Residents' Association contributions

Victor

Interesting parallels to this thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107126189

Publishing a list of those that have paid is safer than publishing a list of those that haven't.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Residents association have no right ot tell anyone how to spend money or label them freeloaders because they do not pay into their association. People are free to spend their money as they wish. Publishing names of thoses who paid indirectly identifies thoses who didn't

EU Data Protection Directive says"personal data" shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('Data Subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

A lot of members of residents associations live in the estate and want it nice but also want money from renters who will move on. They are entitled to want their area nice but not entitled to demand money from people who have less committment to the area. Let them pay and take care of the area outside their own homes. No one is obliged to give to someone else's dream. This indirect publishing is an attempt to bully people into paying. I know of one who demand money but give no information as to how it is spent and

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

Residents association have no right ot tell anyone how to spend money or label them freeloaders because they do not pay into their association. People are free to spend their money as they wish. Publishing names of thoses who paid indirectly identifies thoses who didn't

EU Data Protection Directive says"personal data" shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('Data Subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

A lot of members of residents associations live in the estate and want it nice but also want money from renters who will move on. They are entitled to want their area nice but not entitled to demand money from people who have less committment to the area. Let them pay and take care of the area outside their own homes. No one is obliged to give to someone else's dream. This indirect publishing is an attempt to bully people into paying. I know of one who demand money but give no information as to how it is spent and

I think they publish house numbers not names.

Publishing numbers of houses that paid is simply stating a fact. It’s not identifying anyone. I think it’s worded thanks to house numbers ......blah blah blah for their contribution to upkeep of the estate. Now, you’d hardly expect people or house numbers who did not contribute to the upkeep to be thanked, would you. ?

Would it not be the landlord or house owner who pays, not the tenant. The tenant pays their rent to the landlord, it’s up to the landlord for the upkeep of the premises. House in nice well kept area is a better return for a landlord than a scruffy estate.

Lantus

Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.

by8auj6csd3ioq

@anewme
Thanking those who paid is possibly indirect identification which is covered under data protection.an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

RE landlord paying, it is up to them. My point is no one is obliged to give money to an RA just because they ask. No one has the righ to demand money as some of these people do.No one is obliged to pay into a goal they do not share or have to be be insulted because they do not share it i.e saying they are freeloaders. To me a permanent resident demanding money from a renter is the freeloader

by8auj6csd3ioq

{quote]Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.[/quote] it is possibly indirect identification. It is name and sahme bullying too and i would never give money to anyone who would enage in that behaviour. I would make a complaint to DPC and let them decide

anewme

Lantus wrote: »

Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.

I’m not sure it is anti compliant.

Thanking house numbers for the upkeep of the estate and not mentioning money is merely stating a fact. We often do it in work, thanks to team A for their contribution to project x. Team b can hardly be disgruntled if they did not contribute to the project and are not thanked. Would this not be similar.?

But it’s a good question. Know a couple of experts on GDPR and privacy so will ask them if I see them during the week.

Squatter

sexmag wrote: »

My point is don't assume

Could have won it,her family paid for it or saved her ass off.

Which is exactly what you did in your earlier reply!

Maybe practice what you preach!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Of course it has nothing to do with the GDPR. Saying who paid only reveals who didn’t pay if you already know who is in house 9, and house 9 wasn’t included. If you don’t know who is house 9, there’s no information about them.

A directive designed to stop Facebook etc. stop pooling advertising information about people is now being bandied about as a impediment to much smaller organisation doing fairly normal stuff.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Of course it has nothing to do with the GDPR.

it would be dpc who decides that if someone complained

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

it would be dpc who decides that if someone complained

What would the complaint be though- a newsletter thanked houses for keeping the estate well and your house was not thanked.

bill66

Does this RA have a registered data keeper, is all the information kept safely, who has access to the information. These are just some of the awkward questions that could arise if someone were to complain about the letter. No one wants this kind of hassle for arranging to cut grass. It could end up costing a lot of time, stress and money. Always err on the side of caution.

by8auj6csd3ioq

About indirect identification. And the DPC would decide. I am not saying it would be upheld, I don't know. The fact that it is thanking people for something they consider positive is of no consequence. It could easily say "we want to thank everyone who paid" but it is really a disguised attempt by freeloaders at bullying by embarrassing people into paying. Maybe the res ass should make a donation to the person with thje 181 car as that is what is important in the car owners world. Maybe the car owner should send around a news letter saying "All of us Smiths at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate wish to thank everyone at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate for paying into the car loan

Sleeper12

Mitchel44 wrote:

I'm a resident of the estate! I was not asked if I consented to my address being published on the letter in question, so I am presuming (maybe wrongly) those who did not contribute also did not give consent.

Are you a member of the association?

bill66

anewme wrote: »

What would the complaint be though- a newsletter thanked houses for keeping the estate well and your house was not thanked.

