registration telephony defaulters

When claim if your carrier includes you in a register of defaulters.
For an operator (or other company) target a customer in the register of delinquent debt must be undisputed or will be attacking their honor.

In 2014, Yoigo client changed his phone company to understand that the signal was not good and that there were interruptions in communications. At the end of their relationship, the operator claimed him € 566.95 in settlement because it did not respect the commitment to stay. As he refused to pay, Yoigo got him into two different records of defaulters, Axnef and Badexcug.

This inclusion came out very expensive: Ibercaja, A-E and Orange consulted such registration, which he meant that applicant be refused a loan and charge higher interest on fees.

In a judgment of the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Alcala de Henares, He was sentenced to the company, now owned by Másmovil, to turn off 3.000 euros to include improperly in the files of the applicant unpaid, that the statement identifies only as 'Romulus'.

Violates the right to honor

The section 19 of the Provincial Court of Madrid analyzed the appeal against this judgment Telstra and recently dismissed. And exhaustively. "Inclusion in the register of defaulters, exist without truth, violates the right to honor, because it is an imputation, that of being morose, that injures the dignity and impairs his fame and attentive to his own estimate, It is inconsequential that check whether or not consulted by third parties ", Judge Fernando Delgado recalls the presentation of the judgment.

"While debt remains and is true as evidenced by the appellant, it is also true that the respondent maintains, that is to say, that inclusion considered improper because the debt has been discussed and accrual is a legal issue ", Add. In summary: if the debt has been discussed, It is unfair to enroll in the register of defaulters and penalizing the user.

But it is not an isolated case. More than fifteen sentences SPANISH cast consulted by the case law on how inclusion in records of defaulters, under certain conditions, determines the existence of recoverable damage.

The Provincial Court recalls that the Organic Law on Data Protection (LOPD) states that can only be recorded and transferred personal data that are necessary for assessing the financial solvency of stakeholders (…) provided they respond truthfully to the current situation of those ".


For this, certain requirements must be met: “The prior existence of a certain debt, overcome, exigible, that resulted unpaid and has been required to pay the debtor, informing him that if payment is not produced in the term provided for this purpose and fulfilled the other requirements "may include the defaulter in the file.

The Court interpreted that "there is no inclusion of uncertain debts, dubious, peaceful or not under dispute, it being sufficient that a principle of documentary evidence that contradicts their existence or completeness appear ". Come on, if there is default can not be for lack of solvency. If the debt is recognized, e.g., by a judgment or arbitration award, It would be legal, but not until then.

Conclusion? If any reader feels damaged in their rights to be included in one of these dreaded files, would do well to consult with an expert in data protection.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.