Hi boys and girls .. Been a while since my last posting, and been very busy meanwhile. My latest conquests: I won a case out-of-court against HSBC's registration of a Cat 4 CIFAS warning on against me. They sent me a final response letter, which I pulled apart to pieces on facts, giving them 7 days to respond before court action. That did it. Dispute with O2 is now at court stage, will let everyone know how I get on. Dispute with Halifax and their debt purchasing jokers Arrow Financial almost cleared; Default by Arrow removed from Equifax and same is taking place through Experian. Served an S10 notice on HBOS (Halifax) to get the other trails removed, will keep this thread posted. Address linking information corrected with Experian. Duplicate and invalid links removed. Let me know anyone if you are interested in the background to any of those cases either on this thread or through e-mails. Thanks, Prof.Hell

OK .. I can completely understand how you feel. Not only that, but those damn (un)welcome jokers also registered one of those against me last year. I've recently settled just such a case with HSBC, who have registered a Cat 4 CIFAS against me following an account opening application. The way to approach this: 1. Write to them stating that the info you provided was true and accurate, and you see no reason for the CIFAS warning to be registered. State that this is an "OFFICIAL COMPAILINT" and that you demand it to be investigated as such, giving them 28 days to respond. 2. Make sure to send the above by recorded, special delivery. 3. Make sure you are a) factual, b) professional and c) sticking to the point. 4. Once they respond, their first response will be to stick to their guns, and stating this is a "Final Response Letter". This is actually a good thing (see 6 below). 5. Write back to them, addressing any further issues in their letter, and stating that you decided to write to them to save both them and you costs. State clearely that you are then going to CIFAS, the Banking Ombudsman and the Courts if you are not satisfied. Give them 14 days to respond. 6. If you are still getting a negative, forward the letter you got in (4) above to CIFAS, and ask them to mediate. This will usually resolve it outright: the last thing they want is a mediation that takes time to resolve, that surely will 7. If (6) still does not work, do not go to the Ombudsman. There are two reasons for this: a) it can, and usually will, take up to 56 days to complete an investigation and b) their decisions are not binding, though respected. Take it straight to the courts, bring a claim in the county county court against them for violation of principles 4 and 6 of the DPA. Claim compensation and distress damages + interest under section 13 of the DPA. I won't say "I hope this will help" because I know it will help, and you will win if you have been upfront. Judges are particularly nasty to violations of the DPA, and Welcome will never let it get that far. Then there is offcourse the element of them paying a lawyer to appear in court, which is a £2,000 from the word go for each appearance. Good luck. Be firm, be factual, and let us know how you get on. BTW, if the information here proves useful, appreciate it if you can leave me some score feedback.

Hi Groovy, The reason someone else's CIFAS warning is on your file and that of your partner's is because CIFAS **** base their system on addresses as opposed to individuals. In your case, it should not matter at all that you have this warning: it's in someone else's name on an old address. The catch, offcourse, is that almost all your automated applications for credit are likely to be referred, or worse, declined until you contest them, provide further details etc. etc, and there is a good likelihood that they will be denied any way. What you and your partner can do about it is file for a disassociation with Mr. X at your old address. It's pretty simple, and simply involves filling in the forms with the three credit [problematic], Equifax, Experian and CallCredit. They will write to you asking for post identification docs and what not, and within 21 days, afforded by law, you will be disassociated with that person. It will also mean that his details will be wiped of your file. Just make sure you keep track of your communication with the CRAs. I hope this helps you. Prof.Hell ----- Cleared default with Egg (WON) Disputing settled default with O2 (ongoing) Disputing settled default with Halifax (ongoing) Disputing Experian linked address information (ongoing) Disputing 6 defaults with HSBC, 1st Direct, Capital 1, Barclaycard and Barclays bank (ongoing)

Go un1boy and the best of luck.

