Anyone have DPA knowledge?

[TooMany2cvs]

Eleven said:

Couple of things there.

The second principle of data protection is:

2.Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

If I am correct, the data was provided to Companies House for use in connection with a limited company of whioh I was a director.

Correct. And CH put that information into the public domain, as part of their use. This is so that anybody can trace a director of a limited company. Whether you like it or not, that is not only the law, but legally required - and long has been. Recently, apparently, it's changed and you can use a service address - but that doesn't affect previous information put into the public domain. You cannot put a cat back in a bag.

Eleven said:

It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

That's where you're getting confused. If you'd provided your details to this company, then you'd be right. But you haven't. They've taken them from the public record of your directorship. Public domain information. Once your data was published - not only legally, but as legally required - by CH, then you have no expectation of privacy over those details.

If you really want your name & address hidden again, move - and remember to never sign up to being a director again.

[voyds9]

Eleven said:

Couple of things there.

The second principle of data protection is:

2.Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

If I am correct, the data was provided to Companies House for use in connection with a limited company of whioh I was a director. It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

Secondly, S10 of the DPA says:

10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.E+W+S+N.I.
(1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and
(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

I have made it clear to the data controller why the data being used this way is likely to cause distress. I did this in writing. He has refused to remove it.

As far as I am aware the law is on my side. But then I am not a lawyer.

The data controller for CH collected the information for one purpose. That information is then in the public domain. There is nothing to then stop another data controller from collecting that information and using it for a different purpose.

A better tack might be to send a declaration (via solicitor) that the address is no longer accurate. Then they fall foul of principle 4 Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

[Eleven]

voyds9 said:

Eleven said:

Couple of things there.

The second principle of data protection is:

2.Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

If I am correct, the data was provided to Companies House for use in connection with a limited company of whioh I was a director. It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

Secondly, S10 of the DPA says:

10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.E+W+S+N.I.
(1)Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and
(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

I have made it clear to the data controller why the data being used this way is likely to cause distress. I did this in writing. He has refused to remove it.

As far as I am aware the law is on my side. But then I am not a lawyer.

The data controller for CH collected the information for one purpose. That information is then in the public domain. There is nothing to then stop another data controller from collecting that information and using it for a different purpose.

A better tack might be to send a declaration (via solicitor) that the address is no longer accurate. Then they fall foul of principle 4 Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

I have just had a chat with Companies House. It seems that my home address is still registered in association with a limited company I liquidated about 5 years ago. Changing the address requires a code to be used online which I don't have and have never had (because everything was handled by a firm of accountants). I have dropped CH a line asking for permission to change the address on a paper form.

[voyds9]

I was thinking more of the second firm where you wanted the details removing. After a declaration that they have the wrong details then the ICO will have more teeth as the fall foul of principle 4 as should delete it as they have no details with which to update it.

An accountant should be able to quickly sort out CH for you.

I work on the idea that is quicker to get a professional to get things done for you than spending the next week on the phone trying to do it yourself.

[Jon1967x]

Breadvan72 said:

In real life I'm on the electoral roll, and in the phone book. On here, I'm a made up person with a made up name, same as everyone else.

You can tick a box on the electoral roll that says you don't wish your details to be published. Having sat on holiday and a friend sitting next to me, bored and playing with his phone starts saying "Do you know a Fred.. and a Bob.. and a " and my whole contacts list was appearing on his phone as recommended people he might know by an Apple App was becoming a step to far for information sharing for my likes. New and modern data techniques allow information to be combined like never before so the more you can minimise the potential the better.

Irrespective of whether its a pointless exercise or not, I would write formally to them and chase through the ICO. I presume they are registered with the ICO and I presume they are based in the UK?

PS... BV72 - that colour suits you

[Jon1967x]

TooMany2cvs said:

Eleven said:

It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

That's where you're getting confused. If you'd provided your details to this company, then you'd be right. But you haven't. They've taken them from the public record of your directorship. Public domain information. Once your data was published - not only legally, but as legally required - by CH, then you have no expectation of privacy over those details.

