One for the data protection geeks

[bitwrx]

Spent convictions - in this case SP30s. It's my understanding that once they are spent you don't have to declare them, even if your insurer/broker doesn't put a time limit on the 'have you any convictions...' question.

I've just renewed through the same broker (different underwriter) for the nth year running. They actually said during the call that my SP30 from 2010 was spent so could be erased. You can imagine my surprise when the new docs came through to see my SP30 and my bro's from 2009 on there. The underwriter has replied to my email query about why these records are retained with the explanation that they are required "... just for your [my] insurance history."

Now I got a good deal so I'm not worried that these are loading the premium. They aren't serious offences, so I can't imagine they'll have a material effect on anything really. But the broker has effectively told a third party, my new underwriter, about two spent criminal convictions.

Is this not a bit off?

[marshalla]

Which principle(s) of data protection do you think they have breached ?

[Hooli]

marshalla said:

Which principle(s) of data protection do you think they have breached ?

Isn't there a rule about keeping data longer than needed? if the conviction is spent then why the need to keep the data?

[marshalla]

Hooli said:

Isn't there a rule about keeping data longer than needed? if the conviction is spent then why the need to keep the data?

Principles 4 & 5

"4 Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
5 Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

The "necessary time" is defined by the data controller, not the data subject. They may be wrong, though. The real issue, in the OP's case, though is more about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act than the DPA.

Edited by marshalla on Monday 8th February 16:15

[Hooli]

marshalla said:

Hooli said:

Isn't there a rule about keeping data longer than needed? if the conviction is spent then why the need to keep the data?

Principles 4 & 5

"4 Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
5 Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

The "necessary time" is defined by the data controller, not the data subject. They may be wrong, though. The real issue, in the OP's case, though is more about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act than the DPA.

Ta. I haven't forgotten everything I was forced to read about it at work then.

[bitwrx]

marshalla said:

Hooli said:

Isn't there a rule about keeping data longer than needed? if the conviction is spent then why the need to keep the data?

Principles 4 & 5

"4 Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
5 Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

The "necessary time" is defined by the data controller, not the data subject. They may be wrong, though. The real issue, in the OP's case, though is more about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act than the DPA.

Edited by marshalla on Monday 8th February 16:15

That's exactly the bit I was alluding to - more specifically the interaction between DPA and ROA. My logic runs like this:

• ROA - information on spent convictions cannot be used to disadvantage the individual.
• Me - that info could only be used to disadvantage me (i.e. demonstrate to underwriters that I'm a higher insurance risk). [I'm fairly sure it hasn't in this case.]
• DPA - Principle 5 above
• Me - if the only conceivable purpose of that info is to disadvantage me, but they haven't done that - either because they aren't permitted to, or just haven't - then surely its retention serves no purpose under principle 5.

Just looking to see if there was something I'm missing. I've written to the broker asking what their reason for retaining the info was, but was unsatisfied with their response. If anyone can offer a sensible reason why the broker's "necessary time" is greater than the gov's (in guise of DVLA or the crim justice system), then I'll probably forget about it. If not, I'll make a complaint to the ombudswhatsit and take this all the way to the supreme court to uphold my human rights have forgotten about this by the time I wake up tomorrow.

PS - Everything I know about the ROA and DPA is on this webpage: http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/criminal-co.... Hence looking for a qualified second opinion.

[marshalla]

bitwrx said:

That's exactly the bit I was alluding to - more specifically the interaction between DPA and ROA. My logic runs like this:

• ROA - information on spent convictions cannot be used to disadvantage the individual.
• Me - that info could only be used to disadvantage me (i.e. demonstrate to underwriters that I'm a higher insurance risk). [I'm fairly sure it hasn't in this case.]
• DPA - Principle 5 above
• Me - if the only conceivable purpose of that info is to disadvantage me, but they haven't done that - either because they aren't permitted to, or just haven't - then surely its retention serves no purpose under principle 5.

Just looking to see if there was something I'm missing. I've written to the broker asking what their reason for retaining the info was, but was unsatisfied with their response. If anyone can offer a sensible reason why the broker's "necessary time" is greater than the gov's (in guise of DVLA or the crim justice system), then I'll probably forget about it. If not, I'll make a complaint to the ombudswhatsit and take this all the way to the supreme court to uphold my human rights have forgotten about this by the time I wake up tomorrow.

PS - Everything I know about the ROA and DPA is on this webpage: http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/criminal-co.... Hence looking for a qualified second opinion.

<- Not a lawyer, but

The Insurance argument is that spent convictions are still statistically meaningful.

They haven't actually got any wrong data about you, the question is just whether they're holding it for too long - and that depends on their justification for it and the ICO & Ins. Ombud.'s view of that argument.

[bitwrx]

marshalla said:

<- Not a lawyer, but

The Insurance argument is that spent convictions are still statistically meaningful.

They haven't actually got any wrong data about you, the question is just whether they're holding it for too long - and that depends on their justification for it and the ICO & Ins. Ombud.'s view of that argument.

Yeh. I guess there must be an established position on this in the industry. I really didn't think this was a qu for Loon when I posted, but maybe it is? Maybe there's an argument that if it's accurate, and it does correlate to me being a higher risk, then I'm not being disadvantaged because it's my real risk, not an artificially lower one. Sounds like a bullst argument to me, but what do I know...

It just seems odd that if I'd gone to a new broker I would have legitimately been able to respond in the negative to the 'any convictions?' question, no matter how open (according to the website I linked to at least). But because my current broker has this info from years ago they can keep hold of it seemingly indefinitely (and, it seems, pass it on to any underwriter they please).

[marshalla]

Have a look at the industry's own guidance and see you think they're following it : https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Pub...

[bitwrx]

marshalla said:

Have a look at the industry's own guidance and see you think they're following it : https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Pub...

Yeh, they followed that bit of guidance. They only asked me about convictions or endorsements in the last 5 years. To which I could, and did, answer no. (I forget details of whether he explicitly said my SP30 would be deleted or just wouldn't count in the assessment of my risk.)

And yet they still have two spent endorsements on the policy docs.

Thanks for the link BTW. While that doc wasn't exactly what I was after, this is pretty close. From page 18:
"At renewal stage, insurers must inform customers about their
obligation to disclose changes in their circumstances, including
convictions and related offences. Where a conviction has become
spent during the life of the previous term, insurers must be proactive
in removing this information from the policyholder’s record. It is good
practice for insurers to provide a copy of information about
convictions previously provided so as to make it clear to the customer
what has changed since last time."

Looks like their trade body says they should delete the details.

The pedant in me is greatly saddened by the fact that I've been talking about convictions all this time, when I should have been talking about endorsements.

ETA: The broker, an Independent Insurance Intermediary doesn't appear to be a member of the ABI, so I guess the guidance doesn't apply

Edited by bitwrx on Monday 8th February 19:44