Still at it mate, keep going your doing OK

42 man I did report them to the OFT and also the ICO who found them to have breached the DPA, so lots went on. Spark

42man About 2.5 years ago, 1st Credit sent her letters using the Barclaycard Logo paper along with their own letters asking her for unpaid debts. The debts were not hers, but they carried on using solicitors, connaughts and other collectors etc. Connaughts sent SDs, you know the usual stuff you read on here. I complained to the FOS and they contacted 1st Credit, but 1st Credit still carried on. It was a long draw out process, but worth it in the end, because they may think twice before they start on another innocent person. If you look on the FOS site, they have now drawn up requirements for DCA's to follow in relation to debt collectiing. Also the complaints were only filed with the FOS about a year ago. Spark1

Just recently I have had two complaints against DCA's settled via the FOS. Both went in my wife's favour and she was awarded money for the distress and inconvenience caused by both the DCA's, namely 1st Credit and Booker Management Services Limited. Overall I am happy with the service and would use them again. Spark

Pinky69 Any updates ? Cheers Spark

Casper Now your've written to 1st Credit, yourve disputed the debt. Try not to worry, just keep filing the letters as they arrive. Allow 8 weeks to pass, then file a complaint with the FOS. But in the mean time file a complaint with the ICO, 1st Credit have more than likely Breached the DPA 1998. I have 1st hand experience of the situation your in. My wife was pursued over a 14 month period. By 1st credit, connaughts Collections, ScotCall, and between them they threatened all sorts. The matter is almost at a close, the FOS upheld my complaint, and the ICO found 1st Credit likely to be in Breach of the first principle of the DPA. The situation at the moment is, the Adjudicator at the FOS awarded compensation (in the hundreds). But I asked for the assessment to be passed to the Ombudsman and passed over the ICO assessment. So hopefully it should it should all come to a close, without the need to go to court. Hope this helps. Spark

So I got on their case again and got this reply: We wish to advise you that these searches are investigative Outstanding Debt searches. These searches are undertaken for purposes other than credit application. They are not viewable by lenders and have no impact on a credit decision. These searches inform you that these companies have viewed your Credit Report and are not disputed

Exquifax reply to my request to remove the search was: An "Outstanding Debt" search indicates that an organisation has undertaken a search in an attempt to reconnect with a customer who has gone away leaving an unpaid debt. This "Outstanding Debt" search appearing in your credit Report will only be visible to yourself, and will not be visible to any lenders who subsequently access your credit Report. "Outstanding Debt" searches will remain on your credit Report for 6 years from their recorded date.

ODC They then state, the outsanding debt search can not be seen been by anyone searching your file, so therefore as no adverse effects, again hard to prove them wrong, unless you can prove damage and with evidence which suggests the outsanding debt search caused it. I argued the search was in incorrect/inaccurate, they say its been recorded correctly and accurately, so its not a breach of the fourth principle. You can go round in circles, because they know the DPA favours them and is not there for our interests

Well in my wifes case, there were 2 people with her name and same date of birth, so the DCA searching could of claimed a legitimate interest because they were trying to trace for a gone away debtor. Ive argued on similar lines to you, but to prove unlawfullness is not easy. What is unlawfull about tracing someone, when their name and address could be freely available on public registers? By the way, theres an outsanding debt search showing on the wifes file and the company who put it there are saying Equifax won't allow them to remove it. Equifax are refusing to remove it, they are saying it must stay on record for 6 years, so Ive had to file another complaint with the ICO, for breach of the the fith principle of the DPA.

A DCA does not need permission to process data, if they are taking steps to try and trace a debtor. If you can prove they unfairly/unlawfully processed your data then you have a case. Im not sticking up for any DCA, but under the first principle, consent is only one condition for processing data. Anyway Im no expert, but I look at things from both angles. Ive had 5 out of 6 complaints upheld by the ICO, but the search one was not up held, because of the legitimate interest condition under the first principle.

Thats called the 'soft letter' approach, the ICO like to see. spark

The thing is, under the first principle of the DPA if the DCA is carrying out a trace search for an outstanding debt. They could claim it was in their legitimate interest to take steps to recover the debt. Therefore not a breach of the act. Spark1

The Government are getting worried, because the money supply is deflating, not the price of goods and services. They need to inflate the money supply, and to do that, they need to get people borrowing ( in debt) so they can keep the economy growing. This in turn makes the Elite richer and keeps people in order, in other words slaves to the economy

I going to write to the ICO and ask them to re-examine my complaint against Experian, especailly when it was obvious the information was incorrect.