ICO delays

[Pinky69]

Re: ICO delays

It really is terrible. Literally there is no regulatory body for data protection. I know when I go to complaints they will close ranks but I have to go through this procedure - which is a total waste of time - because the court will expect me to have done everything I can do to settle this out of court.

[debtisbad]

Re: ICO delays

Yes, Pinky and that is the system. Banks first, consumers last. the ICO supports the banks.

Maybe senior figures are offered golden plated positions when they finish at the ICO? One can only speculate.

[Mac99]

Re: ICO delays

Hi Pinky,

The oe thing that sticks out in your post is the use of the word likely. I am sorry this is the cop out. I would be going back and asking the ICO to look at it again, be more definitive and reach a decision with a view to issuing a decision notice.

Regards
Mac

[debtisbad]

Re: ICO delays

Well, after one year and going through the ICO's complaint procedure, this is the result.

The ICO claim that the "The Court Judgement appears to have found in favour of the claimant, Egg PLC. "

Really? The case was set aside after I complained that I live abroad. So the account was clearly in dispute, but that did not stop Egg selling a disputed account to CapQuest who then registered an entry on my credit reference file.

They go on to say, 'You are concerned that capQuest has recorded inaccurate information on your credit reference file with regard to a debt that was previously with Egg PLC. You have complained to us that this debt should not have been sold to capQuest as it was in dispute. Any issues over the sale of the debt would need to be addressed with Egg PLC. "

OK, so Egg and CapQuest can say anything they want and the ICO will let them get away with it.

Is this the voice of regulation in the UK today?

This is the full correspondence from them. Please print out and ue as toilet paper:

Thank you for your data protection complaint, dated 14 October 2009, about the inaccurate personal data that you believe capQuest to be recording on your credit reference file.

I can only apologise for the length of time that it has taken to look into your complaint. We have a significant backlog of data protection cases which we are working hard to address. My Manager, Andy Curry, will be writing to you separately with regard to your service complaint.

Complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), those who collect and use personal information have to follow rules of good practice for handling information (called the data protection principles). The DPA also gives rights to individuals whose information is collected and used.

When we receive a data protection complaint, we will make an assessment. This is our view about whether an organisation has followed the rules of good practice properly. We do this by saying whether we think it is likely or unlikely that the organisation has complied with the DPA.






We will also give advice about handling personal information and will ask the organisation to review its actions if we think things have gone wrong. Our main concern is to ensure that organisations deal with personal information properly in the future.

Assessments can help us decide whether we should take action against a particular organisation. If an organisation refuses to take its responsibilities under the DPA seriously, then we may consider formal action to ensure it complies with the law.

Your complaint to us

In your case, the matters you have raised that are relevant to the DPA relate to the fourth data protection principle. This says that personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
You are concerned that capQuest has recorded inaccurate information on your credit reference file with regard to a debt that was previously with Egg PLC. You have complained to us that this debt should not have been sold to capQuest as it was in dispute. Any issues over the sale of the debt would need to be addressed with Egg PLC. You have sent us correspondence from capQuest which concluded in the account being closed. You also sent us copies of the Court Judgement and the disputed credit reference file entry.

The Court Judgement appears to have found in favour of the claimant, Egg PLC. Your complaint concerning capQuest centres around the sale of the debt and whether it was in dispute at the time. The fact that the file has now been closed on this debt does not mean that capQuest are not entitled to record it on your credit reference file. Once a default has been recorded it cannot be removed until 6 years has passed, unless it has been recorded in error. It would appear that the entry is correct. As it would seem that there is no evidence that the recorded data is incorrect we cannot ask that it be amended. I note that the recording of the default will end in April 2011, after the normal 6 year process. If the recording of the default remains on your credit reference file after the 6 years has passed we can look into this.

In light of the above, I will not be recommending that this matter be taken any further.






Although I understand that this conclusion will be disappointing to you, this matter is now closed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.


Yours sincerely


Janine Gregory
Case Officer

[debtisbad]

Re: ICO delays

And if you really cannot get to sleep tonight, feel free to read their reasoned response about their poor service (Vince Cable, can we save money by cutting this outrageous waste of taxpayer's funds, and spend the money instead on hospitals, cancer therapy and schools?):


I am writing further to your service complaint letter of 6 September 2010. I am a manager in the Complaints Resolution department and so your complaint about the level of service you have received from us (the Information Commissioners Office) has been passed to me to respond to.

The Information Commissioner’s duties



Under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) an individual can ask the Information Commissioner to decide (or make ‘an assessment’) as to whether the processing of their personal data is likely or unlikely to have been conducted in accordance with the DPA. This is the full extent of the Commissioner’s obligations when dealing with data protection related complaints. He is obliged to go no further than this.


Our case review and service complaints policy



owever,WhereWhere Where an individual is not satisfied with the way we have handed their assessment, enquiry or complaint, they can complain to us about the service we have provided.


I would like to stress that the purpose of my letter to you is to address your complaint about the service you have received from us. I am not going to review the detail of your current case itself.