Hi Jimmy, Interesting post, though it's hard to see the point behind it .. trust me, I'm not seeking an argument. Whether CIFAS provides a so-called "proactive registration" or not still does not provide the same advantage to consumers as the massive power it gives it's members. I put it to you and everyone reading that CIFAS affords a route to lenders and their other customers to tarnish not only your credit record but also your very lifestyle by sharing information both with their members and other government agencies where the ONLY material backing is the member's say so. No way to challenge this, apart from writing and getting standard response letters, and no financially viable way to bring legal proceedings against the member, CIFAS or both. I for one would be far more comfortable if some judicial or law enforcement agency like the police or HMRC was given jurisdiction over fraud - at least you have a legal route and means to contest, challenge and rectify their decisions if need be. With regards to identity theft, whilst I do accept that it is possible for this to occur, how much independent statistics does the public have to substantiate all this paranoia ? all we have is the say so of Experian and Equifax who have their own "trusted" statistical sources and, offcourse, not forgetting CIFAS - again a say so. All while at the same time giving the financial industry, and more so CIFAS members, a free hand with our rights, our lives and our financial livelihood. The irony of all of this is that this twisted state of affairs has been systematically drummed into the ears of already over-worked police and law enforcement agencies' ears, and even to the political mainstream, without any real counter argument to tip the balance to at least a fair equilibrium. FYI, I have myself been a victim of CIFAS flags being placed unjustly on my file - (Class 4, application fraud), with only a telephone argument with the respective compliance officers, and standard replies to long trails of postal complaints against that. In the end, the flags expired without me EVER reaching a satisfactory conclusion, and believe me, I am very well informed on both the law and the "theoretical" protection the DPA and the FIA are supposed to provide us. Out of interest, and in the best spirit, tell us honestly and plainly, are you a CIFAS employee or affiliate, or does this also fall under the auspices of the limitless protection CIFAS affords its inner circle ? Thanks, prof.hell

OK .. in layman's terms, the ICO's response means the following: The ICO specifies no limit on how long account information (e.g. defaults, payment history ...etc) should be kept. Given that there is no statutory limit on the term of time information should be kept on the credit reference agencies' files, the ICO considers the self-imposed 6-year limit to be reasonable, and necessary for third parties (e.g. credit providers) to make informed and responsible lending decision The ICO considers that if this information is considered prejudicial to someone obtaining credit, (e.g. a default resulting in a credit facility being denied), it does not necessarily follow that everyone is in this situation - their argument is based on the availability of alternative lending facilities to those with bad credit (e.g. sub-prime lenders, who will lend to people with some bad history) I hope this makes it a little clearer for everyone, and now to an aside, to shoot those points down one by one (anyone care to instigate a legal challenge ?!): On the issue of limit-less processing of information, the ICO's argument is valid; HOWEVER, there is nothing to prevent the industry, both credit reference agencies, their allies and their customers, from keeping the information indefinitely, which violates the data subject's (you, I, Mr/Mrs consumer-at-large) right to fair and legal processing of their personal information The ICO is stating that they take a wide view on the "necessary" aspect of keeping information. This is also a point that can be turned around right back at the ICO and the CRAs: if it is open to interpretation, why is your's or my interpretation not good enough, particularly given that no court cases have been brought about to set a precedence ? The point of non-prejudice is, in my view, the strongest legal argument point against the ICO's view and CRAs practice: sub-prime lenders DO NOT extend lending to everyone with a bad credit history; try 20% of the populous and you'd be about right. The shiny adverts of those cronies emphasise that they don't care about CCJs, Defaults, Arrears, IVA ...etc, which is totally false; all you have to do is try and find out for yourself. Moreover, adverse credit history does not include the demonic CIFAS flags, which are registered ENTIRELY under the discretion of the lender/CRA ...etc, with no legal route to challenge them or have them removed. Essentially, if a member of CIFAS "says" you are fraudsters. for whatever reason, their word is taken as gospel, and you WILL be denied credit if you have a CIFAS indicator on your file - in direct contradiction to CIFAS's own mission statement and intent. As such, the ICO cannot reasonably argue that the prejudice aspect doesn't exist for a large enough section of consumers. People, when are we going to rise against the sheer abuse and infringement of our rights ? when are we, the consumer, going to mount a challenge big enough and loud enough to bring this to the forefront of constitutional, legal and political debate ? Long live Big Brother ..

