Residents' Association contributions

Sleeper12

sexmag wrote:

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

How does it break any data law?

The requirements are they must provide you with a copy of any personal data they hold. What personal data do they hold?

If they do hold data you can request for it to be deleted.
How can they delete data that they don't hold?

Ask yourself, what data do they hold. How are they storing it. How are they using it? This is all the legislation covers. If they don't hold any of your data then non bill payer or rapist they haven't broken any law.

KildareP

sexmag wrote: »

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

In a case where a "thank you" list is published, GDPR does NOT cover cases of households who didn't pay this because the RA is neither holding nor publishing any personally identifiable information about houses that do not pay. All an RA will need to maintain is a list of those who did pay and their details, and these are details that Revenue mandate, by law, should be retained for financial purposes. It is only this list which is being published.

The next-step for someone who believes a failure to adhere to GDPR is the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.
How exactly can an individual request the office of the data protection commissioner to remove details which aren't held about a subject to begin with?


The second avenue then is inference - by publishing a list of those who did pay, you can reasonably infer from that list that those who do NOT appear on the list did NOT pay.

Again, you'd have extremely stretched grounds for taking a legal case so you'd want to be very precise in your argument, because:
- what someone may infer about you from such a list is not incorrect (i.e. not defamation)
- nor does it identify anything personally about you (I know house X did not pay, but "House X" and "did not pay" are the only two pieces of information a layperson can extract from such a list) (i.e. not breaching your privacy)
- there is no direct mention of anything about non-payers (i.e. you are not a party to the case you're trying to take)


The third then is just plain common sense called "cop on"
Most RA's are well run outfits with people volunteering their time for the betterment of their local area.
Grass-cutting and estate maintenance and upkeep are unfortunately unenviable but necessary tasks now fallen to the responsibility of the households within an estate as council's no longer have the resources to maintain every estate all summer long.

A well run RA should:
- hold a publicly advertised AGM in a neutral location
- have a democratically elected committee
- have at least 50% backing of the households to claim to represent views of the area

The AGM is the chance for the normal person to observe the RA is well run because a minimum requirement is:
- a treasurer's report showing detailed breakdown of income and all expenditure
- a chairperson's report outlining in detail work carried out for the year gone, and plans for the year ahead
- to give everyone a chance to put themselves forward for a committee position
- to elect/re-elect the committee for another year

If there's anything you feel is untoward in the RA, contact the local PPN. And if there's evidence of downright fraud, then contact the Gardaí.

Thus if you try to take a case in such a circumstance, and the RA is found to be doing everything above board, you could find yourself being the subject of a defamation case.

Sleeper12

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

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.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

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

100 percent correct.

Posters are saying what they want the legislation to be not what it actually is

Metroid diorteM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

It’s not defamation if it’s true.

hullaballoo

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

It’s not defamation if it’s true.

This is not the case. A truth can be defamatory.

Truth is only a defence to an action for defamation. An absolute defence as it may be, it doesn't render the statement complimentary.

beertons

We only got 4 to our residents agm last year. 3 the year before, and 5 the year before that. People then look for answers on the residents facebook page. And the killer bit is there are non payers on the facebook group

robp

Lantus wrote: »

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.

Really unfair to call them self appointed busy bodies. They are set up by the developers. No one forced or anyone to buy or rent in a private estate with RA fees. If someone doesn't like they they should not have moved in.

TheChizler

robp wrote: »

Really unfair to call them self appointed busy bodies. They are set up by the developers. No one forced or anyone to buy or rent in a private estate with RA fees. If someone doesn't like they they should not have moved in.

I've never heard of a residents association set up by developers, are you thinking of a management company (OMC)? A residents association is normally a community driven initiative to take care of some of the thing a management company would take care of when there's no management company present. A management company would legally own the common areas, or even the freehold to the properties themselves, and have a legal responsibility, whereas a residents association could be two neighbours in an unmanaged estate who think the public areas could do with some improvement.

Lantus

robp wrote:

Really unfair to call them self appointed busy bodies. They are set up by the developers. No one forced or anyone to buy or rent in a private estate with RA fees. If someone doesn't like they they should not have moved in.

I don't think that. It's a common perception that many of the non payers perpetuate.

Ra is not developer set up, it's totally resident driven.

Unless your in the golden DCC area that still cuts grass, collects leaves and sweeps roads then your only choice is an ra or omc to maintain the estate.

Not a lot of choice really.

clfy39tzve8njq

beertons wrote:

And the killer bit is there are non payers on the facebook group

There's bums in every walk of life