reasonably be envisaged.

It would be expected that the more unforeseen the consequences of processing the more likely it is that the data controller will be expected to provide further information. This aspect also has a bearing on the question of what amounts to consent (see specific consideration of this issue at paragraph 3.1.5 above); in the same way that consent must be “informed”, so data subjects themselves must be fully aware of the ways in which their personal data may be processed in order for that processing to be considered fair. In the context of the 1984 Act, the Data Protection Tribunal has supported the Commissioner’s view that personal information will not be fairly obtained unless the individual has been informed of the non-obvious purpose or purposes for which it is required, before the information is obtained. (Innovations (Mail Order) Limited v The Data Protection Registrar (September 1993))

 

• The defendant states the following about changes to its privacy policy:
  “If we decide to change our privacy policy we will publish the changes pn our website so you are always aware of the way we collect, use and disclose data.” It is the Claimant’s contention that for the defendant to simply publish changes on their website is ineffective as, many members of the public (including the Claimant at the time) do not have access to the internet.
   
  10. The defendant failed to process the Claimant’s Subject Access Request under section 7 of the DPA.

11. The Claimant contends that his consent was not freely given and that his consent ended with the contract.

 

12. If the defendant states that they obtained the Claimant’s consent to their T&CS by the use of their phone, they failed to specify their intentions to the Claimant about processing his data.

 

The Claimant contends that the processing is unfair due to the lack of detail in the defendant’s rules that there is no way he could possibly have envisaged “such treatment” as per the Information Commissioners’ guidelines.

 

13. If the defendant’s actions are deemed not to be unfair or unlawful, then it is the Claimant’s contention that they are unwarranted penalties as he cannot now obtain:

a) an overdraft from your bank

b) open another bank account elsewhere

c) paying higher interest rates on credit

 

14. The defendant failed to satisfy the Claimant’s request under section 78(1) of the CCA, stating that they are not covered by the Act. The Claimant maintains that the defendant’s actions constitute those of an agreement governed under the Act, in that:

a) The defendant performs a credit check in order for a customer to use their services, and use that information to decline or grant their service where appropriate

b) Process information to their customer’s credit files

c) The defendant sets a credit limit on the account and once it’s reached, suspends services

d) The defendant states in section 14. of their defence that “the defendant registered details with the Agencies relating to the Claimant’s application for credit.” The claimant fails to understand how the defendant can provide credit without issuing a credit agreement regulated under the CCA.

 

15. When approaching the defendant’s staff member, Darren, in their Manchester Arndale retail shops, the Claimant was told that the agreements entered into were “completely covered by the CCA”

__________

 

 

 

Claimant maintains Defendant is in breach of the First Principle that data shall

be processed lawfully and fairly.By admitting Defendant operates within a

paperless environment in conjunction with denial of access to full access to

Defendants Terms and Conditions including details of how personal information

is used, is confirmation of unlawful and unfair processing in as much as the

Claimant has no way of understanding the terms and conditions since they have not been supplied. Consent by a data subject is defined as .." any freely

given and specific informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed." Claimant therefore maintains that consent to process

peronal data has not been consented to by reason of insufficient information

supplied by Defendant.

Claimant further maintains that the processing is unlawful since his legitimate

expectation was that all processing would cease on termination of contract

and there is no indication that processing would continue for six years from this term "that the claimant's personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time;.

 

Claimant also claims the processing is unfair because

a] being paperless, no details of the "Fair Processing Information" has been

received. As a result, the Claimant was unable to make a judgement as to the

nature and extent of the processing.

b] the Claimant has the right to expect to have been provided with furthe

information spelling out that processing would continue for six years, and if

there was detrimental information thereon, that potential lenders would

charge higher rates of interest, or refuse loans completely, even if the

Claimant had resolved any financial shortfall within months.

 

 

I'll put that in now to see what you think and see if that covers most of what you need.

