Brighthouse family harassment

OlliesDad

Flyboy152 wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself; just because it appears in the terms and conditions does not make it lawful. If I were to write in a contract that you can only borrow money from me, if you sign over the souls of your children and in the event you miss a payment I can have their everlasting essence, would that mean I can take them to hell?

Very true and i don't think anyone disagrees with you, but after reading through the Unfair Contract Terms act i do not see why BH having alternative persons to contact in the event that they cannot contact the OP would be a illegal.

bowdengr37

There isn't much point in arguing with Flyboy. It is blatantly obvious that the facts don't matter at all. The only things that he wants to do are argue, create more argument and boost his number of posts to make himself seem more senior amongst the ranks of MSE forum users.

He has clearly chosen to ignore MamaMoo's post (124) which proves that BH customers give explicit consent for BH to contact people, whose names and contact details have been given by the customer, should BH not be able to contact the customer directly, thus waiving their right to the protection of the specific data that the customer has an account with BH, at least as far as the named contacts is concerned.

Perhaps I understand the DPA a bit better than Flyboy thinks !!

shaun_from_Africa

i do not see why BH having alternative persons to contact in the event that they cannot contact the OP would be a illegal.

Or if it was illegal, why haven't any of the UK consumer bodies taken action and got them to remove these terms?

bowdengr37

OlliesDad wrote: »

Very true and i don't think anyone disagrees with you, but after reading through the Unfair Contract Terms act i do not see why BH having alternative persons to contact in the event that they cannot contact the OP would be a illegal.

It isn't illegal, otherwise it would have been removed from BH contracts. I'm sure that BH aren't stupid enough to risk thousands of contracts being invalidated by leaving an illegal term in there.

geordieracer

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Or if it was illegal, why haven't any of the UK consumer bodies taken action and got them to remove these terms?

Indeed - I asked this in post 35 and his response was very weak in that people cant afford to take them on. Which is odd because the people wouldnt have to take them on it would be the regulatory bodies who would do this.

arcon5

As already said Flyboy, theres no shame in being wrong, at some point we all are -- we learn and continue going

wealdroam

bowdengr37 wrote: »

There isn't much point in arguing with Flyboy. It is blatantly obvious that the facts don't matter at all. The only things that he wants to do are argue, create more argument and boost his number of posts to make himself seem more senior amongst the ranks of MSE forum users.!!

On other boards that sort of poster would be called a troll.

But we don't get them on the consumer rights board, do we?*





* notice how I turned that into a question.

Fridge3

Flyboy152 wrote: »

LOL. Brighthouse are not doctors. I thought some people on this thread had some odd ideas, but this one really is the oddest.

At least until your concept of souls for cash.;)

Flyboy152 wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself; just because it appears in the terms and conditions does not make it lawful. If I were to write in a contract that you can only borrow money from me, if you sign over the souls of your children and in the event you miss a payment I can have their everlasting essence, would that mean I can take them to hell?

Fridge3

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It is if it is held for an inappropriate use, is not relevant to the that use, or held for an inappropriate length of time.

The facts appear to have escaped you because in the OP's case it's not.:D

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Inappropriate use?
No. The information was held to enable BH to obtain contact details for the account holder if they couldn't get hold of them any other way (as shown in the post from MamaMoo), so I would say it was very appropriate.

Yes. Because the "referees" do not have any connection to the loan.

Not relevant?
The reason for the details being held was clearly stated on the forms (also as shown by MamaMoo), and the use of the information was consistant with its intended purpose.

The reasons for the use was not clear, because they state that they need the names for reference purposes. Then later on, that they will call these people if you don't pay. Seeing as those people do not have any connection to the loan, the use of their data is irrelevant to the customer's account.

held for an inappropriate length of time?
The OP still had a account with an outstanding balance owed to Brighthouse, therefore why would it be an inappropriate length of time?
This would probably be case if the loan was paid off, but it wasn't.

Seeing as they state that they need the names for reference purposes, the data's use is redundant after their references have been obtained. They have no right to use that data later on.