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...

@Feelliketomhanks

You say:

I’ve read some of your past threads. You are very very angry and upset with your ex and life and the world and everyone.

I say:

This is getting personal again. I did not ask for tea and sympathy I asked about how this can happen.

The links to dp law and articles and comparison tables are all great and really useful.

Any more of these or case law would be great. Maybe my case will become that in time...

so novitas have the right to the ops info because they need it to satisfy a law that applies to them is this right?

No, Feelliketomhanks is just describing in general the different legal bases that Novatis could hold HiddentTruth's data. As people have been at pains to point out, no-one can on here can know the exact legal basis that Novatis holds the data without sight of all the relevant documentation. But the point is they may not require HiddenTruth's consent to legally hold the data.

There is no data protection legal problem with these loans as far as I can see but as all lawyers have said on the thread we would have to read the various documents to be sure.

I presumed that with these loans once the judge decided who gets what on the divorec, let us say 50% of net assets the assets are divided, properties sold if there are any and all debts of all kinds eg husband might have £50k gambling debts, wife might have a divorce loan with costs of £50k, husband mightr have borrowed £20k from his mother for the divorce, they jmight have £10k on credit cards and they get £400k from sale of the house - you take all those loans of any kind off so the more each side has spent on lawyers the less is left for everyone else and the balance after both sides' debts are takeen off are divided 50/50 in this case

. The other way it might be done is the judge might order one or other side to bear certain costs out of their share only. So I suppose it may depend on the exact wording of the final court order / judgment.

I have absolutely zero legal background. I fact I could barely understand half of this thread. But it is painfully clear that tomhanks and a few others have answered the op questions over and over. But however they cannot be specific as they don’t have the specifics of the actual case. So have given a rounded answer....

Hiddentruth has been harsh. Unfair and rude. You’ve had the answers. But they aren’t the ones you wanted. They cannot answer you the way you want. As legally. The loan company haven’t broken any data laws. That they can see so far. Yet because they don’t know the specifics. They can’t be 100%. I would like to think that you would do better asking someone who knows your case. To answer your specific questions

Even me. Who has zero Zero law background. The loan company haven’t broken data protection laws and the data the have is in the public domain. Or they don’t need ‘consent’ for the data they hold

I’m thinking I have this correct. Just from this thread and what I have learnt from the young lawyer ladies (who I believe have been patient. Even when having to say the same thing over and over and over....especially tomhanks) not once did I ever feel she lost her temper or was rude (I am assuming you are female. Apologies if I got that incorrect)

@Xenia you’ve missed a critical point in Hiddentruths case in that costs were awarded against her - once a precedent has been established for this you can bet your bottom dollar that this will be pursued in all court hearings

As hiddentruth has said the loan was allowed to be racked up by continual “need” for court hearings - this is a common tactic when abuse is part of the issue.

There seems a distinct mismatch going on here that one point is made assuming a hypothetical situation and the next referring back to Ops situation.

@Feelliketomhanks posted the novitas clause - i believe to support a point she was making I don’t see why more specific information is needed before questions can be answered.

I’m assuming novitas would use the same form for every applicant so what other detail would change the answer?

What about the issue of a copy of the form being given to representatives

I have not seen one answer in relation to this or if I have missed it can someone highlight who gave it and when

@greenberet It is impossible to answer the question about whether consent would be required in order to process the personal data because we have not been told what personal data is held and what processing actions take place with that personal data.

The detail we need is for each specific case. What data was provided. Who provided it. Whether any was in the public domain (no data protection issue). Whether any related to Novitas investigations and other issues around providing the loan to the borrower (that would come under legitimate interest) and whether there was a legal obligation to process that data (would be the legal obligation basis). Only if all other basis do not apply would consent be the basis for processing. And if consent is the basis being used, then Novitas have put the obligation on the borrower NOT THEM to secure that consent.

Yes @NotDavidTennant I get what has been said

I’m now of the impression that “sight of original documentation” is being used as a cop out to not actually answer the questions.

