Late Payment Marker removal

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

The problem here though surely is that the theory is backed by the law "the person on whom the obligation to process the data is imposed by or under that enactment is for the purposes of this Act the data controller."

See below!

Look at it this way. Does the bank HAVE to process the data to the CRA? No it doesn't. Does the CRA HAVE to process the data given it by the bank if asked to? Yes, it does.

You authorise the bank to use your data and to share it. The CRA does not have to process data at all, they can refuse. Lenders have to confirm to strict guidelines set by the CRA's before the CRA will process the data, part of that guidance is monthly update feeds. Point here is, they lender and CRA's "should" work together to ensure the data is correct. A lender may refuse to remove an entry, so you threaten the CRA with libel (as they are processing the incorrect/disputed data) - the CRA can then remove it, if they feel that you may be right and the lender is being unreasonable.

The CRA does NOT have to process anything.

Don't get me wrong. I've just fought an 8 year battle with the DWP over elements of the DPA (and won!). I do not deny for one minute that the reality is that only the bank will give the CRA permission to remove information, BUT that does not mean it is right. It means it's what happens, but the law, as Niddy acknowledges in his theory and reality statements, has the CRA as the data controller (possibly jointly liable).

And I successfully sued both the biggie CRA's - they settled out of court as data processers - the data controller did not attempt to back the CRA's and I figure the CRA's thought sod this, we'll remove it before presedent was set!

By the way - I'm not ignoring responses, certain things mean I need to take a bit of time out in the afternoon DS and Niddy know what I'm on about, but will be back later.

Understood, take care - chat laters....

[Gerry]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Who was it, me?

Guilty Party.......

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...62&postcount=2

[caspar]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

In theory, the CRA's would be jointly liable as follows:

Data Subject = Lenders
Data Processor = CRA's
Data Controller = CRA's

However, to us (the customer of the lender) it is as follows

Data Subject = You - the customer
Data Processor = The CRA's on behalf of their data subject, as above, the lender
Data Controller = Your Bank - the lender

The problem here though surely is that the theory is backed by the law "the person on whom the obligation to process the data is imposed by or under that enactment is for the purposes of this Act the data controller."

Look at it this way. Does the bank HAVE to process the data to the CRA? No it doesn't. Does the CRA HAVE to process the data given it by the bank if asked to? Yes, it does.

Don't get me wrong. I've just fought an 8 year battle with the DWP over elements of the DPA (and won!). I do not deny for one minute that the reality is that only the bank will give the CRA permission to remove information, BUT that does not mean it is right. It means it's what happens, but the law, as Niddy acknowledges in his theory and reality statements, has the CRA as the data controller (possibly jointly liable).

By the way - I'm not ignoring responses, certain things mean I need to take a bit of time out in the afternoon DS and Niddy know what I'm on about, but will be back later.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Oops found the culprit who suggested contacting ICO….

Who was it, me?

[Gerry]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Oops found the culprit who suggested contacting ICO….

Think we need to move it up a scale from angels to elephants..

Gerry x

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Enough you two! Get to the general chat thread lol....

---> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=653

[The Debt Star]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Strict Proof thereof....

Unbeliever!

[Gerry]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

argh! hang on...I've just blown an angel out

Strict Proof thereof....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

I'm happy to be proved wrong (total lie!!!!!!!) but can you see my argument?

As requested mate: ---> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...7&postcount=46

[The Debt Star]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Mate, no matter how you look at it - the data processor is a CRA NOT a controller as they do not own the data that is why they (CRA's) always say - we'll contact the lender and if they agree to remove, we'll remove.

Bear in mind, the name speaks volumes!

Processor = CRA's
Controller = Owner
Subject = Customer

Absolutely agree

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Could this not be interpreted to mean that the CRA have the obligation to process the data, so the processor in this case is the processor = data controller of CRA -ie- it is possible for the data controller and the data processor to be one and the same.

I know I'm being deliberately awkward, but it may prove important at some stage and I find it interesting to debate the finer points of law. I'm happy to be proved wrong (total lie!!!!!!!) but can you see my argument?

No mate, you're mis reading it totally. The processor is processing data on behalf of the controller. They are not a data controller to us, they are data controller to the people that use their services, ie the banks etc (in this case the CRA's are data processor to the customers of their data subjects, being the CRA would be data controller to the subject - subject being the bank)

In theory, the CRA's would be jointly liable as follows:

Data Subject = Lenders
Data Processor = CRA's
Data Controller = CRA's

However, to us (the customer of the lender) it is as follows

Data Subject = You - the customer
Data Processor = The CRA's on behalf of their data subject, as above, the lender
Data Controller = Your Bank - the lender

[The Debt Star]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

Death Star changing orbit and heading back towards Planet Niddy

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

I am totally in agreement here that the OP has not got a leg to stand on as the data processed and published is accurate so there is nothing they can do about it other than add a personal marker.

I still think the issue of who is data controller is debateable. You know me - I won't just roll over! lol

I think there may be a case for there being a joint data controller in the situation of CRA's, but there's also this:

"4. Where personal data are processed only for purposes for which they are required by or under any enactment to be processed, the person on whom the obligation to process the data is imposed by or under that enactment is for the purposes of this Act the data controller."


Could this not be interpreted to mean that the CRA have the obligation to process the data, so the processor in this case is the processor = data controller of CRA -ie- it is possible for the data controller and the data processor to be one and the same.

I know I'm being deliberately awkward, but it may prove important at some stage and I find it interesting to debate the finer points of law. I'm happy to be proved wrong (total lie!!!!!!!) but can you see my argument?

Mate, no matter how you look at it - the data processor is the CRA (in this case) they are NOT a controller as they do not own the data which is why they (CRA's) always say - we'll contact the lender and if they agree to remove, we'll remove.

Bear in mind, the name speaks volumes!

Processor = CRA's (cos they process the data on behalf of the controller)
Controller = Owner (they own it and control it)
Subject = Customer (you're what the above is all about!)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

cifas being CRAs? or am I a rolling emotion again? lol

CIFAS being cifas mate!

---> http://www.cifas.org.uk/

Its an FPA (Fraud Prevention Agency)

[caspar]

Re: Late Payment Marker removal

I am totally in agreement here that the OP has not got a leg to stand on as the data processed and published is accurate so there is nothing they can do about it other than add a personal marker.

I still think the issue of who is data controller is debateable. You know me - I won't just roll over! lol

I think there may be a case for there being a joint data controller in the situation of CRA's, but there's also this:

"4. Where personal data are processed only for purposes for which they are required by or under any enactment to be processed, the person on whom the obligation to process the data is imposed by or under that enactment is for the purposes of this Act the data controller."


Could this not be interpreted to mean that the CRA have the obligation to process the data, so the processor in this case is the processor = data controller of CRA -ie- it is possible for the data controller and the data processor to be one and the same.

I know I'm being deliberately awkward, but it may prove important at some stage and I find it interesting to debate the finer points of law. I'm happy to be proved wrong (total lie!!!!!!!) but can you see my argument?