Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

[SXGuy]

I was in EE today with a friend upgrading my phone to a Galaxy S4 (Love it!)

He had the urge to do the same, but wanted to switch from 02 to Orange or T-Mobile as they had a better deal.

When trying to sign him up, the guy said that T Mobile was telling him theres an unpaid bill.

When questioning the guy from Orange on the phone, it turns out, he didnt pay a £200 phone bill.....13 years ago.

He laughed and said, well i wont be paying it now ill go elsewhere, and signed up with Vodafone.

Point is, they blacklisted him from Orange,T-Mobile, and i forget which other one.

Now i know this debt is over 6 years old so it isnt on his CRA and statue of limitations apply, but whats the rules surrounding them holding that info for 13 years and blacklisting him from any new contracts?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Internal policy mate. Some systems store infinite data - such as our forum will and no doubt mse etc does.

Not much you can do here.

[SXGuy]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Ok well thanks anyway! hes moved to Vodafone now so i guess he doesnt care, prob why hes last phone was in his dads name lol

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Yea sadly internal policy can be lifelong - aka Lloyds credit policy decline

[Diasflac]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Doesn't the data protection act say you can demand removal of all your details after a contract is finished (it's 13 years old). I believe it's called a section 10 notice. In your letter you would have to word it very carefully with key points as you need to show distress caused.

The section 10 notice requires the company to cease processing of your personal information which is removal after this length of time. The only time you cannot do this is while you're still under contract, this being 13 years ago means the original terms cannot apply. So points you need to make.

1. EE didn't exist 13 years ago
2. Information on you is preventing you to get a mobile phone contract (don't mention other companies will let you) which is causing you a lot of distress.
3. Information on you is over 13 years old which means the original terms of the contract are considered SB after 6 years, after a further 6 years most definitely consider the contract cancelled, this automatically withdrew your consent to process your data.

The company will have 21 days to comply, I can't see you losing, 13 years is a long enough time and I imagine their Information Commissioner has better things to do and will just grant the request. Worth a try anyway.

[SA Gold]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Doesn't the data protection act say you can demand removal of all your details after a contract is finished (it's 13 years old). I believe it's called a section 10 notice. In your letter you would have to word it very carefully with key points as you need to show distress caused.

The section 10 notice requires the company to cease processing of your personal information which is removal after this length of time. The only time you cannot do this is while you're still under contract, this being 13 years ago means the original terms cannot apply. So points you need to make.

1. EE didn't exist 13 years ago
2. Information on you is preventing you to get a mobile phone contract (don't mention other companies will let you) which is causing you a lot of distress.
3. Information on you is over 13 years old which means the original terms of the contract are considered SB after 6 years, after a further 6 years most definitely consider the contract cancelled, this automatically withdrew your consent to process your data.

The company will have 21 days to comply, I can't see you losing, 13 years is a long enough time and I imagine their Information Commissioner has better things to do and will just grant the request. Worth a try anyway.

That's interesting, as that would shed a whole new light on things

[Diasflac]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

I can't see this failing in this case because it fits all the criteria if you can show sufficient distress. Not being able to get a mobile phone should be sufficient.

If anyone else was to use it there are a few key points.
- Distress must be caused to the individual, this includes refusal for credit elsewhere, detriment in job applications etc. Information on your CRA file is not counted as distress because its the companies responsibility to report to the CRA.

-The section 10 only means an information holder has to stop processing your personal information, this is an exceptional case where the information is so old it would require deletion to comply. If your information is only a year old they are not required to delete such information for another 5 years, but they would have to stop processing new information.

-When you sign a contract you comply to them processing your information, for a section 10 you need to have withdrawn permission for them to do this, usually this is done by cancelling the agreement. A default would be a cancellation of this agreement so long as a letter withdrawing your permission is sent afterwards as the contract doesn't really end on a default. The default does allow you to withdraw.

