Residents' Association contributions

Tigerandahalf

sillysocks wrote: »

Not all associations are run badly, and usually it is down to a couple of individuals (who also have lives and jobs etc!)
People love to complain about problems where they live but are very slow to actually get involved and try change things or see how they actually work.

You seem to be well run and as you say it only takes 1 or 2 good individuals to run a RA.

However, it is crazy that the system allows only 60% to pay up.

Even if I was a tenant in the estate I would pay the money and subtract it from the rent. Landlord would have to be a right tight arse not to agree to it.

sexmag

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I said it & I'm not confusing anything.

I can publish anything I want so long as it is fact. I can publish your name and address (if I knew it) on my own website & I'm not breaking any law. You have the right to ask me to delete it but no law stopping me publishing it in the first place.

OP hasn't been very clear in the whole story.

Did he /she join the association? Is his name used or just address?

Is it a list of every house in the estate with the houses that paid mentioned?

Everyone is assuming that it gives his name and address & says not paid but this is not what is said in the op



OP said the a notice came out saying who paid.

Again in answer to the op no it is not illegal. No laws have been broken

Ok regarding the ops situation I can't say it is or isn't a gdpr breach as it needs to be challenged

But you are giving people incorrect information here.

You post my name and address on your website

1. Where did you get that information?
Do you know me personally and ask can you put it up? If answer is No and No then that's a breach as there's no consent given by the party who's been published.
If yes and no then its still a breach
If yes and yes then no breach
If you got it my name from someone else by word of mouth and put it up, how would you confirm it's correct? This again would be a breach as you didn't get consent and in line with GDPR the information has to be correct.

2. If your information was correct then why do providers such as EIR ask people do they want to be in the phone book, if the information is factual and correct why need permission as you say?

"Where processing is based on consent, the controller shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data."

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/

Lantus

Tigerandahalf wrote:

However, it is crazy that the system allows only 60% to pay up.

A suspicious mind may say deliberate. Both ra and omc structures create natural division and animosity within communities. Divided communities are less likely to group together on the government bodies that created them. Too busy blaming the non payers or resentment against the self appointed busy bodies that seek to rule over them.

by8auj6csd3ioq

I'm sorry but you are posting ill informed rubbish.

Not by a long stretch of the imagination can posting who pays effect ops data rights.

Do you know I read bill Gates, Ted Turner and dozens of other billionaires donate hundreds of millions to charities every year. Holy God that means that they identify me as someone who doesn't donate. I'm going to sue them.

Posting a list of people who pay doesn't identify anyone who doesn't pay. Op could donate anonymously.

I hate to see the claim culture seeing a claim in everything

If you do not know the difference between a book published to the world and a newsletter published to an estate i am not responding to you or your thanks person anymore. You are either trolling or seriously deluded. sure go ahead post what you want on your site, see what happens if you defame someone. i am through with yopur nonsense you know nothing at all about law

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

2. If your information was correct then why do providers such as EIR ask people do they want to be in the phone book, if the information is factual and correct why need permission as you say?

Many people want to go ex directory. They have had this option since the introduction of phone books. This practice pre dates GDPR. Not that it wouldn't fall under GDPR

sexmag wrote:

1. Where did you get that information? Do you know me personally and ask can you put it up? If answer is No and No then that's a breach as there's no consent given by the party who's been published. If yes and no then its still a breach If yes and yes then no breach If you got it my name from someone else by word of mouth and put it up, how would you confirm it's correct? This again would be a breach as you didn't get consent and in line with GDPR the information has to be correct.

None of the above is true any blog follows the same rules as a newspaper. When you publish something on a blog it is news.

I can do an article on you. Name you, give a full bio on you, education, collage, member of sports clubs, family man or not. Even how many kids you have. Where you worked before and where you work now. None of that is in breach. You have a right to request it be deleted but perfectly legal for me to post it.

If you saw a bio of Enda Kenny, Dennis O Brian or the local Bishop in the paper, everything the paper says about them I am allowed say about you.

Why do you think that you would be treated any differently to anyone you read about in the news?

You have the wrong end of the stick with this legislation. There are exemptions & exceptions from the legislation.

Anything that's in the public domain is fair game. I don't need your permission to use this data no more than I need your permission to photograph or video you in a public place. If I use information without your permission or clarification than I need to make sure that it's factual but that falls under a separate law

Caranica

Bringing omc into this thread is like throwing apples into a box of oranges.

Omc are legally established entities. Nobody is forced to buy in a managed development but if they do there are rights and responsibilities, including their legally contracted agreement to pay fees.

