Get ready to sue your Credit Rererence Agency

[BankFodder]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...reference.html

[Gez]

I think this line needs editing

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Nevertheless I require you to do so and your failure to ignore this reasoned and polite warning will be brought to the notice of the Information Commissioner and the courts in due course.

[loobyloo35]

sub

[phatram]

subbing

[phatram]

Dear Sir/Madam

Notice that you hold data about me which is inaccurate and in dispute

My credit file shows that you are holding personal data about me which is inaccurate and which is in dispute.
The entries have been lodged by XXXBankXXX and refer to purported debts which are in fact comprised of bank penalty charges.
As you are aware, the entire issue of bank charges has been in dispute generally between the banks and their customers for well over 2 years. In July 2007 the OFT announced that in response to a request by 8 UK banks they would be bringing a test case on the issue of whether bank delinquency charges were subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
It is clear that at least by that date, if not before that the UK banks admitted that there was a serious question mark over the status of their charges.
In May 2008 the High Court ruled that the bank’s charges were indeed subject to UTCCR.
I am sure that you are well aware that the Oft has publicly expressed its view that the charges are subject to UTCCR and also that they are unfairly high.
Although the banks are appealing against the High Court decision, there is frankly little chance that they will succeed and there is every chance that the OFT will set a cap for charges which is very much less than the present level of £30 and more in many cases.
Once it is fully confirmed that UTCCR is the governing law and that its terms have been breached by the banks high level of charges, all charges which have been levied to date plus any associated interest will be unlawfully unfair. There is no provision in the UTCCR to allow the difference between unfair charge and capped rate to be invalidated. The whole charge becomes invalid per se.


Additionally, I am putting you on notice that I informed the bank that I disputed their charges on XXXDATEXX. despite this they proceeded to make entries onto my credit file in breach of the Banking Code of Practice, in breach of their contractual obligations and in breach of the Information Commissioner's own guidance.

I am putting you on notice that I intend to complain to the Information Commissioner’s office that you are holding inaccurate data about me. The negative entries on my credit file are damaging to me and the Data Protection Act allows me to seek compensation from both you and the organisation which communicated the data to you through the County Courts and this is also an option which I am considering. I am sure that you are also aware that inaccurate entries about me are defamatory and that it is a new act of defamation each time you publish those entries to any enquirer. I would further suggest that even if an inaccurate data entry carries a dispute marker, it does not prevent the inaccurate data from having a damaging effect and it does not protect you from liability.

I notice that the Defaults Guidance notes issued to Credit Reference Agencies by the Information Commissioner in August 2007 make all of this very clear to you so that there is no doubt that you are aware of your responsibilities.
I expect also that you are aware that being an “innocent disseminator” is no defence either to claims under the Data Protection Act or in defamation.
I understand your procedures well enough to know that you will not immediately remove negative entries from my data file. Nevertheless I require you to do so and your failure to respond to this reasoned and polite warning will be brought to the notice of the Information Commissioner and the courts in due course.
I understand that you may make some enquiries from my bank before taking action but in the meantime I fully expect that you will place an entry on my file that the entry is disputed.

I would be very grateful if you will let me have your full response


Yours faithfully

Is there a letter to send concerning them processing data when there is no enforcable credit agreement?

[jellybabe]

subbing....also would be interested if there is anything like that relating to Credit Cards, Store Cards and Catalogues?

[ICY]

Letter needs changing following todays ruling

[wishboneash]

hi can we check this out thanks

[wishboneash]

gordon broooooooon and darliiiiiiiiiiiing are behind it all
look at the secret deals they have done behing our backs £62 billion one of the the people in this country are sheep to believe any of them

[cactuskid]

it is commendable that people write lots of letters to try and stick up for themselves. But at the end of the day the law is written by those that profit from it. The moment people raise an army to try and ammend a bad practice, the law changes to accomodate that movement.

It is more wise to understand the original covenant that all laws are based on rather than fighting law with law. That is like a hamster in a wheel

#1. You have the right to be billed. The basic law of commerce states that remedy must be provided for a charge to be fulfilled. Remedy is a BILL. Banks are cheeky and simply take the money out of your account when they charge you. For that reason alone they cant mark you on the credit score as a defaulter because no remedy had been issued to be defaulted i.e what were the payment terms you agreed to and where was the bill you did not pay?

My bank sends me a BILL for charges since I requested remedy for all charges 2 years ago. You dont get it unless you ask

Half a brain is required to understand why banks do not bill customers

[rickyd]

Originally Posted by Track Record

Who says that a high court finding is lawful? Is this a judge monarchy?

I thought this was a consumer action forum, its beginning to look like a philosophical debate arena!

[Apathy]

A Credit Reference Agency merely holds data supplied to it by lenders, they do not own the data. They cannot change any data on the request of the data subject, it has to be agreed by the lender. While the dispute is on going the bank's version of the record is accurate. The Information Commissioner`s Office accepts this and WILL NOT DO ANYTHING to the CRA. Annoying thought this is if you are victim of a mistake, try and imagine what would happen if everyone could tell the CRA data is inaccurate and force a change(my score should be 999 and nothing less).

Pending resolution, you can put a notice of dispute (NOD) on your credit file which is your chance to make your case and HAS to be viewed by any lender checking your file.

[badboy09]

i sent that template to them and this is the response i got how do u think i should reply to it lol

Thank you for your email, which we received on 14 January 2010.

I am a Consultant within Experian's Contact Centre and I have been asked to respond to your complaint.

I note your opinions concerning the OFT test case and your intended complaint to the Information Commissioner.

The information held by credit reference agencies only shows the conduct of an account in relation to the original terms and conditions. This has no immediate bearing on whether charges applied to that account by the company concerned are fair or unfair. We are not advising other companies of the charges you may have incurred and we are not aware of that information.

Although an individual may claim charges back from a financial institution this does not mean that the status history of the account is necessarily incorrect.

In order to have initially incurred a charge you will have either had insufficient funds to honour agreed payments or operated your account outside of the terms and conditions that you initially agreed. The status history simply reflects that fact.

If you believe that certain account entries are not a true reflection of how you conducted these accounts I ask that you please clarify why, so that I can raise queries with them.

With regards to your comments concerning compensation, I refer you to Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that relates to claiming compensation in relation to a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

" 13. -

(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if-

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes. "

You will note that an individual is only entitled to compensation if they suffer damage as a result of a breach of the Data Protection Act. I do not believe that Experian has breached the Data Protection Act in how we have processed this data on your credit report.

A compensation claim for distress can only be made in conjunction with a claim for damage so therefore if no damages have been incurred a company is not liable to pay compensation for distress.

Although you feel that this information is to your detriment it would be difficult to establish that any specific entry is definitely the cause of any applications for credit being declined.

When you make an application for credit several different factors are taken into consideration and a lender is not required to disclose to you the exact criteria applied to a particular application. Credit is also not a given right and the fact you are declined further facilities would not equate to causing you damage and subsequently being able to claim compensation for that decision.

Turning to your comments concerning the information being defamatory, it is important to remember that defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give a negative image.

The information we hold is simply a record of how your account was conducted. You do not appear to be disputing the fact that your account was not operated according to the agreed terms and conditions, but rather the level of the charges applied in respect of these matters. Therefore there is no evidence, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing court case, that the information we hold makes false claim.

All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract stipulating that they must only provide us with information that is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998.

I recommend that you seek professional legal guidance prior to considering any claim. You may wish to consult with our regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office, in order to obtain an unbiased opinion.

Kind regards

Matthew R Newnham
Customer Relations Consultant
Experian Interactive