CUT It goes without saying, do not email this joker........

I have just sent a message to a mod (as the op) I have asked for this thread to be edited a little and for it to be closed. I think that we have all (including moi) more then aired our views enough and we should give CAG some time, they have all been through the mill lately and I think it is way to easy to forget that they all have regular jobs and look after this site in their spare time. So if I have caused any offence to any mod, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise and thank you all for your hard work. Thank you

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure there is no confusion. I have NOT made any comments be they negative or positive about Caro or pt. For that matter any other mod, admin, site helper of CAG... Secondly, I have NOT requested special treatment for a Cabot only thread. I am asking for sub forums for specific DCA's I want to make the above crystal clear I appreciate your comments in relation to PPI etc as I stated in my post I was referring CHARGES. It was previously stated that the Bank Action Group has more then threads and posts then the Debt Action Group. The point I was making was that a high percentage of those thread and posts relate to CHARGES. I honestly have the upmost respect for you tomterm. I have always found your posts to be both helpful and informative. However, I disagree with your opinion in relation to the decline of the external debt collection business. Using Cabot as an a prime example they have just opened a purpose built brand new head office. Furthermore, Cabot are actually intending to expand into different areas of debt collection. They are considering entering into the utility debt, insurance premium portfollios and medical insurance debt. So I think it is premature to make an assumpation of this nature.

ignore me

In principle doesn't Natwest use the same "tactics" as Barclays in relation to charges. ? I am sorry I just can't accept the argument that all DCA's are the same as a valid argument. The only way trends can be easily identified is for the information to be broken down in similar ways to companies using Management Information.

I agree that the Debt Collection Agency forum has less threads then some forums for individual banks, However, could this be due to the higher empahsis previously placed on the Bank Action Group. The Debt Action group continues to grow and the threads increase in number on a daily basis. Surely, this in itself would suggest that it would be better to organise this forum now, rather in say 12 months time when there are twice as many threads. This is an ideal opportunity for CAG that should not be missed.Isn't it better to be proactive rather then reactive ? The number of people in debt is very unlikely to decrease in the forseeable future. On the contrary, is is reported that more and more people are getting into debt and the amount of debt in the UK is at record levels. Whereas dependant upon the outcome of the court case the days of the Bank Action Group in relation to charges could be numbered. In relation to concerns regarding debts being passed around from one DCA to the next. Yes this does happen and as people will experiance some DCA's are more forcefull then others. Once a person has dealt with one DCA, that thread can be closed as they are dealing with a new DCA. They could include a link to their old thread in their new thread. DCA's do differ, some might use home visits, some might go straight to court, some might provide agreements, some might specialise in statued barred debts. The only way these trends can be identified is for them to be broken up. I am not suggesting for there to be hundreds of sub forums. You could create say 10 or 20 for the main ones (important to remember some are owned by the same company) For Example Equidebt, ECI and Highland Associates are all one in the same, so you would only need one sub forum for all of them

In relation to Cabot (don't know about other DCA's) the sales agreement between the lender and Cabot specifies that the responsibility of reporting of the Default will pass to Cabot following assignment. You need to contact the CRA's quoting the reference of your credit file and detailing the problem. They will contact both companies and finally correct your credit file

My friend received copies of statements for three internal collections accounts for two current accounts and a personal loan account that were closed following default and this was just a couple of week ago EACH SHOWING INTEREST BEING APPLIED

With the up most respect Bookworm couldn't the sameapply to Banks ? A Natwest customer may not check the Barclays forum even though most of the Banks use exactly the same tactics and the process to reclaim charges from Banks is virtually identical. A Barclays customer might ask a question about a N1, that a NatWest customer knows the answer too.. With so many different threads regarding different companies, new threads can easily be missed. For example, if I started a new thread now and within the next couple of hours 30 posts are made within threads of this forum my thread would be lost and no one would even beaware that I asked a question.

I would normally agree, but in the case of Cabot this may be a waste of time. A number of people have made complaints directly to the Trading Standards Officer responsible for Cabot, however on each occassion no action has been taken. Cabot refute the complaint, TS say Cabot make mistakes. Then that is the end of it as far as they are concerned.

Thanks Gizmo, I think that is all people really wanted to know. We do all really appreciate the hard work that the site helpers, mods and admin do. Initially it felt that the appreciation wasn't mutual and I am sorry if a mountain has been made out of a mole hill.

