adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on May 1, 2019 9:46:20 GMT
I wonder who will be reimbursing those who signed up with HCR? I'm wondering who will be reimbursing Ly and the receivers. Do the claimants have any money? I was going to say "Not our problem", but thinking about it - it probably is, because it would come under a legitimate cost of administration to be set against whatever's recovered.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 1, 2019 9:54:08 GMT
I'm wondering who will be reimbursing Ly and the receivers. Do the claimants have any money? I was going to say "Not our problem", but thinking about it - it probably is, because it would come under a legitimate cost of administration to be set against whatever's recovered. HC* costs will come from the clients that signed up, clients who signed up are the ones who will be out of pocket. DA* to be paid for by Lendy, then most likely, that amount subtracted from whatever is recouped from the sales of the properties before being paid back to lenders. Normally, the person who Engages the law firm pays, unless there is a separate agreement, and for HC*, the Terms of Engagement stated the client directly settles with them. There might be a case for the "client" to obtain these costs from Lendy, but that is another [semi-complex] argument altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 12:36:09 GMT
Yes, it is something that can be ordered by the Court. But do you think that lendy would even be bothered about requesting that on our behalf? As far as I understand it, we don't need Lendy (or HCR) to do it for us. We are within our rights under the GDPR to demand data erasure ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on May 1, 2019 13:34:53 GMT
Yes, it is something that can be ordered by the Court. But do you think that lendy would even be bothered about requesting that on our behalf? As far as I understand it, we don't need Lendy (or HCR) to do it for us. We are within our rights under the GDPR to demand data erasure ourselves. The problem would really be who has it, and how do we tell them to do it. Presumably anybody under some form of regulation would do it anyway. I am not happy its out there (although I am fairly sure many people have more data on me than I would wish to be the case), not sure I would put any real effort into tracking it down, somethings really are more trouble than they are worth.
|
|
jomantha
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 63
|
Post by jomantha on May 1, 2019 14:12:56 GMT
I am so happy for you all - just one erroneous email from Lendy suggesting I may have been linked to this was enough to make me feel physically sick - I cannot imagine the impact on some of you. <3.x
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 14:42:02 GMT
The problem would really be who has it, and how do we tell them to do it. Presumably anybody under some form of regulation would do it anyway. I am not happy its out there (although I am fairly sure many people have more data on me than I would wish to be the case), not sure I would put any real effort into tracking it down, somethings really are more trouble than they are worth. A simple email demanding your rights under GDPR article 17 doesn't sound like much trouble to me. Its up to the recipient if they wish to break the law by ignoring it.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on May 1, 2019 16:38:06 GMT
The problem would really be who has it, and how do we tell them to do it. Presumably anybody under some form of regulation would do it anyway. I am not happy its out there (although I am fairly sure many people have more data on me than I would wish to be the case), not sure I would put any real effort into tracking it down, somethings really are more trouble than they are worth. A simple email demanding your rights under GDPR article 17 doesn't sound like much trouble to me. Its up to the recipient if they wish to break the law by ignoring it. I would agree entirely, but my case was that I don't think anybody knows who has 'legitimately' had these details, we do know at least two parties have been given them neither of which we authorised. I know there was a legal reason for one, the other is debatable. We have no idea who these parties may have given sight of this information with 'good intent'. To me this particular Genie is out of the bottle, and would be very hard to put back in. I will just add it to the list of things I am unhappy about regarding Lendy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 16:48:02 GMT
I would agree entirely, but my case was that I don't think anybody knows who has 'legitimately' had these details, we do know at least two parties have been given them neither of which we authorised. I know there was a legal reason for one, the other is debatable. We have no idea who these parties may have given sight of this information with 'good intent'. To me this particular Genie is out of the bottle, and would be very hard to put back in. I will just add it to the list of things I am unhappy about regarding Lendy. Article 15 gives you the right to know with whom the data is shared. Article 17 also instructs those who have shared your data to inform those 'downstream' they have shared with. We didn't have to authorise the initial share because it was court-mandated for a specific purpose. Now that purpose has expired, we have rights under GDPR to request deletion. imo it gives us a stronger case if they try to use our data in future, for minimal effort on our part.
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on May 1, 2019 17:00:00 GMT
Lendy should be letting us know who they gave the info to at least, & how to contact them.
However, if they really want to score some brownie points with us, they should email the solicitors/litigants & anyone else involved & tell them to erase the data, and then tell us it's been done.
Should make better sense than all 3000+ of us doing it individually.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 17:04:22 GMT
It has been a very, very long time since I trusted Lendy to do what they 'should' do.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 1, 2019 17:42:12 GMT
I would agree entirely, but my case was that I don't think anybody knows who has 'legitimately' had these details, we do know at least two parties have been given them neither of which we authorised. I know there was a legal reason for one, the other is debatable. We have no idea who these parties may have given sight of this information with 'good intent'. To me this particular Genie is out of the bottle, and would be very hard to put back in. I will just add it to the list of things I am unhappy about regarding Lendy. Article 15 gives you the right to know with whom the data is shared. Article 17 also instructs those who have shared your data to inform those 'downstream' they have shared with. We didn't have to authorise the initial share because it was court-mandated for a specific purpose. Now that purpose has expired, we have rights under GDPR to request deletion. imo it gives us a stronger case if they try to use our data in future, for minimal effort on our part. We all have rights under GDPR to request deletion of our data. However, if the data is now held in the BVI, enforcement will be tricky to say the least. There has been a request put to the claimants law firm to clarify who exactly is holding the data downstream, and for what purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 17:57:57 GMT
We all have rights under GDPR to request deletion of our data. However, if the data is now held in the BVI, enforcement will be tricky to say the least. There has been a request put to the claimants law firm to clarify who exactly is holding the data downstream, and for what purposes. The point is, non-compliance with a request at worst does us no harm, and at best helps us... all with minimal effort on our part. It does pose interesting jurisdictional questions too. Frankly, the enforcement bit is not the only bit that interests me... I'm also curious about how non-compliance with the GDPR may or may not weaken any future case using that data under a jurisdiction where the GDPR has force...
|
|
|
Post by grumpysculler on May 1, 2019 18:14:11 GMT
But GDPR requires any export of data to preserve your protections.
So sending data to BVI to avoid/evade GDPR would be very naughty indeed.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 1, 2019 18:45:05 GMT
But GDPR requires any export of data to preserve your protections. So sending data to BVI to avoid/evade GDPR would be very naughty indeed. The claimant, a natural lay person, is highly unlikely to be subject to GDPR, so in effect, she can do as she wishes with the data, as long as her actions have no detrimental effect upon you/us. Should her actions have a detrimental effect, then the circumstances change. Note, the onus of proving that you suffered a detrimental effect would be on you/us.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on May 1, 2019 19:14:32 GMT
The claimant, a natural lay person, is highly unlikely to be subject to GDPR But her lawyers, who were the ones provided with it... Anyway, most of the claimants are corporate entities - and the other claimant is acting in a business capacity as a sole trader.
|
|