I’ve acrually had my knowledge and expertise called in to question on this thread by you @greenberet. You have been very rude to me when I have been as helpful as I can be on the limited information with which I have been provided.

Why should I answer any more of your questions?

Any of us on here could be lawyers. We could even be lawyers specialising in data protection. We could also be Dave the trucker from Dagenham. How do you know?

I’m now of the impression that “sight of original documentation” is being used as a cop out to not actually answer the questions

You do understand that no-one actually has to answer any of these questions, right? People are doing their best to answer on the basis of limited information and seem to getting nothing but insinuation and insult in return.

Feellike

You provided this I’m assuming from a novitas loan form

and provided the individual to whom the information relates with a copy of this notice (including any child/ren 13 years old or over)

HOW does this fit into any of what you are saying?

Or is it a case of Hiddentruths DH loan form would have a special clause to say that a copy of this notice Is not required to be given to Hiddentruth?

@greenberet I have already explained that. Since you think my advice and explanation is so useless and called me “not actually experienced/qualified”, I’m not going to explain it again. I suggest you read the thread.

You’re right none of you have to give any answers but you chose to come onto this thread!

I have asked the same question over and over again and no one seems to have answered it hypothetically or in relation to Hiddentruth

I get novitas have put the onus on the borrower ie hiddentruth,s dh but he hasn’t done this ie Given a copy of the form to Hiddentruth nor has his solicitor disclosed it in court - this is the crux of the issue and why HIddentruth is in the mess she is in but this is just ignored!

Anyway I don’t want to derail this for Hiddentruth so I’m out - I hope she gets the infomation she’s looking for!

@greenberet unless consent is the basis for processing the personal data, In which case Novitas have passed the baton to her spouse to inform her, there is no obligation for Hidden to be informed.

The clause you are taking bits out of needs to be read as a whole. If consent is necessary, then it’s for the borrower to ensure that consent is obtained and that the other party has received all relevant information.

But there are other legitimate reasons for processing data that Novitas can use to process Hidden’s personal data and if they are using one of those reasons then no one has to inform her of anything or give her copies of information because the law does not require that in those cases.

i suspect that most of what would be processed regards to the other party is information that is in the public domain and on public record but in order to comment in any more details honestly we would need to see documentation. That’s not a fob off or a brush off. It is impossible to comment.

For example, if Novitas asked to be provided with information relating to what dress size I am, that would never be legitimate interest and would need consent and the borrower would have to inform me and show me the notice etc. If Novitas go and look on the land registry and see that I am on the deeds of room 101 groundhog avenue as a joint owner, that’s a matter of public record and they don’t have to tell me.

What about the issue of a copy of the form being given to representatives

If Hiddentruth has a case on this issue then it is unlikely to be under data protection, which is what she was originally asking about and what people have been trying to answer.

This is from Novitas website under Family FAQ

Does my spouse need to know about the loan?

Yes; but only once the loan is in place. There is a letter you sign and send to your spouse once the loan is in place saying that you have assigned the proceeds of the divorce to Novitas to discharge the loan, after which all proceeds are returned to you.

It also states that

The first stage is a conversation with your solicitor to see if the loan is appropriate based on your circumstances. If you then wish to proceed, there is an application form for your solicitor to complete and submit online, you will approve the application via an email sent to you from Novitas once your solicitor has completed all the questions and attached the information we require.

It also refers to the loan as not a “soft loan”

I fail to understand how there can be any acceptable circumstances for HIddentruth not to have known about this loan nor for it be acceptable for it not to be disclosed at court!

if a litigation loan is undeclared and property is sold under the auspices of the loan holding side in absence of a conveyancing contract it has been established for me by proper legal folk that there is a duty of care nonetheless to any parties with beneficial interests so if the whole loan is top sliced from the honeypot of monies remaining before division into each settlement tranche then what has been achieved there...Remember the loan is not declared....is that considered a 'win' with sniggers in abundance down the pub or is that plain and simple fraud?

I’ve been staring at this for a while and still it doesn’t make sense. Have I had a stroke, or is anyone else similarly flummoxed?

