This thread has emerged out of Sosumi's 'C.A.G. S.A.R. Club' thread and would likely have never started without it. Sosumi's thread got so big and branched off in so many directions it probably got a little confusing for any new viewer that wanted to trace back issues with clarity. So, appreciation to sosumi for this thread. It was in the said thread that I asked the following question:

Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean going to court if it comes to it basically.

Bumpity bump.

It's a long thread! The answer might be in it somewhere I know. Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean court if it comes to it basically.

It's my view that they never delete anything - it's just removed from view.

Proving that would be almost impossible, unless you could find a whistleblower to give you concrete evidence it happens.

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible, but I can see why you would want incorrect/inaccurate visible information corrected.

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible

Thanks for the reply. I'm dealing with the incorrect visible stuff at the moment as it goes. That's hard enough! :lol: I just don't trust them one bit with my old debts and believe things may well get worse in the future. Your answer hints, I hope, that from a legal perspective I could force them to remove any data they held on me over 6 years old. Is that right then?

Surely an SAR should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

Newborn

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

 

Newborn

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Yes, I was going to send off some SAR's.

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

In theory! They tend to think they are a law unto themselves though.

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

Like a proper tombola!

Hi andrew1 and renegotiation,

I was being a bit niaive and simplistic with my answer.

In the perfect world my answer is correct.

But if the law changed tomorrow and Experian etc were able to publish a 20 year credit history you can bet your bottom dollar they've got it ready!

It's just not published.

While a debt is outstanding they will argue that they can keep the data indefinitely until several years after it is FULLY repaid.

Partial repayment will keep the remainder of the debt live, even if 'full and final'. (Zombie Debt).

Newborn

Thanks for the replies Newborn. I'm just talking about my unpaid debts. They were all left unpaid around 6 years ago and longer. The defaults went on at varying stages after that. I want to know if they have a 'right' to keep this data on file for longer than 6 years or not. If they don't have this right, and my SAR's show that they do have information on me older than 6 years, I am going to force them to remove it in court. Let's face it, it will probably have to be done in court knowing their arrogance. I think i've done my time so to speak. I do have a case right?

The data protection act allows the retention of data if it is it in the 'interest of the data controller' (creditor or DCA) to do so. They just can't publish it on a credit file after 6 years have passed.

Also, bear in mind that the OC will also keep any data 'in their interests', which they can then pass on to the DCA whenever they want anyway.

If the information cannot be published and it is statute barred (??) I don't think you have a problem, unless the law changed overnight to allow them to publish the data. It would probably not be retrospectively allowed anyway.

Newborn

My concern is they would find some 'dubiously legal' way of making this adverse data hinder me in the future. The question is if noone uses it then why do they keep it? I will see what the SAR's show up. Thanks again.

With respect, this latest discussion is theoretical - what happens in practise is that these companies flaut the law, DPA or not, and those less knowledgeable accept it as "being the way".

I'm sure we can all remember the time where we didn't question what goes on, but I feel the tide is turning now.

Incidentally, the CRA's claim a "legitimate interest" in the information given to them by their clients, because their other clients use that information for "legitimate reasons". This wouldn't stand up in Court, but who takes the CRA to Court? I haven't. The onus is on the data controller - which the CRA is, but only vicariously, via data feeds from creditors, so are effectively second hand data controllers themselves. Correct the direct DC, then use s.14(1) and s.14(3) to correct the CRA.

Until these practises are challenged formally - which won't happen, as they settle out of Court before any precedent is set - this is the system we have to live with.

Lets challenge thae law of precendent then

Lets challenge thae law of precendent then

If you can get a case to a level that sets a precedent, you'd be making legal history. It isn't going to happen, as they will back down and settle before you get there.

We need to ask for a huge settlement that they will never pay to ensure it gets to court...

I have written strong letters to all the CRA's asking them for definite confirmation of their policies on data over 6 years old. I await their replies with interest. No replies as of yet.