The complaint is simple. Personal financial information (the fact that I wasn't thanked tells everyone I didn't pay) is kept and was passed to others without my consent by the RA.

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

Maybe the res ass should make a donation to the person with thje 181 car as that is what is important in the car owners world. Maybe the car owner should send around a news letter saying "All of us Smiths at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate wish to thank everyone at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate for paying into the car loan

Just about sums up entitlement culture alright.

anewme

bill66 wrote: »

The complaint is simple. Personal financial information (the fact that I wasn't thanked tells everyone I didn't pay) is kept and was passed to others without my consent by the RA.

It does not mention money though.

You could have contributed by other means, running the bbq, doing the estate clean up etc.

So saying thanks to people for contributing to their community is not illegal.

Sleeper12

Clark Millions Flesh wrote:

{quote]Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Providing a list of every address in the estate & marking everyone that pays is not in breach of the regulations.

Even if they named someone that in itself doesn't break the regulations. There is a list of things you have a right to privacy in the regulation. I don't have the list with me but it's views on sexuality, religion, politics etc. I don't think there is anything prohibiting names & addresses of tight wads. Def the address on its own is fine

Tigerandahalf

I find this is going to be a greater issue going forward since councils have pulled out from maintaining estates.

Out of interest who is paying for insurance for the green areas?

https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/planning/building-control/taking-in-charge/apply-to-have-your-estate-taken-in-charge

TheChizler

Does data protection legislation even apply to unincorporated groups like this?

Lantus

Sleeper12 wrote:

Providing a list of every address in the estate & marking everyone that pays is not in breach of the regulations.

Contact the dpc but I have asked the very same question several years ago and was told it was a breach.

Publishing a list that says house 1, 2, 3 and 5 has paid on street of 5 houses uniquely identifies number 4 as a non payer. That owner could be subject to undue stress or abuse from having their details published without their permission regarding such a financial transaction. Its unfair and if I was the owner of number 4 a very definite breach where no consent was obtained.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Just about sums up entitlement culture alright."

The res ass are the people with the entitlement culture. They think they are entitled to have everyone pay for something they want. They think they are entitled to have renters to pay for the res ass' home estate. they feel entitled to someone's holiday money or car payments. The renters may go. If the ress ass want the area to look nice let them pay. Or just have their part tidy. Not everyone cares.

by8auj6csd3ioq

"Providing a list of every address in the estate & marking everyone that pays is not in breach of the regulations." it is a breach

"Does data protection legislation even apply to unincorporated groups like this?"it does

Sleeper12

Most people are aware that GDPR legislation exists but most don't understand it at all.

It's about the data that someone holds belonging to you. How it's stored and used. You have a right to ask for a copy of your data & you can ask for it to be permanently deleted. This does not mean that it will be deleted. There are many reasons why a business can't delete your data for example revenue require that it is kept for up to 7 years.

Resident associations aren't businesses. To suggest that they can't publish a list of addresses that pay /don't pay would suggest that the Stubbs Gazette is illegal. There is still freedom of speech.

TheChizler

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

"Does data protection legislation even apply to unincorporated groups like this?"it does

I can only find references to legal entities and corporations on the DPC site, I presume the residents associations here isn't anything more than a few neighbours getting together with no official element. Do you have more info on this?

Tigerandahalf

If the residents' association is not a business/organisation with legal entity I can't see how they could be pursued for a data breach.

In truth the government and local councils should be aware of these potential problems and should be legislating for these potential issues/problems.

I notice a lot of new estates have no open green spaces or even lawns at the front of houses. Perhaps developers are looking to avoid these issues.

clfy39tzve8njq

Sleeper12 wrote:

Resident associations aren't businesses. To suggest that they can't publish a list of addresses that pay /don't pay would suggest that the Stubbs Gazette is illegal. There is still freedom of speech.

Exactly. On another point I think people renting privately could expect the landlord to pay but people in social housing which is already subsidised by the tax payer can hardly expect their landlords (local authority) to pay

by8auj6csd3ioq

TheChizler

As far as I know since they are taking money so would have to keep records and so DP would apply. I don't have any more info

"I presume the residents associations here isn't anything more than a few neighbours getting together with no official element" That is exactly what they are but they act as if they have authority. Anything thye decide has no authority anywhere except in the groups. Tey have no right to demand money

TheChizler

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

TheChizler

As far as I know since they are taking money so would have to keep records and so DP would apply. I don't have any more info

Well occasionally I take money from people when organising events or pooling for presents, but I don't think DP applies to me, I think there's more to it than that test.

Tigerandahalf

This whole area with residents' associations seems to be an accident waiting to happen.
If Tom next door cuts the open green with his tractor lawnmower and he happens to cut a cable or a stone flies from the lawnmower and hits a kid playing closeby who covers the possible liability?

At least if a contractor with insurance was hired you are protecting yourself. But how would the residents' association pursue an action if they aren't a legal entity.