Preventing illegal processing of data

[james robertson]

I was looking through MBNAtrouble's thread about preventing the incorrect processing of data and Curleyben's response and want to know whether the Section 10&12 part of the Data Protection Act was useful about other 'disputes'

I have a claim against a vehicle trader and their finance company, the lender has posted a default on the CRAs despite there being a Sale of goods Act claim in existence. they are fully aware of the claim they were first informed in 2004! and now are one of the defendants in the action.

However they refuse to remove the CRA entry despite the fact there is not any default - admittedly as far as im concerned! but the point is the Judge will decide this matter and until then surely they have not the right to register this default.

So i have the quote from Curleyben below,

Statutory Notice Pursuant to Sections 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Data Subject Notice.
Account number: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx


plus all the rest..... but my question is can any dispute (so long as it is a real dispute of course) use this part of the act to force (or at least attempt to) the lender to remove data.???????

your thoughts Please

[Guest]

Re: Preventing illegal processing of data

Section 10 concerns your right to prevent processing which causes substantial damage or distress and section 12 concerns your rights in relation to automated decision-taking. Neither can force a lender to remove any data. Although not impossible, it is notoriously difficult to have data removed once it has been recorded on your credit file. You may have to bring a separate action against them in order to achieve this, or make it a condition of settling your existing claim.

[james robertson]

Re: Preventing illegal processing of data

Thanks Cetelco, but do you agree with my understanding that they shouldn't put the entry on my file given that we are in definite dispute! whether i can force them or not is another question, are they in the wrong?

On another approach, if they can make an entry onmy file should i consider issuing a Statutory Demand for payment of my claim say ad in the FT against the OC, it is something that they are legally bound to inform everybody they approach for funding!!!!! etc. as a way of balancing their refusal to remove entry.

your thoughts always welcome.

[Guest]

Re: Preventing illegal processing of data

What they "shouldn't" do and what they actually do are two very different things. You have to appreciate that nobody deliberately or maliciously placed a default on your credit file. A line of code in the software they use did it, automatically and completely impartially, because it was programmed to when a particular set of circumstances was met.

Your filing a claim against them falls outside of the scope of their automatic processing of data and whether correctly or not, means that they have not recorded it in their software and which means the software does what it must and creates a default notice and informs the CRA's of the existence of the default. By all means file the notices in order to prevent further automatic processing your data, but this alone will not remove the default.

On to your next suggesting, filing a Statutory Demand would be a very bad idea. In order for a Statutory Demand to work, you would need to prove that the debt was owed and that there was no dispute. A Statutory Demand is not to be taken lightly, either by the issuing party or the recipient. If there is any dispute as to the validity of the alleged debt, then issuing a Statutory Demand can backfire quite spectacularly.

I would not issue one unless I had already obtained judgment for example, or in the event of a bounced cheque, although there are other methods of recovering money that might be more appropriate in both instances and you have not explained what your claim against them is for.

[james robertson]

Re: Preventing illegal processing of data

Your points are understood, so what you're saying is that they can in effect breech the law with impunity and furthermore i can do nothing about it!, the CRA will not let me put a note against the OC's default entry explaining, at least one that lasts any length pf time anyway and despite the law saying they have to remove the entry, in reality they don't have to!

Wow that is spectacularly unfair - so I will make a heavy point of this in court - they have for over five years placed an entry on my CRF deliberately refusing to remove it when reasonably asked to do so....... well knowing they their alleged default was nothing more than a dispute they may well lose (of course as far as i'm concerned it's open and shut) i will claim it to be both deliberate and mallicious under these circumstances.

What can I do in the mean time, i have already sent them the notice, is there anything else i can do? - to even up the playing field?

you question about the cause of my complaint is unfit goods - under the sale of goods act and the sale or provision of services act ..... the reason for the finance..... i have i think a pretty good case - indepentant witness well qualified and recognised agrees with me. - recommended by the AA

anyway your thoughts on the first part always gratefully received.