Response from my MP

Grandad123

Not that it is any help, but I had the same reply from the ICO.

They said go back to the PPC and beg them to delete the info from their data base (some chance).

As the PPC don't answer any communication it's a load of cobblers.

At least your not the only one fuming.

System

You are confusing two issues here. They have to keep your data for whatever their retention period is (usually 2 years plus 2) to be able to show why it was accessed in the first place. There is no getting out of that as someone might want to come along later and ask why.

The second issue and the one that people fail to tackle is instructing them to cease processing data e.g. selling it onto MIL, passing it onto a debt collector. It is this that people need to do and not asking them to remove it.

You can only ask for the possible.

Carthesis

IamEmanresu wrote: »

You are confusing two issues here. They have to keep your data for whatever their retention period is (usually 2 years plus 2) to be able to show why it was accessed in the first place. There is no getting out of that as someone might want to come along later and ask why.

I appreciate the response, and I thank you for educating me.

While you might be correct in what you say, how much of a scam is that?

They have to keep your private data that they, in some cases, have accessed on false pretences, for up to 4 years for "audit" purposes just so they can prove why the accessed data they shouldn't have accessed in the first place?

The entire process is a bit of a joke really.

System

The entire process is a bit of a joke really.

Not really. They get audited every year to ensure they comply. If they were able to "shred" your personal details on a whim rather than having to keep them (without processing) you wouldn't have found out about:

- UKPC changing time stamps on their pics
- CEL [allegedly] committing fraud in Scotland
- UKCPS being banned from accessing data
- Britannia's almost 18 months ban from the Keeper database.
.... and JAS Parking/ANPR Ltd's demise for really taking the p**s

Carthesis

Hmmm.

I suppose you've got a point there.

It's just galling that G24 are now allowed to "hold on" to my data - which they shouldn't have requested in the first place - for 4 years, whether they "process" it or not.

What does "processing" even mean? Surely if they're holding your data, that means they can get access to it for whatever reason they need to?

Castle

Carthesis wrote: »

Hmmm.

What does "processing" even mean? Surely if they're holding your data, that means they can get access to it for whatever reason they need to?

The ICO's definition of "processing":-
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-definitions/

Carthesis

That definition makes it not quite so horrible then.

Although it's a complex web isn't it? I wonder what the rules would be where the data has been accessed illegally in the first place? For example Mr. Owens? Would they be able to hold on to the data for the retention period then as well?