I had a bit of an argument the other day with an Equifax manager as it goes. I was letting off steam about them turning up on my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from Barclaycard. He told me it was moral that creditors should know where their debtors were. I told him I agreed that it was moral for creditors to know the location of their debtors, BUT (a) it wasn't their job to do that, especially in the clandestine manner in which it was done!!! and (b) even if it was their job to do that, WHICH IT WASN'T, they certainly had no business passing on telephone numbers of debtors to disgusting DCA's that harassed folk in their own homes at all hours of the day!!! He seemed to shut up after hearing my comments and didn't know what to say!

Experian are the first to reply and here is their response. Yep, I was right! Here it is:

My experience of CRA's so far is:

Experian - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in both telephone calls! Good work Experian!

Equifax - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in one call. Moralised and lied to in the other! Good work Equifax!

Callcredit - They don't seem to be contactable by phone apparently! Otherwise, I think I know what I would be hearing. Anyhow, I complained about 2 incorrect default dates from one company. They were down as 18 months later than the identical defaults on my Experian and Equifax credit reports. They wrote and said the ***2*** dates had been amended. I wrote back and requested another credit report. Lo and behold, only 1 of the dates had been amended! Good work Callcredit!

That's nothing but lies and incompetence. I await the replies from Equifax and Callcredit on default data over 6 years old with interest. My question is if it isn't any use to anyone why do they keep it? They don't have grounds to keep it do they? I thought they were supposed to keep data for 'only as long as it was necessary'!

Interesting that they admit that they archive the information rather than delete it after 6 years.

They might claim that's so that they can check back on stuff, do SARs etc.

However the act says they should only keep information for as long as it is relevant, then delete it, not archive it.

Grumpy

These 3 companies must have a hell of a lot of data on people are they suppose to send you archive stuff as well as the data up to six years. Also do they send it to people in ordinary post when a SAR is sent to therm. It must be very heavy and cost a lot of postage. I am not not worry about their cost but may only send it out second class and even if they send it first class people may not get it for weeks later due to it been so heavy. Why do they keep old stuff that is older then six year old as I alway thought that it would automatically fall of their computers when it was six years old. Do they go thought it and look at what is worth keeping.

My personal experience with Experian has been that they DON'T automatically drop stuff unless you check your credit report - which after all is what THEY want you to do MONTHLY (there is an article stating that one day it will be necessary to do MONTHLY checks - WHY????) if I can find the article I will post the link.

'O' Yes, of course they want everyone to do a monthly check, think of all that revenue from us the punter, I feel sometimes that they have a lot to do with data going missing, it is a money making racket and that is a fact. :-?

These people are less than honest.

I will make the ICO my first port of call and see what they say. Then, I need to draft a good letter for my CRA SAR's. I'll just wait and see what Equifax and Callcredit have to say. I'm thinking I should have no legal difficulty forcing them to remove my data that no longer need. I just don't trust them!

I received a wholly inadequate reply from Equifax a few days back and absolutely no response from Callcredit whatsover. My original letter template was completely unambiguous so the feeble reply from Equifax and lack of reply from callcredit are likely to be answers in themselves. Hmmm. I wonder what that answer could be? :) I have sent a copy of my original letter to Callcredit (registered mail this time) demanding a response and another unambiguous letter to Equifax asking for a fuller answer! Just for the record, I have pasted Equifax's lacklustre response below. They have basically just stated what most of the nation knows and ignored my question.

They are like blinkin politicians the way they answer these questions - never a straight answer! You ask them a question and they come back with " No, the question that should be asked is......." then go on to answer that one ( with a touch of " The fact of the matter is...." ) Jeez they make you mad!

Jeez they make you mad!

Yes, but they certainly picked the wrong person if they think i'm just going to skulk off.

sue the companies giving them the information, I say. (I have!)

I plan to do all I can. I got a lot of things on my plate at the moment! One thing at a time for me. Still got to start my CCJ set aside as well. :)