Personally I wouldn't even argue with them. If they do call, confirm that you will not discuss the matter further and that all future correspondance should be in writing. If they call a second time send the the harressment letter. The ball is in their court, it is up to them to prove that there is a debt and that they are entitled to collect that debt.

This is very important and you have to follow my instructions to the letter look around the room, do you see that thing in the corner ?? It may be made or wood or even plastic, it is called a bin. Using both hands scrunch the letter into a nice ball and drop it into the Bin. Until they provide a copy of the agreement they can't do anything, they are just fishing again, in the hope that you will fall for it.. Come on Emma, (I often wonder if she exists) try harder

Does that mean that technically this is the end of discussion and that further debate is pointless ?

Uncle Ken He is the boss of Cabot,

Sorry Rooster, I honestly appreciate what you are saying, but if there were seperate sub forums for DCA's the expectations of the number of sub forums could be realisticly managed. There are currently approximately 36 sub forums within the Bank Action Group. If we refer to the Debt Buyers & Sellers Group we see they have 62 members, which I think should be used to create the DCA's sub forums. Now if you were to refer to their member list, how many of these companies have actually been mentioned on CAG ? (15 - 20 max). In addition the DCA fourm could be initially broken down into two main sub forums, one for internal collections (i.e banks and credit card companies in house collections) and the second for external (i.e DCA's) If we are talking numbers, the number of sub forums required for DCA's would be less the the number currently used for the Bank Action Group.

No offence, but I feel that to say that sub forums would not work isn't really a true assesment of the situation. I know I won't win many friends for this, but I think this could work. Start off small to begin with, with sub forums for just the main DCA's i.e Cabot, Lowell, Wescott etc. For each new sub forum, you could have a limit of a minimum of 50 threads for a particualr DCA before a sub forum will be created. In relation to the concerns regarding debts being passed around different DCA's. In most situations, the debt is actually passed between DCA's that are actually owned by the same company. i.e ECI, Equidebt, Highland Associates (all one in the same) You could have a sub forum for the parent company with a listing underneath with the other names they use. I apprecaite that to start with this would be a total nightmare for Admin and mods, but I am sure, when the Bank Action Group was first established, it wasn't a walk in the park. The same principle applies to Banks as to DCA's, they are not all the same and do things differently. The advice given about one DCA's may not apply to another DCA. This will lead to the incorrect advice being given, which I understand is something that CAG is now trying actively to prevent.

There are currently over 5,000 different threads within the Debt Collection Industry Forum. I feel that it would be more beneficial if there was a sub forum for each DCA. This would make it easier to advice people and prevent crossed wires. DCA's do things in different ways. Given the current financial outlook, DEBT will become increasing important to more and more people. If you think you would benefit from having a sub forum for each DCA (as there used to be for CABOT) please just post the word yes. You help and support is greatly appreciated.

I totally agree with Sarah / Andrew 1 The important of help to people in debt will become more and more important in the coming months. As the credit crunch continues to bite and repossesions etc continue to increase people need to be able to go somewhere for help. Different DCA's do things differently and the same rules do not apply to all of them. Yes there is a serch facility but by having all the DCA's bundled together this could well lead to confusion and the incorrect advice given to members. If anyone would care to read Debt Mountains, Seahorses, etc threads it is clear that a lot of work has been done to educate Cabot and there have been a number of important successes against them. I appreciate given the number of DCA's and the fact that debts get passed around like pass the parcel, but it would be extremely benficial to have a seperate sub forum for each DCA, in the same way there are for Banks. Just my personal view as a member of the CFC