Hi Louise, You are very welcome. Warnings do expire in just a little over one year (14 months in mine and others' experience), provided offcourse that the individual concerned is not on their radar again. Now to address your concerns: first of, that's a previous address of yours and the warning is in someone else's name, so the odds are stacked in your favor whenever someone does a search. Second, do add that notice of correction to your file stating that a) you have no link to the individual concerned, and b) that if someone searching sees the flag, they are to ask you for further verification before taking a decision. Doing so would give you a legal advantage should you need to argue the case with anyone. Finally, linked address data, including previous address information, are removed from the record after 6 years. This is something the CRAs will not tell you, but is infact true to the tee. So .. if I were you, I wouldn't worry about loosing the job opportunity because of this CIFAS warning - just concentrate on winning the interviews . CIFAS are evil, but in your case, common sense, the legal argument and the notice of correction suggested will firmly close off that front. Best of luck with your job app, give 'em hell girl Take care .. prof.hell

Hi Louise, I've just started a thread in the General forum: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/24012-new-view-cifas.html As to what can be done about it: pretty much nothing, and it WILL affect you because it is address based as opposed to individual based. The only effective way I've found is to wait for the warning to expire, and the time it takes is little over one year PROVIDED no further "fraudulent" activity is reported and the rest is in that posting. I'm still gathering votes for the forum, and once enough people have voted and the moderators have created the forum, I intend to take active steps to bring legal action against CIFAS and it's membership scheme for their recklessness in abusing the DPA and for effectively operating above the law. So .. this is an open invitation for everyone to vote for the forum creation, and a request to the moderators to create such a form. I'd be happy to dedicate time and resource to moderate that forum if that's ok with everyone, as well as contribute towards the costs of the proposed legal action. One thing you could do which would help, I found, is to post a notice of correction onto your CRA files with all three CRAs (Equifax, Experian and CallCredit) explaining that there is no link between you and the individual(s) concerned and to request further verification from yourself when searching your file. Such notices are useless for credit applications, but will make a difference for things like job apps, id verifications and such like. Good luck .. prof.hell

Hi blacksheep .. Not entirely accurate: there are a number of principles that the DPA sets out for people holding data on a data subject, and accuracy is just on of them. There is the issue of necessity for example. There is also the requirement that those holding information on people be registered as Data Controllers, which is the subject of another thread I am about to start in the DPA forum. Off-topic, if anyone is reading this because of CIFAS nightmares, please sign my petition on the Campaigning forum (CIFAS vs the rest of us). Let's get enough votes to start a CIFAS-specific forum, and let's take those Hitlers on. Thanks .. prof.hell

