Question on data rights and loans

[Hiddentruth]

All lawyers out there, can you help?

Where a loan might be wanted to be taken out by one party for their divorce fees and that loan is going to be secured on jointly owned assets can you help explain with respect to the other joint owner or indeed owners of those assets, how their data gets handled in such a scenario?

Can you explain the rights of these other owners to be credit checked within any application, to comment, object or anything else. Or even to know about it?

Normally any loan has a cooling off period. How would that work too in respect of the non applicant but somebody who is affected by it?

It would be good to get some views on this. I know GDPR changes make us all more aware but we had DPA 1998 for a long time...what would be the situation with 1998 as opposed to the 2018 DPA do you think?

All comments would be welcomed...

It doesn’t impinge upon the data rights of the other owner.

Firstly, only an equitable charge can be granted on joint property.

Secondly, the personal details of the other owner, to the extent that they are mentioned beyond their name etc, are mentioned within privileged communications between solicitor and lender.

Finally, why are you asking this? I’m fed up with the amount of hypothetical questions being asked on this subject today.

Litigation loans are not inherently bad. They are a way of funding court proceedings without which some litigants will either have to represent themselves or withdraw from court proceedings.

Any more offers on this question above from data protection officers and lawyers?

In respect of:
'Where a loan might be wanted to be taken out by one party for their divorce fees and that loan is going to be secured on jointly owned assets can you help explain with respect to the other joint owner or indeed owners of those assets, how their data gets handled in such a scenario?'

What about joint owners of property or assets who are a party in divorce proceedings whose data is used by third parties to operate a loan facility and monitor a live court case.

Where this is done entirely without their consent or knowledge?

Where it is done with knowledge and possibly consent but the party whose data is being used this way then finds out it is being used in ways that cause them harm?

All comments and observations welcome.

Anybody need any advice on housing law or homelessness, just for a change from this? Please, anyone?

"Can any lawyers (whose profession I have branded, on one of my other threads about this subject, crooks) give their free time to advise me?"

I wholeheartedly recommend the "hide thread" function.

@Collaborate very succinctly put.

Gentlemen

You never cease to deliver evasive answers. Funny how you are still keeping half an eye on this. Come on, you know this topic is but a stone's throw away from homelessness.

Also, you may like to answer the question from the perspective of how you would react if you found out there was a hidden charge, equitable or otherwise on your assets without you knowing.

Would you just lie there and take it? I imagine that you would have something to say on the matter and would take up precious court time and resources doing so.

I suspect you would feel affronted. Violated. Indignant. What you had worked so hard for being eroded bit by bit.

Or have I also got that all wrong gents? I imagine you are gents. I once had a gent in your shoes who literally stormed out of a meeting when he could not win the argument that to share a cake between a number of people did not require that the portions be equal. You can still share a cake but have unequal division.

Are you spitting your dummies out similarly because you are being asked questions that require answers which are not fudge cake flavoured!?

I'm happy to give up my time to answer questions to posters who are polite, concise and do not call me and my profession crooks.

I am politely asking those with expertise to share your view on in practice data protection legislation. I would call anyone who does not tell the truth and withholds critical information especially in a court of law a crook and that is fair enough. I could call them other things...

Not all lawyers, solicitors, barristers or similar are crooks. Just as not all humans are criminals. Not all cars are red.

I was simply seeking some advice because the net effect of the behaviour of the so-called 'crooks' has left me financially harmed in ways you may not imagine and I cannot afford any more legal advice.

So I am one of those people you are willing to give your time to assist it is just that you have taken offence at my truth. I cannot know how it came about when in truth it appears it should not have been able to.

That is what I hoped would be forthcoming on this thread.

I have clearly got far too much time on my hands. But anyway. I don't see why or how your personal data is involved if your ex takes out a loan. If he offers his share of the marital pot as security, I still don't see how your personal data is involved.

You may well have had an extremely difficult divorce but I do think you are misguided to focus on the litigation loan. These are no different to any other type of loan except that the underwriting criteria are designed for people with little or no income but who will have assets once the divorce is finalised. I know you won't agree but the bank doesn't care about the results. Their return is purely based on the interest rate charged so who gets what is irrelevant to them.

How about this chestnut from greenberet Yes you are right I am calling the legal profession crooks

Or your comment about me I was attacked violently by my ex - I'm sure collaborate will consider that given I dare question the legal profession - I probably deserved it

I have some self respect. So if you think I’m going to give up my time to answer your query, think again.

@Collaborate

Who are you talking to please?

There are different people posting on these threads.

This thread called Data Rights and Loans was started by myself @Hiddentruth

Hmm, not much advice on here for you. I wonder why . . .

My apologies. the quote above was from Highland . You did however post I'm astonished that the lawyers have not picked these documents apart themselves.Or have they never seen the loan docs that the client signs up to???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS Collaborate Bit rude, that.

And the commonality here is...people realising they have been stung in a most elaborate deception and fraud...