In an attempt to strike while the iron is hot, we have sent this 8 February 2008 Mr Paul Lever Consumer Compliance Manager Directors' Office Regulatory and Consumer Affairs Experian Ltd PO Box 8000 Nottingham NG80 7WF Your Ref: xxxxxx Dear Mr Lever, Thank you for your email of 8 February 2008 and for taking the time to provide me with a response to my concerns. Respectfully, it would appear that you may have misinterpreted some of my concerns. I have previously detailed in great length and provided documented evidence to clearly demonstrate why the information you disclose to third parties is incorrect, I will refrain from repeating myself on this occasion. However, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify this matter in relation to your response. Experian Complaints Process As stated in your email: “Thank you for your e-mails received on 30 January 2008, 5 February 2008 and 8 February 2008. Your correspondence has been brought to my attention in the Directors' Office. I am sorry that your correspondence has not been answered as quickly as you would like but legally we do have 28 days to reply to correspondence of this nature” I was not concerned in relation to a response within 28 days. As stated in your own complaints procedure: Timescales for dealing with your complaint 2 If you send us your complaint in writing, we will write to you within five business days to let you know we have got it. If you tell us about your complaint by phone or in person, we will write to you within five business days of you telling us. In this letter we will confirm the details of your complaint and ask you to write back to us to confirm that these details are correct. For the avoidance of doubt, I initially made a complaint seven working days ago and I have still not received anything in writing to either acknowledge my complaint or confirm the details of my complaint as per your own complaints procedure. Information Commissioners Office – Technical Guidance As you may be aware I am familiar to a certain degree with the content of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, it is clear that your response of 8 February 2008, to my concerns is in direct contradiction of the “Technical Guidance” as published by the Information Commissioners Office in August 2007 (as recently removed from your website). I feel that it may be beneficial for me to quote extracts from the guidance published by your regulator, the Information Commissioner Office. (Page 3) Introduction 1 The aim of this guidance note is to set out our view to credit reference agencies In relation to your references in your email to the Data Protection Act 1998, I would respond by using the words of the Information Commissioner: (Page3) 2 The Data Protection Act 1998, in the data protection principles, sets legally enforceable standards for organisations. The principles require, among other things, that: • personal data is processed fairly and lawfully; • personal data is adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes of processing; • personal data is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; and • personal data processed for any reason is not kept for any longer than is necessary. 3. These principles are closely interrelated. It is difficult to see how a record which is inaccurate could be adequate for the purpose for which it is held. A record which has been kept for longer than is necessary may well be excessive and irrelevant for that purpose and a record which is not up to date is unlikely to be relevant to, or reflect adequately, the current position. The record of a default lodged with a credit reference agency provides a reliable reflection of the individual’s credit standing to other lenders. If a record is unreliable or based on non-standard criteria, it is unlikely to be meaningful to another lender. In these circumstances it would be unfair for a lender to process the data to assess an individual’s credit worthiness. You have stated in your email: “Within Schedule 1, Part II (Interpretation of the Data Protection Principles) of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is explained that, as a credit reference agency, we are not considered to have breached the Act by querying the disputed information and adding a Notice of Dispute statement. However, your regulator has stated: (Page 15) Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly7. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation You have also stated: “Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information with the data provider as taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate.” Sadly it would appear that the content of your response is out of date, your regulator, the Information Commissioners Office now states: (Page 16) Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file. I would like to draw your attention to the use of the word substantiate (it does not say confirm). As I have repeatedly asked, can you please confirm how NatWest have substantiated this information. In summary, considering that I have provided you with Bank Statements and a copy of a letter from NatWest which confirm that the information you disclose to third parties is fundamentally incorrect, I am unable to accept that you have taken ‘reasonable steps’. How can it be described as reasonable to totally ignore and disregard documented evidence originally supplied by the lender? May I respectfully ask you to answer the following questions in their entirety 1)What evidence (if any) did NatWest provide to substantiate the disputed data 2)Is that evidence in anyway contradictory to the evidence, I have provided 3)How can it be described as taking “reasonable steps “ to totally ignore and disregard documented evidence originally supplied by the lender 4)Does Experian follow the Information Commissioners Guidance Thank you for your time and assistance in relation to this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to my original complaint and this email in the near future. Regards

It would appear that the message sent by Mr Lever was sent before the Director of Consumer Affairs had actually read my email. I think it was sent for "bottom covering" purposes... My friend has just forwarded a copy of the read receipt and a response Your message To: Stevens, Jill Cc: [email protected]; creditexpert.co.uk Customer Service Subject: Official Complaint Sent: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:36:11 -0000 was read on Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:44:51 -0000 From: Stevens, Jill [mailto:xxxxxxx] Sent: 08 February 2008 16:50 To: xxxxxxxxxx Cc: [email protected]; Armstrong, creditexpert.co.uk Customer Service Subject: RE: Official Complaint Dear xxxxxx I am very sorry you have not received the service you expected from our Consumer Help Service and that your queries have not been answered. I am forwarding your e-mail to our Directors' Office where one of my colleagues will look at the issues you raise as a matter of urgency and will contact you as soon as possible next week. I am glad you contacted me direct, as it is important that I know how consumers feel about the customer service they are receiving from us. I am confident that all your concerns will now be addressed and any action necessary will be taken as fast as possible. However, if this does not happen or you feel I can help in any other way, please let me know. Yours sincerely, Jill Stevens Jill Stevens Director of Consumer Affairs

