Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:50 ----------
Not the end of the story, as it seems they DO have a legal right 
This is from the Information Comissioners Office
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...%20sharing.pdf
Part of which says the following:
The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case.
It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.
and it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were coordinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained.
and a bit further on
As a consequence this historical information would appear to be relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this information the agencies would not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.
|
"Not the end of the story"
LOL, now that totally depends how much time you look and realise that above ICO underlings reply came about Directly from the surlyBonds bank charges/CRA posts, and peoples formal papers to the ICO to make best efforts to then go directly to and use in court, so they were quite happy with that wrong view and note, as it allows them to go directly to court and show best effort to resolve the points.
i assume everyone knows and is aware that
the ICO dont make the law,and so can only give a "view", just as the home office gave a "view" and got the "view" wrong many times.
only the courts can rule on the law, and they have slapped the ICO and HO several times for getting it wrong and giving bad advice and bad views to the public as official bodys of the govt.
you got to love it, the way that underling wormed that cover note, without once refering to the legal passages that matter in the DPA in this case , and how its a view of this lower first line ICO person in the ICO not a law
, yes the ICO also have bad customer care DPA agents, he should have perhaps passed it up the line to someone higher to get a far better non commital announcement.
the key words clearly state
"
This note sets out the Information Commissioner’s
view on the matter."
"
It is our view that
the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account
data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years
beyond."
i like this bit best he makes it out as though they rather than he that didnt put in the research and time to get the answers "argument" and "assumption" and "this is not the case" LOL
"
"The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case."
heres a direct quote from the Experion Executive legal person to surlyBonds legal papers from that link above, you can find it in several places infact if you look..
Experion said "“As far as Experian are aware there is no specific legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled.
It was agreed throughout the credit industry alone, that the six years is considered as a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle.
This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held”
you said it yourself "it even covers why there is no legislation on the six year rule "
and even Experion had to finally confirm it after legal threats and papers, there is NO LAW.,
"end of story" as somone said somewere
the unsigned ICO view above that consent is NOT required is clearly wrong.
"industry practice" does NOT a law make
---------- Post added at 07:26 ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 ----------
the
SurlyBonds footer:
"
The legal bit: My views based on a post-grad law degree and an uncle who's a QC. But, I accept no liability for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any of my advice - clarify your
own personal stuation with an insured solicitor.
Last edited by SurlyBonds; 24-04-2007 at 09:23 PM."