Residents Associations don't have that legal footing and cannot demand fees be paid. They are set up with noble intentions and many of them do great things to improve and maintain their areas. It can be frustrating when not everyone who benefits from the work does not contribute but that's what happens in every aspect of life.

sillysocks

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

You seem to be well run and as you say it only takes 1 or 2 good individuals to run a RA.

However, it is crazy that the system allows only 60% to pay up.

Even if I was a tenant in the estate I would pay the money and subtract it from the rent. Landlord would have to be a right tight arse not to agree to it.

The problem is how do we ‘enforce’ payment from the other 40%. We aren’t going to threaten people or publish names in newsletters and barring that there’s not much else we can do. We ask nicely for the money and when someone says no (or ignores the request) we have to just accept it and move on. I suppose the final result is some people pay more as the fees could be reduced if everyone paid however we have to allow that this won’t be the case.

It is definitely open to abuse though - I regularly collect and lodge money collected , and really the other committee members don’t know a whole lot about me so there is a lot of trust put on people. I could easily pocket money and probably no one would be any the wiser. Thankfully we’ve only ever had decent committee members and not had this issue.

Sleeper12

sillysocks wrote:

The problem is how do we ‘enforce’ payment from the other 40%. We aren’t going to threaten people or publish names in newsletters and barring that there’s not much else we can do. We ask nicely for the money and when someone says no (or ignores the request) we have to just accept it and move on. I suppose the final result is some people pay more as the fees could be reduced if everyone paid however we have to allow that this won’t be the case.

In Dublin most homes have 7 homes connected to the sewer running through their property. This is privately owned sewer before it enters the DCC. Its the private sewer that blocks most of the time. A householder will ring dynorod when there is a blockage. The bill should be split 7 ways but out of every 7 homes you will get one or maybe two homes refusing to pay. There really isn't anything to do but split it 5 or 6 ways in the end. The 5 or 6 all know who the tight wad is but these guys usually don't car what their neighbours think of them

Lantus

Caranica wrote:

Bringing omc into this thread is like throwing apples into a box of oranges.

Caranica wrote:

Omc are legally established entities. Nobody is forced to buy in a managed development but if they do there are rights and responsibilities, including their legally contracted agreement to pay fees.

Yes omc is much more structured but it still has the same underlying problems of non payment and residents as directors asking for money off others. This often causes stress and conflict.

There could easily be a change to this entire area. Ra's Need much more powers to function and omc needs quick debt recovery process that is cheap.

Again I would suggest that the banks manage the legal collection of this as part of the mortgage payment.

Caranica

Lantus wrote: »

Yes omc is much more structured but it still has the same underlying problems of non payment and residents as directors asking for money off others. This often causes stress and conflict.

There could easily be a change to this entire area. Ra's Need much more powers to function and omc needs quick debt recovery process that is cheap.

Again I would suggest that the banks manage the legal collection of this as part of the mortgage payment.

I've been a director of our omc for 14 years and have never asked a neighbour for money. We have an agent to do that and it has never come back to the directors. I still get Christmas cards from a neighbour we had to get a judgement against. It's not personal.

Lantus

Caranica wrote:

I've been a director of our omc for 14 years and have never asked a neighbour for money. We have an agent to do that and it has never come back to the directors. I still get Christmas cards from a neighbour we had to get a judgement against. It's not personal.

That's a great achievement and I've had similar good results as a director myself. Shame I also had people threaten me and family if I even dared to write to them. Scary.

_Brian

I think it’s form of passive aggressive bullying and from the GDPR training I got it’s definitely a breach.

House number or address along with the information of paid or not paid easily identifies people who haven’t paid, and if they haven’t given permission for this to be made public then it’s definite a breach.

That sort of intimidation would put me right off paying.

notharrypotter

_Brian wrote: »

I think it’s form of passive aggressive bullying and from the GDPR training I got it’s definitely a breach.

House number or address along with the information of paid or not paid easily identifies people who haven’t paid, and if they haven’t given permission for this to be made public then it’s definite a breach.
.

The people who paid gave their details willingly then it is not a breach. As the only names on the list are those who paid and the list is correct.


It can be inferred maybe that it would be possible to identify someone but unless there is 100 houses in the estate and there are 99 names on the list it would be a stretch.

That sort of intimidation would put me right off paying

What you have is a group who are quite happy to let everyone else pay but not contribute themselves.
So to avoid any possible repercussions they are looking for an excuse to weasel out of their community.

jimmycrackcorm

_Brian wrote:

House number or address along with the information of paid or not paid easily identifies people who haven’t paid, and if they haven’t given permission for this to be made public then it’s definite a breach.

If only the addresses of those who have paid are listed then how would that be a breach?