Not forgetting this little nugget - I find it astonishing that financial abuse is a crime and here we have it, it is being rolled out by the very people put in place to protect you

I could come up with a few more quotes, but I hid that thread as I was getting a little tired with the baseless accusations of impropriety by lawyers when divorce clients fund their case with a loan from a specialist lender.

OK got the message. It won't be long before they are shut down anyway now.

Too many people drawn into breaching their regulations.

If anyone who really does know their onions please feel free to comment but I am not holding my breath. Specialist lender sounds rather delightful. How far from the truth.

I thought Coll answered the question with the first answer.
Also who owns a property is on the pubilc register.

If Mr & Mrs Smith own a house together and Mrs Smith wants a hew storecard her lender might well check her credit history and presumably the same with a divorce loan. I don't see how Mr Smith's personal data rights are breached in that process. I suppose was asked as to what data is handed over by Mrs Smith when she applies for her divorce loan? Does she hand over data about Mr Smith without having one of the many lawful bases that exist to hand it over (consent is just one of several).

If there are cooling off periods for certain consumer transactions that will apply to the party to the loan not to any third party so I cannot see that part of the question being relevant or an issue.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much

How about this chestnut from greenberet Yes you are right I am calling the legal profession crooks

You know I have never come across this before -defending your whole profession when it can be proven that some are indeed “crooks” - maybe there is a touch of a guilty conscience here?

And if you are going to quote what I said make sure you quote it right please - another tactic I witnessed first hand in the court room - because half a quote can have a completely different context to the full quote!

Do you get taught these tactics in Law school or is this picked up as you go along?

I'm happy to give up my time to answer questions to posters who are polite, concise and do not call me and my profession crooks.

This sounds like a quote from my x husband!

Surely the processing of the other party's data (if indeed any happens beyond what is in the public domain) would come under the legitimate interest basis?

I was thinking that too but I don't know enough about what of the spouse's data is handled. It is certainly probably sometihng that companies have had to get advice on since May including mortgage companies where people put in an application from husband and wife where perhaps just one of the two of them completes the form but in that case both will sign as both are liable for it.

Well the extent of the processing goes beyond just administration and the thing that is fundamental here is the impact in the terms of the loan. It is actually taking a charge over jointly owned assets and so the joint owner...termed spouse in loan paperwork but the defination of which the loan company evades answering, is impacted by its existence since the loan company afford themselves such powers as normally are seen in lycra-clad superheros!
The loan company even say they needon't consent and refer to the joint owner or interested parties as the loan holder's 'representatives' but it all falls down if it is not declared because a fair hearing cannot be afforded to the representative never mind other factorside and the loan company do not ensure the loan is declared themselves. You can see where this is going...

Is it legitimate to have your data shared over the course of court proceedings of 2 plus years and have investors assessing your private case without your knowledge or ability to protect your data rights in any way?

What about the fact it was hidden....why would it be when there are disclosure requirements?

Because the loan can be taken off the top before division....and yes we are talking about dishonesty.

What of your data have the loan company processed?

Were you the person who applied for the loan?

What were the terms and conditions of the loan?

It’s not taking a charge over jointly owned assets. It can only be an equitable charge if the asset is jointly owned, in which case it will only affect the interest of the borrower. The other owner’s interest will not be affected.

You have the patience of a saint!

@spanieleyes

@Collaborate in theory may be correct...but it is not as simple as that by any means

Again not engaged with the patronising tone to replies on here which is totally adversarial and unnecessary.

If these loans are declared there is a possibility the loan with its interest is taken from the loan holder's settlement. As the clock is ticking throughout proceedings and running up interest and legal bills you would think the loan holder woukd be desperate to agree a deal and avoid hearings. Oh no. Hide the loan. Do not make open offers in proper form, have every hearing you can get, take the loan off the top then divide the spoils.

Terms of the loan are loan holder HAS to get control of property sale. This is because their solicitor has assigned to repay the loan within the tripartite arrangement.

So other legal owner has a conveyancer acting with questionable duty of care to them and crucially with no signed conveyancing contract.

No loan docs revealed, no declaration into court whatsoever, no mention in any orders. A persistent tussle to get the court to allow valuation of property...pretty basic stuff...all denied because the loan is being hidden.

That is not the end of it. Assets 'go missing' in the selling. Assets which were declared and valued by one party and hidden by the loan holder side.

A notice of the loan exists prepared by the loan comany to give to the other joint owner. It is not given. It gets revealed by a speculative SAR after the ICO find the loan company in breach of their duties. Paperwork explains case events.

So going back to the question on data. Given that this loan appears nowhere on land registry records or court paperwork. It necessarily due to the terms of the loan requires the investors providing the loan monies are updated regularly on case progression and so are processing the data of the uninformed party repeatedly across a number of companies.

I would love to see a cartoon to depict this. Perhaps a non sarcastic non smug data expert can comment. Bare in mind the loan company say themselves consent IS required. But they did nothing to ensure it plus they get docs signed within 7 days and so have got themselves an irrevocable mandate before ensuring they have safely fulfilled their duties. So they ARE processing data without authority.