Arrangement to Pay (AP)

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

Have a look at the thread linked below, as you may find it useful to you.  The subject matter is similar to your query.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5884390/eon-lowell-ombudsman-update

I has a quick look there and couldn't see anything in regards to payment arrangement 

green8890

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

I have messaged you the ico response 

Sorry, I don't engage in discussions of the content of forum posts via private messaging, but from a quick look can't see why you wouldn't share it on here for all to see, redacting any identifying details.

23 April 2020

 

Case Reference Number 

 

Dear Mr x

Thank you for calling the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) via our Helpline.

Summary of concerns and application of data protection legislation

As discussed we understand that you are dissatisfied with the way EON has handled your personal data. Specifically, you are concerned that the organisation failed to correctly inform you as to how your personal data would be processed if you agreed to a payment plan. This is because you state that EON confirmed that it would not disclose information regarding the payment plan to your credit file when this was not the case.

As advised by the ICO, when an organisation processes personal data it must comply with Articles 13 and 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) which are commonly referred to as the ‘right to be informed’. Often an organisation will make attempts to comply with these Articles via making its Privacy Policy and/or Privacy Notice available to the individuals (sometimes via the organisations website). However in this case you state that you explicitly enquired as to whether information would be disclosed to your credit file, to which EON incorrectly stated it would not. If answered correctly we appreciate that you may have considered other options available to you.

We also appreciate that you are concerned with EON’s compliance with Principle A of the GDPR. As discussed, Principle A states that personal data shall be ‘processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner’. Following on from the section above, as EON has misinformed you, you deem that it has not processed your information as per its obligations under the GPDR, nor has it processed data in a transparent manner.

Furthermore, as you are concerned that this information is now held on your credit file, and will be retained for a further six years, you attempted to have this information removed. However, both EON and Equifax have stated they will not remove the information as it is considered to be accurate. Whilst you do not dispute the accuracy you are concerned with EON’s compliance with the accountability principle, as well as Equifax’s handling of your right to erasure request.

Under Article 5(2) organisations ‘shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with’ the other principles. However, although you deem that EON has failed to comply with its data protection obligations, and has not deemed it necessary to request this information is removed from your credit file, you are concerned with its accountability.

In addition, we note that you are concerned with the way Equifax has handled your right to erasure under request under Article 17 of the GDPR. Under this right, individuals are afforded the right to request that their personal data is wholly, or partially, removed from an organisations systems. It is important to remember that this is not an absolute right and can only be upheld in specific circumstances. However, Article 17(1)(d) states that the organisation ought to comply with the request when ‘the personal data have been unlawfully processed’.

Further guidance

As your partly relates to information held on your credit file, please note that we do have information about credit reference agencies. Should you wish to review this information you can do 

Furthermore, as discussed it does not appear that we have not allocated you a case reference number as of yet for your complaint of 22 April 2020. Once set up and allocated, a Case Officer will be in contact with you about your case.

Should you have any further queries please feel free to contact the ICO further via the Helpline.

Yours sincerely,


Lead Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
For information about what we do with personal data see our 

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

Have a look at the thread linked below, as you may find it useful to you.  The subject matter is similar to your query.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5884390/eon-lowell-ombudsman-update

What do you think of the response from I.c.o do you think that strengthens my case as they have failed guidelines ect to report it in the first place .?

green8890

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

I have messaged you the ico response 

Sorry, I don't engage in discussions of the content of forum posts via private messaging, but from a quick look can't see why you wouldn't share it on here for all to see, redacting any identifying details.

What do you think of the response from I.c.o do you think that strengthens my case as they have failed guidelines ect to report it in the first place .?

eskbanker

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Willing2Learn

With the original old guidance from the ICO, the way an account is marked as defaulted or AP, was pretty cut and dried.  However, with the most recent guidance an AP can be the correct marker.  You need to hold your ground and escalate.  Have you read principals 3 and 4?  To which principal are you closer?

On a separate matter, you should have started a new thread....

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

With the original old guidance from the ICO, the way an account is marked as defaulted or AP, was pretty cut and dried.  However, with the most recent guidance an AP can be the correct marker.  You need to hold your ground and escalate.  Have you read principals 3 and 4?  To which principal are you closer?

On a separate matter, you should have started a new thread....

Section 3 I would say

green8890

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

With the original old guidance from the ICO, the way an account is marked as defaulted or AP, was pretty cut and dried.  However, with the most recent guidance an AP can be the correct marker.  You need to hold your ground and escalate.  Have you read principals 3 and 4?  To which principal are you closer?

On a separate matter, you should have started a new thread....

Also am new to all this so didn't know what to approach it . This is so serious for us to be left with because someone not doing there job properly 

eskbanker

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?