How about this for a quick reply... I emailed the Director of Consumer Affairs at 1:41pm My friend has just forwarded me this email he received at 15:12 Anyone have any ideas ???? Our Ref: xxxxxxxx 8 February 2008 Dear xxxxx Thank you for your e-mails received on 30 January 2008, 5 February 2008 and 8 February 2008. Your correspondence has been brought to my attention in the Directors' Office. I am sorry that your correspondence has not been answered as quickly as you would like but legally we do have 28 days to reply to correspondence of this nature. I can inform you that the Data Protection Act 1998 stipulates that we have an obligation to ensure that we take 'reasonable steps' to maintain information on our database that is accurate and up to date. All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract that require them to make sure that all the data they submit is accurate prior to providing it to us. Our regulator, the Information Commissioner, considers that this is having taken 'reasonable steps'. We also have over 200 generic checks in place to check the overall consistency of the data that we receive and a specialist department dedicated to running these necessary checks before loading the data to our records. This is because it is not possible for us to individually check each item of the data. This would involve going back to the company and asking them to check information that, as far as we are concerned, they have already confirmed to be accurate by sending that data to us. I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you in full the processes we have in place when an individual queries the accuracy of an entry recorded on their credit report. If any specific issues are brought to our attention we will query the accuracy of the specific entry being disputed with the company concerned and add a Notice of Dispute alongside the information being queried. We took this action in relation to the three defaulted accounts recorded on your report by Nat West. As you are aware, under Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you have the right to query information on your credit report that you believe to be inaccurate, once you have received a copy of your report. You may wish to refer to the relevant legislation below that outlines the process we adhere to when dealing with disputed information. CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 159 Correction of wrong information (1) Any individual (the "objector") given- (a) information under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by a credit reference agency, or (b) information under section 158, who considers that an entry in his file is incorrect, and that if it is not corrected he is likely to be prejudiced, may give notice to the agency requiring it either to remove the entry from the file or amend it. (2) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (1), the agency shall by notice inform the objector that it has- (a) removed the entry from the file, or (b) amended the entry, or © taken no action, and if the notice states that the agency has amended the entry it shall include a copy of the file so far as it comprises the amended entry. I would also like to draw your attention to the fourth Data Protection Principle, which states that: Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. Within Schedule 1, Part II (Interpretation of the Data Protection Principles) of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is explained that, as a credit reference agency, we are not considered to have breached the Act by querying the disputed information and adding a Notice of Dispute statement. 7. The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where- (a) having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and (b) if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject's view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact. Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information with the data provider as taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate. Therefore, we were choosing to take no action with regards to your initial request to remove this information from your report. Should you wish to verify this you can contact our regulator at the following address: The Information Commissioner's Office: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF In view of this, I am of the opinion that we have acted correctly throughout this matter and in accordance with the relevant legislation. I would also remind you that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, each lender that supplies us with information is obligated to ensure that the data is accurate and kept up to date. I hope this explains why we cannot act unilaterally to remove data from your report, especially when the company concerned has confirmed it to be accurate. As we also have a responsibility to enable lenders to make informed lending decisions, I am sure that you can appreciate why we cannot amend information simply because the individual concerned claims that the data is incorrect. If we operated in this way, any individual could claim that all the adverse information on their report was inaccurate purely as a means of improving their credit report. This would put our clients at risk by enabling people to potentially obtain finance that otherwise would not be offered to them. Because of this, if a consumer disputes information on their report we query this with the data provider, as we have in your case. The only instances where we would remove information without direct authorisation from the data provider is if a Court Order is provided that specifically states that an entry should be deleted or a ruling is made from a recognised regulatory body. We do not amend or delete information based on documentation provided to us, as any disputed data is always referred to the supplying company form them to confirm whether or not the details recorded are accurate. This constitutes us substantiating whether the information on a credit report is accurate. Our e-mail to you on 29 January 2008 outlined exactly what Nat West confirmed to us in their reply to the query we raised on your behalf. I hope that this helps to explain the processes we have in place for dealing with disputes between consumers and lenders and that the action we have taken was done so in accordance with the relevant legislation. I note that you are considering taking legal action including Experian and I would strongly recommend that you seek independent legal advice before doing so. We have received several similar court claims and have been successful in having these struck out, as the cases were deemed to have no legal merit with regards to a claim against Experian. This is because, in each case, we have been able to demonstrate that we have complied with the relevant legislation at all times. Consequently, the claimant has been left to pursue their claim directly against the company with whom they have a dispute regarding the data recorded on their credit report. I therefore recommend that you review your legal position prior to proceeding with your claim. You may wish to consult with the Information Commissioner's Office in order to obtain an unbiased opinion. If you have any further queries please contact me directly either by e-mail at xxxxx or by telephone on xxxxxx. Alternatively, you can write to me at the following address: Directors' Office, Regulatory and Consumer Affairs, Experian Ltd, PO Box 8000, Nottingham, NG80 7WF Kind regards Paul Lever Consumer Compliance Manager Directors' Office

