Helping a friend with NatWest defaults on his credit file

[tbern123]

***This Thread is posted on another site***

 

I have decided to post it here, as I need as much help and assistance as possible.

 

Thanks Guys

 

 

 

A friend of mine has asked me to help him remove three defaults registered on his credit file by NatWest.

 

These are the defaults:

 

1)

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £x

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

2)

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £xxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

3)

 

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Loan

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £x,xxx

Current Balance: £x,xxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

Ok my first thoughts....

 

Each default shares the following information

 

Started: 28/08/2002

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

So they are saying that each account was opened on 28 August 2002, each account was defaulted on 1 February 2003 and that they have not updated these entries since 11 July 2004..

 

Two of the defaults, relate to overdrawn current account balances. Together these total just over £300.00. In 2006, I successfully helped him reclaim £2,000 in charges, which is inexcess of the two default amounts.

 

He has shown me statements for one of the accounts, which shows it was actually opened in 1996 (not 2002) and was closed on 29 August 2002 by Natwest (default registered 7 months later and day after default states account opened ??)

 

He has previously contact NatWest and Experian and they have both refused to remove or correct these records. He is a good friend of mine, so I have decided to try and help him out.

[tbern123]

To start the ball rolling, I will be sending this to NatWest tomorrow. I would appreciate any comments and / or suggestions.

 

10 January 2008

 

NATWEST

RECOVERY SUPPORT

INSOLVENCY AND DEBT RECOVERY DEPARTMENT

CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

KENDAL COURT

IRONMASTERS WAY

TELFORD

TF3 4DT

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

Re: xxxxxxxxx – xx-xx-xx

 

Please accept this letter as confirmation that unless this matter can be satisfactorily resolved, I intend to instigate litigation against NatWest in relation to adverse information that has been disclosed to Credit Reference Agencies, by NatWest.

 

Details

 

As your records will confirm and as detailed below NatWest has recorded three default entries on my credit file.

 

1)

 

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £x

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

 

2)

 

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £xxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

 

 

3)

 

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Loan

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxxx

Current Balance: £xxxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I did not open any accounts with NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland or any of their subsidiaries in 2002. I would ask you to provide me with copies of the account opening records, for each of these accounts to show that I did in fact open each of these accounts as recorded by you on 28 August 2002. Surely, your own comprehensive records will confirm that I did not open any accounts 2002.

 

These records also state that each account was defaulted on 1 February 2003. I would also respectfully ask that you provide evidence that each account was actually defaulted on 1 February 2003. I can confirm that I did not receive any default notices, sent by or on behalf of NatWest.

 

I have reviewed my records and I can confirm that account xxxxxxxx – xx-xx-xx was closed on 29 August 2002. The account was closed following a transfer of £228.00 being credited to the account on 28 August 2002. If required, I can provide you with a copy of the relevant statement.

 

I can confirm that this account was opened in 1996 and that the closing outstanding balance consisted of charges applied to this account. Your records will confirm that following an investigation by the Financial Ombudsman Service, I reached an agreement with NatWest in 2006, which resulted in a payment being made to me in relation to these charges in full and final settlement.

 

Taking into consideration the above information, it is evident that the information you original supplied to Credit Reference Agencies was initially incorrect and you also failed to subsequently update this information following our agreement in relation to the refund of charges applied to my accounts.

 

Both of which, your legal department will confirm are breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 and contrary to the Data Protection Technical Guidance – Filing Defaults with Credit Reference Agencies, issued by the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Data Protection Technical Guidance – Filing Defaults with Credit Reference Agencies

 

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 accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date;

 

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 lenders1. 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.

 

• Each account opening date is incorrect i.e. 28 August 2002.

• Each account default date is incorrect i.e. 1 February 2003.

• Information not updated for over 3 years i.e. last updated 11 July 2004.

• Defaults do not reflect refund of charges

 

 

The Date of Default

 

31. The date of default recorded on the file should be the date on which a decision to file a default becomes effective according to the criteria discussed in paragraphs 9 to 16.

 

10. Indicators of a default• The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.

• The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided

 

15. Current accounts

The lender has closed the account (or would have done so if extenuating social considerations had not dictated otherwise) because the customer has failed to use it according to the original terms and conditions.