Hi everyone. OK a rain check is needed on this debate because evidently research is needed by anyone legal commenting.

This is a complex operation of data responsibility baton passing but there is nothing to pass if there is no loan set up.

Evidently Novitas produce a Notice for the loan holder to give to the other joint owner/party identified by Novitas as a 'representative'. Now then, they produce this in personalised typed format for Signature by the loan holder so they are assessing loan viability, matching investors with cases and agreeing it all, typing up personalised documents entitled

Dear Hiddentruth

So actually none of this stacks up because the Notice which is to be given to the spouse comes after the deal has been done and after the signing of an irrevocable mandate which means that Novitas intend that the spouse/representative gets to know but they do not ensure it is notified themselves nor do they refuse to process a loan where no evidence is provided for such clearance on consent.

So it seems it is a load of back to front twaddle.

My final order had no mention of any loan and there was a full list of things to be repaid of which my settlement was the last in the list!

Yet there was a loan, hidden. The price stated to have been paid was a massive undervalue and so the loan was invisible and taken off the top before division so more was paid for my assets than declared. This is the only explanation, that the loan was paid by us both.

So @Xenia what is wrong here...you talked about a recent case of yours debating disclosure of documents...what do you say of litigation in the family court ...do you think the same rules apply as to litigation in the civil courts?

That is a very different question to “data rights” which is the one you originally asked.

To clarify for my friend @Collaborate

You query my meaning here:

if a litigation loan is undeclared and property is sold under the auspices of the loan holding side in absence of a conveyancing contract it has been established for me by proper legal folk that there is a duty of care nonetheless to any parties with beneficial interests so if the whole loan is top sliced from the honeypot of monies remaining before division into each settlement tranche then what has been achieved there...Remember the loan is not declared....is that considered a 'win' with sniggers in abundance down the pub or is that plain and simple fraud?

I mean in the following set of circumstances below where the legal costs put on the loan facility are taken from the global pot and not wholly out of the defined settlement of the loan holder, is that considered a legitimate 'win' or 'superb result' or is the fact it is a known deception simply fraud?

The circumstances being:

1. The loan is undisclosed so never gets a mention in any calculations or

court orders

1. Loan holder side gets an order for sole conveyancing by their side with their solicitor as conveyancer (the loan terms require this btw)
2. There is no conveyancing contract signed by both legal owners so the conveyancing is done in absence of proper paperwork
3. The court do not assume the conveyancing job to themselves
4. The court, on informal listing by the loan holder side (no application) relying on an ambiguous clause in the final hearing order get court to sign the sale documents but court does not do conveyancing

To summarise, costs were awarded against you (stated in an earlier post) but you don’t want to pay them so are trying to get out of it by finding a means of avoiding this litigation loan. You’ve been advised that there are no data protection issues but that wouldn’t make the loan void anyway. And even if the loan is void, you have been ordered to pay the costs. So you will need to do so and all this about the loan doesn’t help you any, instead of repaying the loan you will need to pay the fees and the solicitor will need to repay the funds advanced. You don’t get to just keep the money for the litigation loan!

I think though as I said this continued debate is toxic. You are making little sense and it is not constructive. I would encourage you to stop being abusive to random people on mumsnet and Tom get some therapy.

Yes you are quite right @Feelsliketomhanks

Shall try to keep on track with data protection

The case raises many issues as you will appreciate, one being that if the loan is not declared there is no evidence or knowledge that it has even been discharged and this is important because of the extraordinary terms in them which can encumber property ongoing where a loan may have been secured on more than one jointly owned asset/property and only one is actually sold.

Of course the handling of data in all this complexity was the initial query and remains so...the issue of how a joint legal owner of assets on which a loan facility is secured has their data handled overall and their rights to have it disclosed to them.

@greenberet

Thanks for quoting the Novitas FAQs

I’ve explained it loads of times. Novitas don’t necessarily need consent depending on what personal data is being processed and for what purpose.

We don’t have enough information given to us to evaluate in any greater detail.