I have just emailed this response directly to Ms Jill Stevens Director of Consumer Affairs and to the Information Commisioners Office 8 February 2008 Ms Jill Stevens Director of Consumer Affairs Experian PO Box 9000 Nottingham NG80 7WP Official Complaint Credit File Reference: xxxxxx Your Reference: xxxxx Dear Ms Stevens, Please accept my sincere apologies for contacting you directly. However, I am sure you will share my dismay and disappointment with the service I have received from Experian Client Queries. I have today received a response from Ms Nicola Armstrong, Client Queries Administrator, sent in response to my email of 30 January 2008 (copy attached to this email). Once you have read my previous email, you will note that I spent a great deal of time and effort detailing how the information held by Experian is incorrect. I have provided documented evidence to show that the information held by Experian is incorrect. I also made several references to the Information Commissioners Office Data Protection Technical Guidance - Filing defaults with credit reference agencies. Despite sending a four page email, detailing the incorrect information you hold, providing documented evidence and asking the following specific questions: 1)What evidence did NatWest provide to substantiate the disputed data 2)Is that evidence contradictory to the evidence, I have provided 3)Does Experian following to the Information Commissioners Guidance 4)Under what legal basis, did you make the following statement: “Unfortunately I am unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the company in question.” 5)Will Experian continue to ignore the Data Protection Act, the Consumer Credit Act and the Information Commissioners Guidance and refuse to suppress the disputed data. I have today received a standard prewritten template response. Within this response Experian did not respond to any of the concerns I raised and did not attempt to answer any of the above questions. As the Director of Consumer Affairs do you feel that this level of service is acceptable? Once you have read my email of 30 January 2008, in its entirety and reviewed the documented evidence I have provided, can you please respond to the concerns I have raised and answer the above questions. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that I contacted your complaints department via email, directly on 30 January 2008 and 5 February 2008. I have not even had the courtesy of any form of acknowledgment from them. As a result, I have raised a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office. Thank you for your time and assistance in regard to this matter. Regards Mr xxxxx

This is the response he recevied today.... "Further to our recent correspondence, I have been contacted by National Westminster Bank PLC (C7, C8 and C9). They have confirmed that the details we hold are accurate and have requested that we retain the information on our database. Unfortunately I am unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the company in question. If you have any further queries or wish to discuss this further, may I suggest your contact the company direct at the following address" NatWest blah blah blah Then just the usual bit about the the Notice of Dispute. So they have totally ignored all the evidence I sent them and did not answer any of my questions. As some will know this is just a standard template letter response. It may not be my credit file, but I am absolutely fuming. Their response is totally inadequate. I have already made a complaint to the ICO (won't hold my breath). Time has now come to step this up a gear.......

Quick update, my friend has today received a standard holding letter from NatWest to say they are looking into the concerns he has raised blah blah (I look forward to the 10 day holding letter) To keep the pressure up on Experian I sent them this email Without Prejudice 5 February 2008 Complaints Department CreditExpert PO BOX 7710 Nottingham NG80 7WE Dear Sir / Madam Letter Before Action Further to the below email sent on 30 January 2008, I am disappointed that I have not had any response. The evidence I have provided clearly demonstrates that the information on my credit file is incorrect. Can you please confirm 1) What action you are taking in relation to my email of 30 January 2008 2) What evidence did NatWest provide within the 28 day period to substantiate the information on my credit file. If I do not receive a response from your complaints department or from Mr Steve Macdonald within the next five days I will instigate litigation without further notification. Please note, I have already made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to your inability to follow their guidance. Regards Mr xxxx c.c Information Commissioner’s Office