-Defaults are difficult to prove distress as it's accurate payment information, CRA information is unaffected by section 10, in the case of a default you would have to wait until Statute Limitations apply to request cessation of personal information.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Doesn't the data protection act say you can demand removal of all your details after a contract is finished (it's 13 years old).

They are not sharing your data. Data Processing is specific to external sharing of data. They are not doing this.

What they are doing is updating internal records - the ICO has no precedence to order such things for internal systems. ONLY sharing or processing of data (externally).

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

I can't see this failing in this case because it fits all the criteria

It fails at the first hurdle - they are not actually processing let alone sharing anything. Their systems hold historical data - fine, thats fine and allowed.....

Sorry - just the way it is

[Diasflac]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

They are not sharing your data. Data Processing is specific to external sharing of data. They are not doing this.

What they are doing is updating internal records - the ICO has no precedence to order such things for internal systems. ONLY sharing or processing of data (externally).

In that case, I'm wrong. Was just a thought but I don't know the act off by heart.

You would think there'd be something in place to stop companies using such old historic data to make decisions on people. Like life insurance companies, I once had to pay a premium because I climbed 2 mountains when I was 20, nearly 7 years ago.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

In that case, I'm wrong. Was just a thought but I don't know the act off by heart.

You would think there'd be something in place to stop companies using such old historic data to make decisions on people. Like life insurance companies, I once had to pay a premium because I climbed 2 mountains when I was 20, nearly 7 years ago.

why though mate? I own my own businesses and if someone "stole" or caused me grief I would ban them from re-ordering and to do this i would leave a system marker. That's my prerogative as the business owner. If the ICO told me to remove it i'd tell them to get lost.

So long as the data is purely internal and used for fraud prevention and/or non sharing for example, then the business is doing nothing wrong...

[Diasflac]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

why though mate? I own my own businesses and if someone "stole" or caused me grief I would ban them from re-ordering and to do this i would leave a system marker. That's my prerogative as the business owner. If the ICO told me to remove it i'd tell them to get lost.

So long as the data is purely internal and used for fraud prevention and/or non sharing for example, then the business is doing nothing wrong...

I mean in certain circumstances, like the OP, they didn't pay a bill 13 years ago so they're automatically restricted from having a contract. It may have been a stupid mistake but they may have perfect credit file now and never miss a payment.

My life insurance for example, I did something nearly 7 years ago and I have to pay more for insurance even though I haven't done it in so long.

Section 10 is also exempt if the data is in relation to a Criminal Offence, private reference or tax. That would allow the same marker in your example. But for needless historic information it seems pointless making a decision based on something, someone did a decade ago that wasn't a criminal offence.

I've now read the act again... It's been a while and it clearly says for internal accounts purposes it's exempt from the whole DPA. Key thing I missed there.

Edit: The whole DPA was a general statement, it's still required to be accurate.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

lol we can go round in circles all day mate - aint gonna change anything.

We are DPA Registered, we like to think we know the rules

Internal records are nothing to do with the ICO - they are relevant to the DPA as in the records must remain safe and secure and not shared with external organisations without your authority.

So in this case, he had an old account and then they added a note saying "avoid" - so what! There will be no trace of any processing from the expiry of the default, but that doesn't mean they need to wipe internal system notes - they do not.

I'd just forget it and move on - try a different firm. Plenty to pick from.

[SXGuy]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Well to save you all arguing he sorted it in the end.

Phones4U stuck him with vodafone, who were completely useless, had no signal for 4 days, so he went back in and managed to get them to cancel the contract.

Got his dad to sign up with EE instead.

[SA Gold]

Re: Friend denied new phone contract for a 13 year old unpaid bill!

Well to save you all arguing he sorted it in the end.

Phones4U stuck him with vodafone, who were completely useless, had no signal for 4 days, so he went back in and managed to get them to cancel the contract.

Got his dad to sign up with EE instead.

All is well that ends well! :niddy