Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spark1

  1. 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
  2. 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 draw
  3. 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
  4. 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 l
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. Thats called the 'soft letter' approach, the ICO like to see. spark
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. You could use in letters etc, Ive used it in a couple of letters, once to Experian to remove information, this is what I included: We further support this notice and exercise my/our rights given to you under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is embedded in the UK Human Rights Act (the right to privacy to home life and personal correspondence). With regard to personal data which states “all individuals have the right to have incorrect data about them corrected”. Spark
  15. sbfido You have a letter from the ICO stating "that places the duty on the CRA when information is provided to them" Why don't you get the ICO to state in writing, that in your case, Equifax is the CRA in question, and therefore it is unlikely they have not complied with the DPA 1998. Spark1
  16. Who did you raise a complaint with against the ICO, because thats what I need to do aswell.
  17. Hope you win mate Just want to share what the ICO state in an assessment they carried out in relation to incorrect information on a Experian Credit File. And bare in mind this information was incorrect for 10 months and had an adverse effect imo. So What Im gonna do is use Equifax 4 reasons for the case to be struck out and insert the ICO opinions regarding Experian : 1. The defendants role is merely a processor of information 2. The defendant has no mean or requirement to amend or delete 3. They have no authority 4. Unable to delete With regard to the fourth princ
  18. Questioner I like the way these bottom-feeders warn what MAY happen, gets rather boring after a while. If they are 100% certain of their position, why all the maybes ? all wind and p!ss if you ask me Your doing ok, just keep plugging away. Spark
  19. I thought it was £2 for a Credit Report which should be sent within 7 days ? And £10 for Subject Access Request which should be sent within 40 days ?
  20. You still want know who and for what reason the default was removed. Also now your complaint is with the ICO, let it run its course, because the ICO could decide the DCA was in breach of the DPA. You also want to find out what companies if any had searched your credit files while the default was present. I would put a file together ready for a possible claim just in case the ICO does comes back with the assessment in your favour. A default could of caused you damage. Spark
  21. If this case as been discontinued, due to not winning the lowell one, what happened to the donations people made? If Im wrong then I apologize. Spark
  22. Exactley, but if theres a chance Experian may be held responsible for a case of Libel, they will amend, change or delete data. They removed searches from my wifes file, even though 1st time round they refused to do so. Its a no win situation for the punter, and they know it Spark1
  23. I can tell you now, if you go to the ICO and file a complaint against Experian, you will not get a result. In other words, what ever action Experian take in relation to incorrect information on a subjects credit file, it will always satisfy the way in which the ICO intrepret/apply the Data Protection Act 1998. What the letter is also saying, given the information was not seen by any company searching your file, No Harm Done! Spark
  • Create New...