Jump to content

Apathy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. A Credit Reference Agency merely holds data supplied to it by lenders, they do not own the data. They cannot change any data on the request of the data subject, it has to be agreed by the lender. While the dispute is on going the bank's version of the record is accurate. The ICO accepts this and WILL NOT DO ANYTHING to the CRA. Annoying thought this is if you are victim of a mistake, try and imagine what would happen if everyone could tell the CRA data is inaccurate and force a change(my score should be 999 and nothing less). Pending resolution, you can put a notice of dispute (NOD) on your credit file which is your chance to make your case and HAS to be viewed by any lender checking your file.
  2. Thanks for the SOGA prompt. A DTR recorder that deletes your recordings would surely be a strong case. I have exhausted the complaints process (aparantly some young kid on the end of the phone is as high as it goes!) so will write the the chief exec with a case. I haven't any proof beyond my own observations but I am fairly confident in my eductaed guess (like Winston in 1984 with the chocolate ration); I do doubt my summary reflects Comet's whole corporate strategy but the outcome is clear enough: Comet are competitive on price and their aftersales service is a joke. They're entitled to operate this way, my advice is steer clear
  3. Comet may be competively priced nowadays but don't be fooled. In the days when companies maintained some element of respect for their customers as people not walletts, aftersales service was included in the cost of the product. All comet have done is save money by doing away with effective customer services. AS SOON AS THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY, THEY DON'T GIVE A [email protected]#t Callcentres are designed to be incompetent and infuriating so that complaints are "dealt with" but not satisfied. At £20 an hour, who would call Comet. Products they (and others) sell seem to break alamost as soon as the warranty has passed. Comet refuse any liability after this period (if they did, who would buy overpriced insurance?) and find the concept of goodwill alien. In the US, almost all stores would accept goods that have broken shortly after warranty. They also accept vouchers and discount coupons years after expiry dates. Why? Because they respect the customer and want to keep your business. My advice, never ever buy from this company. Saving £20 on a purchase will cost you in the end
  4. 1) They cannot sell financial account details but the information can be used to take you off mailing lists (e.g. HSBC want to offer a loan and check a list of names for CCJs, defaults etc.) More likely they have got your information from the electoral roll which, if you don't opt-out, can be sold for any purpose (so it is used for all kins of merketing). All CRAs buy in the ER 2)No. Your daughter gave permission to the lender to share data with a CRA. They can refuse you services if you refuse to share data 3) A subject access request can, I think, include to whom Experian have passed your personal details. Check with the ICO if you suspect serious foul play
  5. "at the end of the day, this is an unregulated industry which is looked over by the Information Commissioners Office which really does nothing to the big fish" I understand that, in the absence of knowledge, human instinct is to imagine the worst but there really needs to be some common sense applied to CRAs. It doesn’t take much to find out and things would be much better if consumer anger was directed at the appropriate areas. Firstly, they are regulated by the Office of Fair Trading as they are required to hold a Consumer Credit license. There are 3 consumer CRAs in the UK but several hundred companies hold a license to act as a CRA. That the OFT do not question whether the others are CRAs despite knowing there are only 3. I guess this is a resource issue but, never the less, not very comforting. The ICO simply have no enforcement powers they can realistically use. They do respond to complaints and will pick up any issue on which they are receiving numerous correspondences. Let’s be fair here, any loss of data is a big news story as various government department compete for title of most incompetent data controller. Have a CRA ever been reported breaching data security? The business impact of this could be severe and for this reason I trust them more than my bank, government or out of season clothing shop when it comes to personal data. A CRA only holds financial data from all providers in a central location. It is not responsible for the detail within the records as these are created by the lender and simply loaded into a CRA database. The control of this data is self-regulated but, before you scoff at the premise, bear in mind that Barclays do not willingly share their customer financial performance data with HSBC but do so because both parties benefit. To prevent each other stealing customers, rules are determined and enforced by the lenders (e.g. cannot be used for marketing). This is purely for commercial reasons but does also offer reasonable protection to consumers. The point here is that CRAs are not at fault if your data is inaccurate. All Subject Access Requests (SAR) made to any Data Controller can potential incur a cost of around £10. Under the Consumer Credit Act Section 158, there is a provision for CRAs to provide a LIMITED SAR for £2 which is basically your credit file (a full SAR would include your credit file and any other information the CRA holds on you which, unless you have worked for them or dealt directly, is not much). Processing LSARs alone is not a profitable business for Experian which is why, I guess, they are a pain to get a request through and I don’t doubt they deliberately have a policy to put off LSAR applications. If you paid £10 for a SAR, Experian should really have helped you clarify your request resulting in an LSAR and £8 refund. A company their size simply does not suffer consequences by, in the grand scheme, failing to meet minor requirements (such is Capitlaism) when they are busy bribing and degrading the House of Lords, allegedly.
×
×
  • Create New...