If you really want your name & address hidden again, move - and remember to never sign up to being a director again.

So any information available for a specific purpose can be lifted and reused for whatever other purpose by anybody? All information on the CH web site has a Crown Copyright banner on the page.

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/freedomInformatio...

..states that the public are allowed to see.. this is not for companies to lift and use with impunity

[Eleven]

Jon1967x said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Eleven said:

It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

That's where you're getting confused. If you'd provided your details to this company, then you'd be right. But you haven't. They've taken them from the public record of your directorship. Public domain information. Once your data was published - not only legally, but as legally required - by CH, then you have no expectation of privacy over those details.

If you really want your name & address hidden again, move - and remember to never sign up to being a director again.

So any information available for a specific purpose can be lifted and reused for whatever other purpose by anybody? All information on the CH web site has a Crown Copyright banner on the page.

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/freedomInformatio...

..states that the public are allowed to see.. this is not for companies to lift and use with impunity

Or has Companies House sold it?

[Steffan]

Eleven said:

Jon1967x said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Eleven said:

It is being used to market the services of a people locator. In my view the current use is incompatible with the reason for which the data was provided.

That's where you're getting confused. If you'd provided your details to this company, then you'd be right. But you haven't. They've taken them from the public record of your directorship. Public domain information. Once your data was published - not only legally, but as legally required - by CH, then you have no expectation of privacy over those details.

If you really want your name & address hidden again, move - and remember to never sign up to being a director again.

So any information available for a specific purpose can be lifted and reused for whatever other purpose by anybody? All information on the CH web site has a Crown Copyright banner on the page.

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/freedomInformatio...

..states that the public are allowed to see.. this is not for companies to lift and use with impunity

Or has Companies House sold it?

For a variety of reasons I think that public lists are an anachronism today. The scammers, identity traders and general shoisters who prey on such lists for their base information are a real nuisance. I have advised not showing any personal address on public view for just that reason forever 15 years. With the age details, the full Christian name and the full residential address the miscreants aready have 70% of the inforation they need to operate illegally. This is not good.

To my mind this really is recipie for disaster and best avoided. As the OP has now learnt. I hope he gets it resolved. First step must be removing the address and using one of the approved alternatives. Far far safer and a lot less trouble.

[Eleven]

Steffan said:

First step must be removing the address and using one of the approved alternatives. Far far safer and a lot less trouble.

As I said, I didn't have a choice regarding putting my home address on the CH papers. But I have now taken steps to get Google to remove me from searches and asked CH to change the record to a service address. HOWEVER the company in question is now in liquidation and I don't have the web access code to change the record. I have asked CH for permission to change it on a paper, it remains to be seen whether they will allow it.

[TooMany2cvs]

Eleven said:

As I said, I didn't have a choice regarding putting my home address on the CH papers.

Yes, you did.

You could have chosen not to become a director, since becoming a director places your name and address in public.

[Steffan]

Eleven said:

Steffan said:

First step must be removing the address and using one of the approved alternatives. Far far safer and a lot less trouble.

As I said, I didn't have a choice regarding putting my home address on the CH papers. But I have now taken steps to get Google to remove me from searches and asked CH to change the record to a service address. HOWEVER the company in question is now in liquidation and I don't have the web access code to change the record. I have asked CH for permission to change it on a paper, it remains to be seen whether they will allow it.

Best of luck negotiating with CH. They are better than the DVLA but not a lot. I hope your efforts bring some reward the " change the name the game remains the same" approach, beloved of fiddlers on CH with folding companies regularly , by design, are very difficult to deal with effectively. You may be successful.

Personally I have used approved alternatives for many years and recommended this procedure to clients in the past. There are so many scammers and fiddlers about I think the days of offering personal contact details on the web (which is the actual effect of home addresses) went about fifteen years ago and from that point I have always used this procedure. It's not perfect but it does offer some protection. Best of luck with CH.