 

• Date of Default incorrect - Statement shows account closed by lender 29 August 2002

• Date of Default incorrect – Statement shows account referred to in-house collection department on

28 August 2002

• Credit File Default states 1 February 2003

 

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

 

39. Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default.

 

• Based on the guidance issued by the Information Commissioners Office, the date of default should have been 28 August 2002 and not 1 February 2003 (an unexplained difference of seven months).

• Account 57285780 50-21-01 – Opened in July / August 1996, not 28 August 2002.

 

The Data Protection Act 1998

 

In addition to the numerous breaches of the Information Commissioners Guidance, NatWest are also in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998

 

SCHEDULE 1

THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

PART I

THE PRINCIPLES

 

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

The information that you have disclosed to the Credit Reference Agencies, is neither accurate (start and default date) or kept up to date (last updated July 2004).

 

Required Resolution

 

Taking into consideration the serious breaches of both the Information Commissioners Guidance and more importantly the Data Protection Act, I respectfully ask that you remove these entries from my credit file. Failure to remove these entries within 21 days will result in the instigation of litigation, without further notice. As part of my claim, I will seek damages. I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to:

 

Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996]

 

‘Held - A person who was not a trader could recover substantial rather than nominal damages in contract for loss of credit or business reputation’

 

‘The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a presumption of fact.’

 

‘Generally

 

The above conclusions mean that I would dismiss both the appeal and the cross-appeal, and would uphold the master's award of general damages of £5,550. He said that it was 'somewhat coincidental' that this was £1,000 more than the amount of the cheque, although I think he meant by this that the appropriate sum by way of general damages could be calculated in that way in the circumstances of this case. This amount, as he explained, contained some allowance, though not very great, for injury to the plaintiff's credit and reputation’

 

As you will appreciate, I am taking this matter very seriously and fully intend to start legal proceedings against NatWest, if you fail to comply with my request for these defaults that were incorrectly disclosed to Credit Reference Agencies nearly five years ago are not removed.

[tbern123]

Response from Natwest:

 

From: ~ NatWest CRU [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 14 January 2008 13:21

To: xxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: Letter Before Action -

 

Dear xxxxxx

 

Thank you for your recent email.

 

I am sorry to learn of the problems you have experienced.

 

I have sent your correspondence on to Credit Management Services. I have asked them to look into this matter and respond to you within 14 working days.

 

We hope you will understand that we do not normally send our full response by e-mail, as it may include confidential information that could be read by other people. Instead, we will write to you as soon as we have completed our investigations.

 

 

Stephen Dix

Customer Relations

[email protected]

[tbern123]

My friend has also contacted experian a couple of weeks ago, I am going to take over contact with them as well now...

 

-----Original Message-----

From: CreditExpert [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 03 January 2008 14:29

To: xxxxxxx

Subject: xxxxxx

 

Our Ref: xxxxxxxx

 

3 January 2008

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx

 

Thank you for your query received on 31 December 2007.

 

In view of your comments about National Westminster (C7, C8 and C9), I am writing to them for you. This is because I cannot amend your report without their consent. I will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.

 

While I investigate your comments, I am adding the following statement to the entries you have queried.

 

"THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED."

 

Your report will change in the next seven days. Please use this letter if you need proof in the meantime.

 

I am telling all the companies that have searched your credit report in the last six months of the change to your information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr Steve A Mcdonald

Consumer Service Officer

CreditExpert

[tbern123]

As per the ICO guidance, I understand that Natwest have 28 days to PROVE to experian that each default is correct and if they don't the data must be suppressed.

 

"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."

 

Oxford Dictionary

sub•stan•ti•ate /sbstniet/ verb [vn] (formal)

to provide information or evidence to prove that sth is true:

 

So we will have to wait until 31 January and see what happens

[tbern123]

We have heard nothing from either Experian or Natwest. Experian have six more days to respond, so this has been sent today (previously posted but includes additional information)

 

Without Prejudice

 

Mr Steve Mcdonald

CreditExpert

PO BOX 7710

Nottingham

NG80 7WE

 

Letter Before Action

 

Credit File Ref: xxxxx

Your Ref: xxxxxxx

 

Dear Mr Mcdonald

 

Thank you for your email of 3 January 2008 and for taking the time to contact NatWest on my behalf in relation to the disputed information on my credit file. I am disappointed that following my initial correspondence on 31 December 2007, I have still not had a full response to my concerns. For ease of reference I have included a number of links within this email, to the relevant guidance and legislation.

