GDPR & arrears

sargeantsalt wrote: »

Those with a bad history need to take responsibility for it so I can see why that would not be deleted, but that argument is also being used to say that those with a clean record and no debt should not be deleted either.

because your past history is an indication for future risk. There is a difference between someone who has never had any credit and someone who has had credit but never defaulted or been late.

The thing is if you did allow people with a clean record to delete it, it would just simply push up the APR or decrease any likelihood of acceptance. "I can see you have had past credit and maintained it well have a loan at 3%" verses "you have no credit history so I cannot tell whether giving you a loan is high or low risk, if you want the loan the APR is 30%"

John_Jones wrote: »

As people have explained above, you do not have the right under the law to have this data deleted, the law gives exceptions, and those exceptions mean that the credit agencies have a right to refuse your request.

You are edging towards a Freeman on the Land style of argument at this point, wilfully distorting what the law says and ignoring key components of it.

One likely purpose of GDPR is to give the false impression to the general public that they have strong rights such as the right to erasure. This is to ensure public confidence and make consumers feel safe to hand over their data to corporations believing it is all consentual and fair when in reality the fine print is nothing of the sort.

The GDPR fine print does however require the CRA to justify it's refusal by having to prove that their so called 'legitimate interests' are greater than those of the data subject in having greater privacy.

In the case of Brooker Dave who claims to have no credit, the CRAs ground to continue processing his data look weak. In practice they will refuse his request anyway as their are no likely repercussions.

It is unfair criticize someone for being misled into thinking that the law gives them a right to erasure when the PR exercise surrounding GDPR is having precisely this effect on most consumers.

Why is it that any time a person is concerned about potential misuse of their data and expresses a desire to have a say in their own privacy, they get branded as a FMOTL tin foil hat wearing nutter?

It just shows the level of mass brainwashing of fellow consumers who are also at the same disadvantage and under control but cannot be convinced despite the facts being right before their eyes.

If you are happy to give control and privacy away with open eyes to enjoy the benefits and convenience of the various products you desire then you are entitled to that view but not everyone has the same view. However, if those who object have no choice, then those who don't object should also understand it is not a choice even for them either.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

I disagree. The law is deliberately unclear. It is a very grey area where the line should be drawn over a deletion request.

Each case will have to be considered by a judge who will decide who's rights are more important and that will vary depending on all the circumstances. The vagueness of the rules means that in practice it will be very impractical and expensive to bring a claim for deletion so the CRA will just do what they like because they know nobody will take such a huge risk to challenge them.

The CRA and ICO will have plenty of excuses to fob off anyone who makes a deletion request. I would advise against trying unless you have plenty of money and a good lawyer because poorly made requests will set precedents that could make it harder for others.

I see it as clear, they use it for the likes of anti-fraud and anti-money-laundering.
https://www.experian.co.uk/crain/index.html#question11
You can withdraw consent to the additional information you have given. It's all clear on their website, its also clear on the ICO website