Hi THEVARNSTER .. Few facts .. CIFAS is a not-for-profit organisation, but they are far from NGO .. it is an organisation encompassing A LOT of government agencies, including, would you believe, the security service MI5, the police, treasury, Revenues and Customs, and a bunch of others. If you think dealing with the CRAs is bad, wait until you've had to deal with CIFAS. Although they say they are regulated by the FSA, they are in fact not, and because they have this government/private/voluntary unholy partnership and status, they are in effect above the law and will continue to be so until there is a test case taken through the high courts to prove otherwise. Another bit of info: although the CRAs and CIFAS themselves tell you that no lender is allowed to refuse you credit simply because of the presence of CIFAS info on your file, this is a complete lie: if you read the fine print ALL bank account opening criteria (ALL but one: Alliance and Leicester), they point blank state that they will not offer even a basic bank account facility opening if there is any trace of fraud on your CRA files and that is actually means the presence of CIFAS information on your file. One exception: the so-called proactive registration. Over the past 2-3 years, banks, credit card issuers and the CRAs have conspired to scare everyone into a panic about the so-called identity theft myth, and hence you now see CIFAS warnings tarnishing people's credit files whenever a half-witted idiot at the other end of a phone, sitting somewhere half way round the world decides that they feel like it. More alarmingly, the mere presence of a CIFAS warning against yourself, even a pro-active reg, will encourage any credit provider to add one to your file "just in case" whenever an application fails. Oh, and forget about getting it removed. I tried, for an entire 6 months, writing letters and complaining to CIFAS, the so-called member who registered it on my file, the FSA, the ICO, and by the time my letters were answered, the warning has of natural causes: one year and 2 months as the case seems to be for this filth to lapse. One last bit of info: having a CIFAS warning on your file is actually stating that you have committed a criminal offence, ranging from deception to handling stolen goods, depending on the category of the warning which, you guessed it, is at the discretion of the registering body. How do I know that ? I had one warning registered against me by good old HSBC. The reason: I made a mistake on the length of time I was at an address. To them that was deception, so instead of asking for verification, they registered a CAT 4 warning (material falsehood, facility refused blah blah), and needless to say, refused me a bank account. While the warning was in place, I applied to Welcome Finance for a loan and to (then) :ntl for a cable TV line, and presto: refused, with two additional warnings. And to be clear, I made sure my credit file was right infront of me when I applied to both those monkeys just to get the dates right. Both are about to expire in a couple of months time, but I think you get the picture. Now to answer the question whether this does affect other member of the same household, and it is a simply YES. This is because CIFAS warnings are registered against an address as opposed to an individual. Finally, and just to make you all feel just a little bit better: the 1-year time lapse is a minimum, and people have been known to have CIFAS warnings on their files for as long as 10 years, but this is in the extreme. Also, be aware, that as long as you are disputing the CIFAS warning on your file, the lender will continue to extend it. Hooorrraaaa for Big Brother !! prof.hell

Ladies/Gents .. About a week ago, I received notification from Equifax that a debt collection search has been carried out on my address. Checking the alert out, the search actually relates to a previous occupant, and the reason for search is stated as Debt Collection. To make matters worse, the individual in question has the same first name as myself, and the debt has been purchased from (you guessed it) First Direct. Few questions: this individual's credit agreements appeared on my file for the last three years, and I have been unable to successfully file a disassociation with Equifax or Experian: they have requested my birth certificate, passport and driving license as identity evidence, in addition to the same documents from that individual, in a letter addressed to myself at the address. Needless to say I couldn't provide the latter: I have no relation with the man, bar that he has been a previous tenant, and I have no way to trace him. Question: is there any other way to get those accounts removed ? incidentally, 6 out of a total of 14 recorded accounts are defaulted, and it has well and truly made my life impossible. Now to the search .. I contested that through Equifax, asking for the search trace to be removed, only to receive a reply back from Equifax stating that after investigation, Lowell are saying that the search is in order, and asking me to contact them on a phone number they have provided. Two questions: first: are debt collection searches visible to lenders assessing credit applications or do they only see previous credit application searches ? second: has anyone contested such searches before, and if so, is there any feedback on success/failure ...etc ? Thanks very much .. prof.hell

Ladies/Gents, First posting, and I think it's best to start it with a warm thank you and well done to everyone here that's fighting for rights we once took for granted, and which have now been eroded so much, that nothing short of a revolt by all of us is likely to make a difference. Down to business .. I don't know how many other people here have been affected by one hidden nightmareishevildamonicvampire called CIFAS. I have a feeling there are many, and yours truly is one of them. Rather than go into enormous detail, I'm posting this thread to gauge interest, and to find out the process about creating such a forum, dedicated specifically to victims of CIFAS and their subscribers, and to share experiences, thoughts ...etc in much the same way as all the other forums do. Thanks once again .. prof.hell