I recently asked my mobile telephone company for a copy of their call location records. My daughters mobile had been stolen and the kind person who stole it called sex lines at £1 a minute for a couple of days. I needed to obtain the call location records to further confirm the identity of the person making the calls.

The mobile phone company refused to supply these. They stated that they never ever release call location records, they were not my property, indeed they belonged to the telecommunications company, and I was not entitled to them.

The Information Commissioner Telecomunications section did not agree with this viewpoint. They advised me that if I was paying for the calls, and I was responsable for the calls, then I was entitled to all data concerning the calls. The mobile phone company had to either provide the call location records or refund the calls. I advised the mobile phone company of these Information Commissioner statements. They stated that they did not agree but they would discuss it with the IC.

This morning I received the location records from the mobile phone company!!!!

So.....if you are paying for a MIG policy, and you are responsable/liable for the MIG policy, then under the DPA you must be entitled to see all data concerning the MIG policy. Including a copy of the MIG policy as well. It makes no difference if the MIG is not owned by the lender, or if the money outstanding is only being collected by the lender, the concept is the same as my mobile phone account. If you are paying for it, and responsable for it, then you are entitled to all the data concerning it.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Good Luck.

-- anon (i.hate.abbey.national@another.com), January 03, 2002

Answers

But if you have no written confirmation of the IC's comments, it is less useful to use as an analogy. Maybe you could email me privately so I can quote your case in my letter to the IC - or at least you could state which phone company it is? Thanks,

-- Melody (mbc109@york.ac.uk), January 04, 2002.

I don't think there is a need to specfically refer to my mobile phone complaint to the IC.

The principle under the DPA is the same and applies to mobile phone accounts, insurance policies, bank accounts, in fact any aspect of a financial arrangement that the customer is paying for/is responsable for, you are entitled to all such data concerning your account when you serve a SARN on that company.

If they have not provided you with all data in response to a SARN; Issue a formal assessment request to the IC by sending them a letter. If the IC confirm that you have not been supplied with all data then your rights under the DPA have been violated. If you have suffered stress, and maybe losses as well, as a result of this DPA violation then you are fully entitled to compensation.

The mobile phone company was One-2-One. I betya the IC wont discuss my case with you anyway; Violation of my rights under the DPA to discuss my complaint with anyone else.

Good Luck.

-- anon (i.hate.abbey.national@another.com), January 04, 2002.

Why I asked was this: as ALL lenders seem to be standardly saying MIG details are excluded from the SAR provisions of the DPA, the IC has clearly not so far extended the principle they used in your phone case to MIGs. However, for them to do so (which would potentially benefit countless people on this site and elsewhere) they need to know exactly what they said in your case. Therefore, it is my opinion that if I write asking them to apply a 'principle' with no precedent to MIG data, they will have no evidence on which to base any decision, and therefore will not take it seriously. If I can quote them an actual CASE, which they have already dealt with in the way we're suggesting, it is much harder for them to dismiss it (to do so is to be logically inconsistent). I don't want or need to discuss details of your case with the IC, but am assuming that since you posted details here you are happy for some details of the case to be in the public domain. So please may I have your permission to name the phone company involved? I understand if you prefer your name not to be mentioned, but presumably the IC already know it, and if you were to allow me to use your IC case ref number, they could trace the relevant decision, but I (and everyone else) would not be able to trace any further details. Without offering the IC any specifics, I think our chances of getting a 'principle' set are practically zero.

-- Melody (mbc109@york.ac.uk), January 06, 2002.

I think the concept is the same, regardless of my mobile phaone complaint, and I think the IC will respond positivley to an assessment request along the lines I described above concerning missing data supplied to a SARN.

I am in a very difficult legal position at present which I am not willing to expand on, or discuss, because to do so could predudice my legal claim. For this reason I not willing to provide any of my personal details. Sorry, but this is as much as I can say.

Good Luck.

-- anon (i.hate.abbey.national@another.com), January 07, 2002.

OK - in that case please check through the letter below which I intend to send to the IC as soon as I get your feedback. Is this alright? I know the paragraph beginning "I would like..." is extremely weak, but it's the best I can do in the circumstances.

The Office of the Information Commissioner Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF

8 January 2002

Dear Madam,

Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee Policy data In your letter of -- November 2001 (your ref: --/-----/-- - copy enclosed) regarding a contravention of the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act by Citibank International Plc, you state

"[Citibank] confirmed that copies of all the information they hold as personal data about you were forwarded to you on - November 2001."

On perusing the material they had sent me, it became clear that in fact certain crucial documents were missing, a point I made to Citibank in a letter dated -- November 2001 (copy enclosed). In their response of - December 2001 (copy enclosed) they state

"We are not providing you with a copy of the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee as you are not entitled to receive this information under the Data Protection Act 1998."

Please would you inform me whether this is indeed the case. The Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee is an insurance policy paid for by a mortgage borrower (in this case myself) to indemnify the lender (in this case Citibank International Plc) against a shortfall in case the mortgaged property should be repossessed and sold.

I would like to draw your attention to a recent case dealt with by the Office of the Information Commissioner concerning a mobile telephone company (One2One)'s refusal to provide location records to the person responsible for paying the bills for a telephone that had been stolen (see discussion on the Home Repossession website at: www.home-repo.org, Q&A page). In that case, you agreed that if an individual is responsible for paying for something, they are entitled to see data concerning it.

It seems clear that the principle extends to the case of Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees. Since it was me that paid for the policy, surely I am entitled to see data concerning it?

Thank you for your help with this.

Yours sincerely,

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

-- Melody (mbc109@york.ac.uk), January 08, 2002.

Your letter is fine but I'd suggest a heading in bold and underlined;

"Request For Assessment Under The Data Protection Act" ------------------------------------------------------

I also complete my assessment letters to the IC with the statement;

Please investigate and issue an assessment. -------------------------------------------

So that there can be no misunderstanding by the office of the IC. You might also consider completing an assessment form which is available for downloading on the IC website.

Good Luck.

-- anon (i.hate.abbey.national@another.com), January 08, 2002.

Thanks! The heading is in fact bold and underlined in the actual document - it's just not copied across the formatting. But you're right to point it out. On your other point, I deliberately avoided asking for an assessment in this letter as I want to keep it a single issue, and that is to get them to agree a point of principle. If they do this, then I am in a position to ask for an assessment of citibank again in view of the new principle. I'm posting it in the morning...

-- Melody (mbc109@york.ac.uk), January 08, 2002.