Thanks lifenotsoeasy,
The reliance the credit reference agencies use to keep the IVA on the file once it has gone from the insolvency register is the "legitimate interest article" there is a great data protection working party all about this directive and section 7(f) the legitimate interests argument, if you look at this link that has a short description, the link at the bottom of that had the full 68 page article, if you can't sleep one night, actually, it's really interesting and it's all about balancing the data subjects needs vs that of the data controller.
http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-565-4287 what I take form it is that a data controller may not purely rely on f(f) legitimate interest argument to keep something on the file by default and there must be a balancing test, to protect the data subjects interests also.
likewise the data must be accurate, 4th principal of the data protection Act
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... -accuracy/
ICO do mention the the legitimate interest side of things on their site too,bit it needs to be extended further, hence why I have written to them with specifics
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... rocessing/ and I quote
"However, where there is a serious mismatch between competing interests, the individual’s legitimate interests will come first."
My argument is simple by having data on the credit file which is no longer on the insolvency register the CRA is in breach of the 4th principal of the act, coupled with as above where there is a mismatch the data subjects interests come first.
If there was to a be a balancing test and I have gone to expand on this in my communication to the iCO, if the IVA record is removed from my credit report, I will still have historic defaults marked against my account ,so anyone supplied with my credit report will be able to see there has been a history of defaults, but it is now settled, nothing outstanding, they do not need any further information.
If it was in the publics interests for the data to be retained then legislation would not allow for the IVA to be removed from the register 3 months after completion.
The argument that court records are kept on a credit report for 6 years is weak, what the rules actually is a CCJ will be kept for 6 years but a CCJ is not an IVA, it "MAY" be kept for up to 6 years and indeed longer if not completed but note the use of the word "may" again is is taken specifically from the iCO guidance on credit files,magazine the cra tried to refer to this saying it "will be retained", again wholly inaccurate.
I will let you know what the iCO come back with , and the regulators if required and the Secretary of State. I have also asked that if the ICO rule in favour with the CRA's if they could provide me with the act/SI/ law which permits them to keep outdated information on my file which is to my detriment.
For example if I wanted to apply for a job as a civil servant(or other job requiring a full security vetting) and a check was carried out I may be denied that opportunity due to out dated information on my file.
Couple this with case law and the EU directive you have quoted above I think those who finish an IVA inside 6 years have a strong case. I'm no lawyer just a layperson and I may need to instruct a lawyer/solicitor in the end but we shall see - this would be a game changer for the consumer which I think is fair.
Will keep you posted.