Your service complaint (B**S**t122341)


You have complained about the delay in allocating your case, and for our failure to acknowledge and respond to correspondence you sent in to this office.



I will address the issues you raise in your correspondence below.

Delay in allocating case

I am very sorry for our delay in dealing with this complaint. We receive increasing volumes of data protection related casework and, as such, we currently have a number of cases which are taking us longer to respond to than we, or our customers, would like.

We have taken steps to improve our service, and as a result, we are now able to deal with a large amount of the less complex data protection casework we receive within 30 days of receipt. We also 'screen' all casework on arrival, which allows us to quickly identify and prioritise any case where we feel there is clear evidence of harm or detriment being caused to the individual concerned.

However, it is still taking us too long to respond to some of the other cases we receive, such as in your case. We have recently introduced further significant changes to our casework process. We are confident that these additional changes will bring about significant improvements in this area in the near future.

Non-response to correspondence


I am also sorry that we did not reply to your correspondence sooner.

We deal with the vast majority of our data protection related casework though our electronic case management system. When we receive a new complaint, we scan or email the documents to the system, give this new ‘case’ a reference number and send the complainant an acknowledgement (put very simply). When we receive correspondence for an existing case, we also scan or email those documents and electronically attach them to them to the case we created previously.

Where we receive new correspondence on an existing case that has already been allocated to a specific case officer, the system will automatically notify that officer that there is something new for them to read. However, where we receive new correspondence on a case that we have not yet allocated to a specific officer, we receive no electronic notification. We are therefore unable to easily identify when new correspondence has been added. Unfortunately, we are constrained by the limits imposed by our case management system, and the amount of cases in our queue.

It is far from an ideal situation, and I accept that it has caused you considerable annoyance. Please accept my apologies for our poor service.

Next steps


I uphold your complaint about the delay in dealing with your case, and for our failure to acknowledge your correspondence and service complaint. However, as your case has already been allocated to and is now under consideration by Ms Janine Gregory, I do not intend to undertake any further action in this instance. If you have any further queries about the detail of the case itself please address them to Ms Gregory.

Taking your complaint about our delays further

Complaints about our service have one stage. Therefore please take this letter as our final response with regards to your complaint about the level of service you have received from us.

If you remain unhappy with my response and believe that we have provided you with a poor service, or if you believe we have not treated you properly or fairly then you may be able to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

All complaints to the Ombudsman must be made through your MP. I would advise you to first call their Helpline to see if they are able to help you further. The contact details are as follows:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP

Helpline – 0345 015 4033 (a local call rate)

I hope this information is helpful.

Your service complaint will now be closed.

Yours sincerely

Andy Curry
Team Manager – Complaints Resolution

[debtisbad]

Re: ICO delays

So they then send an "explanation" as to how they can call a set aside county judgement still to be a favour of Egg. With logic like this, who can win?

I wrote to them to explain that the judgement had been set aside and was therefore not in favour of Egg, to which they replied:

Whilst I understand the point you make we have no way of knowing the full circumstances behind the Court papers and what they relate to. The main point is that we have no documentation stating that the recording of the default was in error. Lenders/debt collectors can subsequently reach all sorts of agreements or arrangements but it does not alter the recording of any default. If your account went into default in 2005 that fact cannot be altered unless it was recorded in error or the date of the default is inaccurate. It would appear that capQuest are only recording the original default date with Egg.

For this reason we do not intend to take this matter further.

Yours sincerely
Janine Gregory
Case Officer

[Pinky69]

Re: ICO delays

Doesn't look too hopeful Debtisbad. I suppose the positive thing is it falls off next year and then you can kiss Capquest's sorry ass goodbye.

[debtisbad]

Re: ICO delays

Well, the ICO are in the news again. I just received this information from the Government:

You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to reduce the time Credit
reference agencies hold data for to 3 years.

Her Majesty's Government has responded to that petition and you can view it
here:


HM Government

The page shows the following:

More details from petition creator

This petition is to get the time Credit reference agencies hold our data for down to 3 years in line with europe.

The current 6 years is to long, reducing it would be fair and proper and would also boost the economy by removing negative data of those who have made poor financial descisions in the past and allowing them to move forward.

Petition to: reduce the time Credit reference agencies hold data for to 3 years | Number10.gov.uk

Government response

Data retention by Credit Reference Agencies is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest. Their work includes agreeing specific business-sector requirements and this six year rule is one of those agreements. The government has no present plans to single out this area for exceptional treatment.

The Government is passing legislation to establish a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority; you can read more about that at the following link - The consumer protection markets authority - HM Treasury


The Government is very focused on creating conditions for growth and all options are under constant review. The government’s economic analysis and policy response is formally reviewed each year in the Budget Report. The Chancellor has announced that the date of the next Budget will be the 23rd of this month. Coverage will be available online at the following link – 2011 Budget - HM Treasury


Knowing the speed at which the ICO move, there is no chance of this reduction ever being considered.