Jump to content

spark1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spark1

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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 :)

  5. by your reasoning if the Leeds losers had a debt for a John Smith then they could process data belonging to all the John Smiths in the UK. I think that they must be sure of their facts before they process anyones data

     

    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.

  6. That MIGHT be true if the Leeds Losers were chasing someone who ACTUALLY owed a debt AND they had the legal paperwork allowing them to chase the person. As it stands they had NOT the permission of the OP to be processing THEIR data. The OP should report the Leeds Losers for all their stupidity

     

    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.

  7. I am in complete agreement with you Allwood - CRAs should definetly be in sight of agreements between lenders and borrowers before allowing DCAs to use our information.

     

    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

  8. From the Bank crisis report.

     

     

    It

    is not money they have obtained from anywhere but money they have written into existence

    in their accounts by a mere book-keeping entry. In the case, say of a house purchase, the

    money only comes into existence when the vendor banks the cheque written by the purchaser

    who has obtained permission from the loan-issuing bank to write such a cheque. I am told

    that in many cases, these days, that money didn’t exist before this instant. It wasn’t money

    obtained from savers or borrowed from another bank. It was just created.

    13. Banks benefit greatly by this mechanism. I would almost call it a fiddle. It costs them nothing,

    or almost nothing, to issue this bank-credit-created money. On the other hand they stand to

    gain enormously as the borrower labours to repay both capital AND interest over the term of

    the mortgage.

    14. This mechanism introduces a huge perverse incentive for banks to lend out this sort of

    money that they have created out of nothing in exchange for future repayment of the debt

    with earned money from the real economy and with interest that the bank demands to boot!

    15. It’s an absolute bonanza for the banks. They love it.

    16. They are perfectly happy that most people are muddled about how the crisis has happened.

    They shelter in the obfuscation.

    17. This “dodge” is so lucrative that it gives the banks an incentive to lend to many people. The

    more the merrier. Since it is money that didn’t exist and since they are being paid back in real

    money, the more they can do it the richer they get.

    18. This is why so many people have got into debt. Yes certainly many borrowers have been rash

    about taking out loans but the loan wouldn’t have been on offer if the banks hadn’t had a big

    incentive to lend it and “money for nothing” is this huge incentive.

    19. That’s why bankers get huge bonuses. To blame the banker is to miss the point. The point is

    that the incentive is there. The senior banker can see it and being a lively chap he uses to

    opportunity to the full and incentivises his subordinates to get borrowers to sign up.

    20. The second problem is in whose ownership the money is being created.

    21. In Britain today most money is created in the ownership of the banks and the banks issue it

    as a debt with interest payable on it.

    22. So British society as a whole is having to pay interest to self-interested businessmen just to

    use money they have created as the currency of our land and we can never catch up. We have

    to borrow more and more just to pay the interest

     

    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 :)

  9. 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

  10. Yes I am aware of this statement from the information commisoners office and so raised a formal complaint against the ICO for not regulating the act independantly, tis resulted in another formal response that places the duty on the CRA when information is provided to them. Such as court case and also ICO report. Sadly for them this was provided as idnetified in thier own defense thus they have a duty to remove the data and notify the supplier of thier actions lol. I also have a letter from the ICO with that information in it.:-D I also have several MP's ready to jump on the ICO and the matter has recently been raised in Parliment. I love it

     

    Thus the reason Equifax and Lowell were summon'd together. They can fight amongst themselves

     

    Who did you raise a complaint with against the ICO, because thats what I need to do aswell.

  11. 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 principle, the credit reference agencies store information that is sent to them by organisations who subscribe to their services. As such they do not 'own' the data and are unable to amend or remove data without instruction from the comapny who has recorded it.

     

    They are joint data controller with the organisation and therefore need to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information. Because the information is supplied by them by the organisation. we accept Experian are taking reasonable steps by writing to the organisation on the consumer's behalf to ammending or removal of the data then Experian can then carry out any necessary changes. During this process, it is necessary to show that a challenge has been made to the accuracy of the information and by placing a notice of dispute against the particular entry.

     

    The above also refered to the first principle as well as the fourth.

     

    I would'nt be surprised they defend themselves with some sort of correspondence between themselves and the ICO.

     

    They will be a tough nut to crack imo, but good luck.

     

    Cheers Spark1

  12. At last a result: Default Account has been removed.

     

    I'm not sure how this happened, it may have been ordered by the ICO, however I have had no feedback from them. I did send another warning to CRA about their actions a few days ago. Have not heard anything from the DCA at all.

     

    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

  13. IN the past they have always said that only the OC can amend the credit file.

     

    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

  14. 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...