Not being listed infers a non payment but isn't identifying.

Sleeper12

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

If only the addresses of those who have paid are listed then how would that be a breach?

It's not a breach not even close. The leaflet states house numbers that paid. Not houses that didn't pay. How many houses gave anonymous payments? Op could be an anonymous prayer therefore the flyer identifies no one.

For op to bring a case he needs proof that everyone on the list did pay, everyone not on the list did not pay & that there were no anonymous payments. Then op would have to live alone at the address if he doesn't then it "might" identify the address but not any one person at the address. Its a mighty big stretch to try prove that a piece of paper without his name, address or IP address on it identifies him.

Next we have the residents association. Is there a chairperson? A committee? Who /what person is responsible?

Even if it was a breach (& it's not) all op can do is request the data be removed. Removed from what? A flyer already posted in all the doors.

faceman

I imagine there is potential for a breach of GDPR here. As it’s a community, residents can be identified by their house number. Were residents told or asked at the time of paying if their data could be used in this way? If not, then the data use isn’t transparent.

This shaming of non-paying residents on a few they are under no obligation to pay is pathetic regardless.

Sleeper12

faceman wrote:

I imagine there is potential for a breach of GDPR here. As it’s a community, residents can be identified by their house number. Were residents told or asked at the time of paying if their data could be used in this way? If not, then the data use isn’t transparent.

I agree here. The addresses that are identified as having paid may have a case or put another way the ra could be in breach for these. This is why I suggest that there could be others who paid & requested to stay anonymous

Franz Von Peppercorn

Can someone point me to where in the GDPR they see a violation? The general directive is about data that is actually held on someone, their ability to get it deleted on request, and the data holders obligations with regards to that data.

In this case a list of people who paid is all the RA have, nothing else. Not only is that not a breach of the data, publishing it isn't ( as it has been consented to) and the fact that people are not on the list is not a breach as there's no data.

Its like saying that my local pub is in violation of the GDPR because it hosts a list of people who joined up for the golf outing, or the raffle, or to whatever thus shaming the rest of us who didn't.

sexmag

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Can someone point me to where in the GDPR they see a violation? The general directive is about data that is actually held on someone, their ability to get it deleted on request, and the data holders obligations with regards to that data.

In this case a list of people who paid is all the RA have, nothing else. Not only is that not a breach of the data, publishing it isn't ( as it has been consented to) and the fact that people are not on the list is not a breach as there's no data.

Its like saying that my local pub is in violation of the GDPR because it hosts a list of people who joined up for the golf outing, or the raffle, or to whatever thus shaming the rest of us who didn't.

The contrary to this isn't the example you've given, a pub has numerous random people in and out everyday and by name a list of said people at a gold outting is just a list.

This RA list could be 100 houses and pointing out that 1-98 paid indirectly identifys 99 and 100 as not paying and anyone who knows them will then be aware of this.

Like I said I'm not sure if it is a breach per say but I would like to see it challenged with the data commissioner. It could be argued the RA hold the data of who paid and who didn't, this is still data, by releasing part of it they are in essence releasing all of it which could the constitute the breach

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

This RA list could be 100 houses and pointing out that 1-98 paid indirectly identifys 99 and 100 as not paying and anyone who knows them will then be aware of this.

Houses don't pay fees. Residents do. If more than one person living in the house how can it identify any single person when multiple people live in the house?

sexmag

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Houses don't pay fees. Residents do. If more than one person living in the house how can it identify any single person when multiple people live in the house?

Data doesn't just apply to one person, knowing a house didn't pay means it could be anyone and as such all living there could be assumed to not have paid, this damaging someone's reputation which is where a legal challenge could be brought against the people of the RA who released the info

Franz Von Peppercorn

sexmag wrote: »

The contrary to this isn't the example you've given, a pub has numerous random people in and out everyday and by name a list of said people at a gold outting is just a list.

This RA list could be 100 houses and pointing out that 1-98 paid indirectly identifys 99 and 100 as not paying and anyone who knows them will then be aware of this.

Like I said I'm not sure if it is a breach per say but I would like to see it challenged with the data commissioner

A local pub has a defined number of locals. I don't even drink anymore and I am still a local, as I go there to eat and for events, raffles etc.

I could have said a school where people who donate to an event are named. Or parents who sign up to help the school after hours ( by signing up on a visible board) are named. There are lots of versions of this.

The information about the owners of houses 99 and 100 is public already, you can look it up in the PPR even if you don't know them. The GDPR doesn't protect already public information, it only protects private information, and it doesn't protect data not collected.

I did ask for the actual clause in the GDPR that might be relevant.

sexmag

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I did ask for the actual clause in the GDPR that might be relevant.