 

 

Don't know if Zoot would agree but bearing in mind after termination of a contract

a]in the absence of terms allowing continued processing

b] bearing in mind that CRAS are still recording the specific performance of

monthly debt repayments for 6 years, which has no basis in law

could the company be accused of acting ultra vires?

 

 

 

 

Hiya guys,

 

Should I be supplying this as my court bundle?

[un1boy]

hello if you are still watching this thread (I hope you are!) just to let you know I am going to call T-Mobile on Monday to see if they want to discuss an out of court settlement - I am happy for them to remove the data and then give me the court costs back, not the £200 I am claiming.

 

What do u reckon?

[un1boy]

hello if you are still watching this thread (I hope you are!) just to let you know I am going to call T-Mobile on Monday to see if they want to discuss an out of court settlement - I am happy for them to remove the data and then give me the court costs back, not the £200 I am claiming.

 

What do u reckon?

[un1boy]

ok, so T-Mobile are settling out of court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We have agreed for all adverse to be removed and them to pay the court costs.

 

Woohoo!!

[un1boy]

ok, so T-Mobile are settling out of court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We have agreed for all adverse to be removed and them to pay the court costs.

 

Woohoo!!

[midge61]

Wow Uni

 

It was a long haul but at least you got there in the end.

 

Congratulations:)

[voyager9]

well done uniboy good result, you deserve it after all your hard work lol

 

voyager9:D

[lookinforinfo]

Well done Un1boy.

Quite sensible of them really since it cost them nothing to remove the adverse

and the Court costs were down to them anyway. And had they lost the case

their costs would have been so much higher and had the media latched on, it

may well have spurred on many other claimants to try.

[un1boy]

Well done Un1boy.

Quite sensible of them really since it cost them nothing to remove the adverse

and the Court costs were down to them anyway. And had they lost the case

their costs would have been so much higher and had the media latched on, it

may well have spurred on many other claimants to try.

 

Oh I am sooo happy!!!

 

thanks for all your help guys, very much appreciated. It's not over til the fat cheque clears tough.

 

The lady has been really nice actually- said it wouldn't be a problem and that she would get the cheque to me for next week!!

[Guest ian cognito]

Well done Uniboy, great result, really pleased for you.

[un1boy]

Well done Uniboy, great result, really pleased for you.

 

Cheers mate, I am so so happy - this has been giving me sleepness nites wprrying and other things I've needed to do can now come off the back burner!!

 

They reckon it will all be sorted within 2 weeks, max!!

[un1boy]

Got my settlement letter today!!!! woohoo!!!!

[Janet-M]

CONGRATULATIONS

:D :D :D

[un1boy]

Thanks Janet -I'm so happy!!!

[ASIIndustries]

Hi un1boy, at last a successful result, i know you have been working hard on this issue for quite a long time now, just lets hope your result appears on your CRA records soon, but i do feel Congratulations is in order!

--

ASI Industries = As i in does tries!

[fuzzywuzzy]

Congratulations Uniboy, what a brilliant thread, 9 months! you deserved to win.

 

Fuzzy

[un1boy]

Congratulations Uniboy, what a brilliant thread, 9 months! you deserved to win.

 

Fuzzy

 

Thanks - 9 months? If I were female I could of had a baby in that time!!!

[fuzzywuzzy]

I'm doing this with Vodafone and their assistance in the matter is so frustrating i think i am having a baby.

[un1boy]

Oh ok, good luck - let me know where ur thread is and i'll see *if* I can help.

 

Have u rad Dayglo's?

[buzby]

What a shame this did not reach court - it was a well-reasoned submission (with the exception of s14, as this has been argued in the past and has been a blind alley). Clearly a SC action had no chance of setting a precedent, but it would have been useful even for a judges informal ruling that T&Cs existing on the Internet cannot be the sole source of information, and that the various 'woolly' references to data processing be tightly specified. Good personal result nonetheless!