Definition of 'consent' confirmed by European Commission's Article 29 Working Party

[charitynjw]

Data protection


Definition of 'consent' confirmed by European Commission's Article 29 Working Party

The Article 29 Working Party has produced an * opinion paper * on the definition of 'consent' as referred to in the European Data Protection Directive and e-Privacy Directive.
The opinion confirms amongst other things that consent should be freely given, specific, and informed, giving the individual enough detail to make a decision about how their personal data will be used.
Where explicit consent is required to process sensitive personal data, such as health records, the opinion paper explains that an individual must actively agree - either orally or in writing - to their personal data being processed. Consent based on an individual's inaction is not sufficient. Individuals should also be able to withdraw their consent, therein preventing any further processing of their personal data.
The opinion paper is consistent with the guidance the ICO has provided on 'consent' in its Guide to Data Protection, which organisations across the UK should continue to follow.

*Link

[mgfboy]

Re: Definition of 'consent' confirmed by European Commission's Article 29 Working Party

So if I read this correctly, if we have a unenforceable agreement or the paperwork is lost. We should be able to withdraw our consent ( or in fact prove that we never gave it ) to the credit agencies to process data on us or remove the ability from the lender to process the data????

[garlok]

Re: Definition of 'consent' confirmed by European Commission's Article 29 Working Party

Unfortunately mfgboy, the default issues are a really dodgy area to get into. You mention "proof" as above but if you were to take this into a court you would have a real problem. "Carey v HSBC" started to clarify some of the issues and despite there being no actual enforceable original documentation in the cases of Yunis and Adris in that motley collection HHJ Waksman said that in the absence of etc etc or any positive assertion that no such documentation had been signed etc. McGuffick also put some additonal problems on the table. You CANNOT prove a double negative beyond the balance of probability and that is all that is needed for a civil case to be found against you. There is no requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases. If you are defending any action YOU can then put THEM to strict proof and the onus is squarely with them. But they are not going to bring any action for you to defend over your defaults are they?

Professional legal advice (and we are and have been for two years, represented by a specialist litigation firm of solicitors (not a CMC) who were involved in "Carey") is that you should accept the defaults, your files will be trashed justly or unjustly whatever you do, walk away and pay them nothing. Unless there are extremely pressing reasons for having a clean CRF, forget it, live with it and bask in the benefits of telling them to spin on your middle finger. Once taken on board that is a great weight lifted off your shoulders.

In unenforceability the debt as such still exists (for 6 years after you stop paying and acknowledging) its just they can't do much about it only behaving like spoilt brats. Of course the court if they took you and lost could order the debt to be written off and the defaults removed but you would need more than a defective agreement to achieve all of that.

regards
Garlok