If I was a solicitor arguing a case I would use these 2.

"6. Right to prevent use of your personal details

You can also ask a data controller not to use your personal details for purposes other than their main purpose – for example for marketing.

You can do this by simply writing to the organisation or person holding your details and outlining your views. Within 40 days, they must do as you ask or explain why they will not do so".

"8. Right to object

A data controller may intend to use your details for official purposes, in the public interest or for their own interests. If you feel that doing so could cause you unnecessary damage or distress, you may ask the data controller not to use your personal details.

This right does not apply if:

 you have already agreed that the data controller can use your details; a data controller needs your details under the terms of a contract to which you have agreed; election candidates or political parties need your details for electoral purposes; or a data controller needs your details for legal reasons.

You can also object to use of your personal details for direct marketing purposes if these details are taken from the electoral register or from information made public by law, such as a shareholders' register. There is no charge for objecting."

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm

Might be an uphill battle but not impossible to win

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

Data doesn't just apply to one person, knowing a house didn't pay means it could be anyone and as such all living there could be assumed to not have paid, this damaging someone's reputation which is where a legal challenge could be brought against the people of the RA who released the info

Think about what you are saying in your comment. The fact that "it could be anyone" living there. The fact that it could be anyone proves that they are NOT being identified.

A person has to make a lot of assumptions to get to the end result that Johnny Smith in number 20 hasn't paid.

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

Might be an uphill battle but not impossible to win

Except no personal data /details are being used.

There is a huge lack of personal details in this case.

You don't even get to take a case. It's still only a breach if they refuse your request to remove your data. This hasn't happened in op case yet

sexmag

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Think about what you are saying in your comment. The fact that "it could be anyone" living there. The fact that it could be anyone proves that they are NOT being identified.

A person has to make a lot of assumptions to get to the end result that Johnny Smith in number 20 hasn't paid.

Your example is 1 of many different scenarios, there could be a sole occupant and they are indirectly identified

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Except no personal data /details are being used.

There is a huge lack of personal details in this case.

You don't even get to take a case. It's still only a breach if they refuse your request to remove your data. This hasn't happened in op case yet

My argument would be that my clients reputation was damaged by releasing data of who paid which indirectly identifys who didn't, unless it specifically states some contributors wished to remain anonymous it will be known that my client didn't and would be considered a cheap skate damaging his charatcher.

I'm not solicitor and I have no idea if it would be considered a breach but I know for a fact many different challenges will be brought up now because of GDPR, what will win and won't remains to be seen,obviously op is unsure and this would be an interesting one to hear the outcome

Sleeper12

You will need to prove that every house marked as paid actually paid. You will need to prove that every house not listed at all didn't pay. You will also need to prove that no one paid anonymously. You will need to successfully argue that its not reasonable to think that people wouldn't want to be anonymously.

Also if client does not live alone you have to argue why it points to him and no one else in the house.

Again I point out that no one actually brings a case. Op has a right to ask for personal data to be removed. It's only if the ra refuse to delete his data that you can complain to the data controller /commission.

First step is to ask for a copy of his data from ra. Next step is to request data to be deleted. Op must follow this procedure as it's laid out in the legislation

Edit : who would be actually be planning on suing?

sexmag

Ok let's spin it a different way.

The RA issues a letter to all residents.
You live in number 50 of 100.
It says The RA would like to thanks everyone in houses 1-49 and 51- 100 for not being rapists.

Now would you have an issue with that? Your data hasn't been released in your opinion but would you have a legal case in your opinion?

And this isn't about one is more extreme than the other, in the context of your argument

Franz Von Peppercorn

you are I've been going though the articles of the GDPR and nothing is said about natural persons or data subjects where there is no data held on that person.

personal data is defined as:

means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

Information is information. As a I read that a record you have on someone which directly ( or indirectly) identifies him past you needing it for a business case needs to be expunged, or when he or she demands that it be. This specifically, as do all the references to personal data, is regarding stored information about a natural person, not something that can be intuited about that person whose record is not stored anywhere.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sexmag wrote: »

Ok let's spin it a different way.

The RA issues a letter to all residents.
You live in number 50 of 100.
It says The RA would like to thanks everyone in houses 1-49 and 51- 100 for not being rapists.

Now would you have an issue with that? Your data hasn't been released in your opinion but would you have a legal case in your opinion?

And this isn't about one is more extreme than the other, in the context of your argument

Thats literally nothing to do with GDPR. For one thing the guy sending the letter doesnt have to have any record of anybody in those houses stored anywhere digitally.

What it is, if incorrect, is defamation. Which is totally different, and has always been against the law.