The Data Protection Act 1998 should have made it clear what information can be collected and stored. An American bank has inserted what appears at first sight to be a questionable clause into the terms for its platinum card. It refers to its right to collect data about racial or ethnic origins, political opinions, religious or other similar beliefs, physical or mental health, sexual life or criminal record. That seems bad enough but the small print goes on to state that the applicant agrees to the disclosure and transfer of these facts "as described". At the moment we are told that many firms and other organisations have not yet caught up with the new Act which came into effect on the 1st of March this year. It affects all organisations that use information about individuals.
Processing data can only take place provided consent has been given or is part of a contract, a legal obligation or necessary to protect the individual. The wider data mentioned above require explicit consent, but can it be withheld if you want the benefits of the contract? The big change is that records held in paper or manual form are also included, so can we now assume that any subscriber has given permission for storage in any system? Do we really have to get permission from every firm and media representative to keep our own personal contacts list up to date? Presumably the giving of a visiting card would imply permission to store this form of record!
A problem for those receiving presents from distant friends has been that, even if there is local branch of the supplier nearby, they have had no legal rights over the goods as they have not themselves been party to the contract to purchase. This changed on the 11th May when the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 came into effect. Certain third parties who are not named will have rights to sue on someone else's contract. This applies 'where the contract specifically provides for this' (in other words the contract cannot be changed unilaterally) or if the Act 'purports to confer a benefit on him.' This appears somewhat obscure in the form it has been presented to us but should cover most consumer transactions, though future standard contracts between commercial firms may need to be changed. It would be expected that a parent buying a bus ticket will be able to transfer rights to the child (though carriage of goods is excluded) and it would also apply to anyone whose holiday was booked by another person as 'party leader' and who has filled in the booking form on his or her behalf. It remains to be seen how much ingenuity firms will use in getting round the implications of this new Act.
Who deals with the issue of illegible light grey small print? Having received the Department of Trade & Industry Implementation Plan - "Modern Markets, Confident Consumers" as described in Consumer News 200, we sent a copy of the indecipherable contract to a named individual at the DTI. The contract was one from a mainland firm, though to hire a car in Jersey. He sent it on to Jersey despite this, asking them to deal with it. I immediately wrote back explaining the error. In reply I got a long letter describing the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act 1999 in standard most probably prewritten paragraphs, followed by the suggestion that I should complain about any questionable term in the Holiday Auto contract to the Director General of Fair Trading. "I am afraid however that the DGFT has no authority to tell businesses how their contracts should be presented - the Regulations say nothing directly about print size. But the message sent by the Regulations is clear enough. The use of small print and obscure language is futile - if not counterproductive - and should be jettisoned." Have we really still got no effective action that can be taken about illegible contracts?
Banks also are obviously not satisfied with just charging us for the use of cash machines. Even after a Court had agreed a debtor's repayment instalments, the bank tried to add interest to this sum. The clause in the bank's credit agreement that allowed this was declared to be unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract - Regulation 4.
back to menu
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index