[Martin4x4]

TooMany2cvs said:

Yes, you did.

You could have chosen not to become a director, since becoming a director places your name and address in public.

Perhaps not, assuming he was the defacto director and therefore legally compelled to become the registered director otherwise he would have been a shadow director; either way he would still a director.

[Eleven]

Martin4x4 said:

Perhaps not, assuming he was the defacto director and therefore legally compelled to become the registered director otherwise he would have been a shadow director; either way he would still a director.

I started the business and needed to be limited, so I had little choice.

[Steffan]

Eleven said:

Martin4x4 said:

Perhaps not, assuming he was the defacto director and therefore legally compelled to become the registered director otherwise he would have been a shadow director; either way he would still a director.

I started the business and needed to be limited, so I had little choice.

Depends on the advice you receive. There are a variety of ways of avoiding this problem, discuss it with your advisers. It can be avoided completely if that is what you want. I certainly think avoiding voluntarily listing your home address on CH is an outmoded choice primarily for all the reasons the OP has elucidated at some length. I do hope CH accept the need for the change. Best of luck, OP.

[TooMany2cvs]

Eleven said:

I started the business and needed to be limited, so I had little choice.

You had a choice to start a business or not...
You didn't "need" it to be limited, you decided that being limited was a financial advantage.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Sunday 17th August 11:46

[Steffan]

TooMany2cvs said:

Eleven said:

I started the business and needed to be limited, so I had little choice.

You had a choice to start a business or not...
You didn't "need" it to be limited, you decided that being limited was a financial advantage.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Sunday 17th August 11:46

There are many reasons to trade through a limited company rather than the other business forms. Finanical considerations are but part of the motivation and decision. Reduction of risk and creating a business entity that can be sold are two more. Personally I would never trade as an individual.

Edited by Steffan on Sunday 17th August 21:40

[TooMany2cvs]

Steffan said:

Fanatical considerations are but part of the motivation and decision.

ITYM "financial", but...

And, yes, you're right - but one of the factors to consider is that doing so has until recently inevitably put your name and address into the public domain. For some people, that's important enough that they probably ought to have considered it first...

[Steffan]

TooMany2cvs said:

Steffan said:

Fanatical considerations are but part of the motivation and decision.

ITYM "financial", but...

And, yes, you're right - but one of the factors to consider is that doing so has until recently inevitably put your name and address into the public domain. For some people, that's important enough that they probably ought to have considered it first...

Indeed you are correct. Humble apologies. Regrettably information has reached epidemic proportions nowadays. I can well understand recluses in the modern media mad society we all inhabit. Days of wanting to be listed in public records are long gone.

[Eleven]

Steffan said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Steffan said:

Fanatical considerations are but part of the motivation and decision.

ITYM "financial", but...

And, yes, you're right - but one of the factors to consider is that doing so has until recently inevitably put your name and address into the public domain. For some people, that's important enough that they probably ought to have considered it first...

Indeed you are correct. Humble apologies. Regrettably information has reached epidemic proportions nowadays. I can well understand recluses in the modern media mad society we all inhabit. Days of wanting to be listed in public records are long gone.

Interesting point.

In my view, one needs either to be "out there" or non-existent in terms of "public profile". If you depend upon your profile for one reason or another, business reputation for example, it needs to be out there and carefully managed. If you have nothing to gain by being "known" then complete privacy is the way to go.

A mentor of mine once cautioned me about becoming better known. He is far, far wealthier than I am so perhaps he had a point.

But whatever one's public profile is, it needs to be the decision of the individual and not parasites who trade in peddling personal data.

[TooMany2cvs]

Eleven said:

But whatever one's public profile is, it needs to be the decision of the individual and not parasites who trade in peddling personal data

And, in the situation we're discussing here, it is.

In this case, it was the individual's decision to make various employment/business decisions which included a legal requirement to put his name and address into the public domain - whether he understood that at the time or not.