 

Unfortunately, the content of your email does not fulfil your obligations as defined by the Information Commissioners Office, as detailed in “Data Protection Technical Guidance - Filing defaults with credit reference agencies”. Please note I obtained this document from your own website Credit Reports: Get your Credit Report from Experian UK. This document clearly outlines your obligations as a Credit Reference Agency:

 

Page 15 - 16 Accuracy of a lender’s default records

“41. 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 accordingly. 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. 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.”

 

Taking into consideration the clarity of the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office and further to your email of 3 January 2008, NatWest have until 29 January to substantiate the disputed information. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the meaning of substantiate:

 

Definition

 

Substantiate verb [T] FORMAL

to show something to be true, or to support a claim with facts:

 

“We have evidence to substantiate the allegations against him.”.

Source: Cambridge Dictionary.

 

Unless NatWest have provided you with documented evidence i.e. copies of statements, copies of Default Notice’s and copies of any agreements(their verbal or written confirmation, would be insufficient to substantiate the disputed information) to establish the validity of the disputed information you are obligated to suppress this information from my file.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I am able to substantiate that all of my accounts with NatWest, were actually closed and not opened as indicated by my credit file in August 2002. If required, I can provide you with copies of the following statements as evidence.

 

Open Date[/b ]Account Number Sortcode Statement Closure Date

July 1996 xxxxxxxx 50-21-01 163 August 2002

Pre-December 1999 xxxxxxxx 50-21-01 101 August 2002

25 January 2001 xxxxxxxx 50-21-01 4 August 2002

25 January 2001 xxxxxxx 50-21-01 5 August 2002

1998/1999 xxxxxxxx 50-21-01 22 August 2002

(sorry can't get the above to line up correctly on here)

 

As I am sure you will not dispute the Information Commissioners Office, within their guidance confirms that a Credit Reference Agency does not need the permission or the authority of the Lender, to suppress unsubstantiated disputed information. The ability of Credit Reference Agencies to suppress information without the permission or the authority of the Lender is also confirmed in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended in 2003:

 

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

 

The Data Protection Act 1998, also confirms that Credit Reference Agencies are Data Controllers and as a Data Controller, you are permitted to suppress this data.

 

PART I

PRELIMINARY

 

1 Basic interpretative provisions

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

“data controller” means, subject to subsection (4), a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed;

 

PART II

RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS

 

9. Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency

(1) Where the data controller is a credit reference agency, section 7 has effect subject to the provisions of this section.

 

Taking into consideration the content of the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998, I trust that you will not write to me to tell me that you are unable to suppress this information without instruction from the owner of the information (the Lender), as was previously stated in your email of 3 January 2008:

 

“I am writing to them for you. This is because I cannot amend your report without their consent. I will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.”

 

The above statement is contradictory to the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office and is factually incorrect. I also trust that you will not suggest I refer my concerns to the Information Commissioners Office, as their guidance is crystal clear in relation to your obligations.

 

Unless you fulfil your obligations as detailed within the Information Commissioners Office Guidance within the next six days, I will have no other option other than to commence legal proceedings against Experian. I will also make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Regards

[tbern123]

Ok my friend has just left as he has received a letter from NatWest today. (I'll come back to that in a sec)

 

I initially emailed Experian on 31 December 2007. Allowing for the Bank Holiday (1st January 2008), it has now been 28 days as of today. Except for an email to confirm receipt of my original email and a second email to confirm that they are contacting NatWest, he has recieved no other correspondance from Experian. So I will be writing to them later

 

Anyway, bank to the letter from NatWest.....

 

Second Paragraph states:

 

"By way of background banking facilities were withdrawn and control of the accounts transferred to this Office for collection of the debt on 28 August 2002. In October 2002 new account numbers were allocated and the overdrawn balances transferred from the old to the new accounts. I enclose statements on all three debts from 2001, which in varying formats in view of the changes in the Bank's computer systems."

 

• Each statement clearly shows that each account was closed on 29 August 2002
  
• What happend between August 2002 and October 2002 ?

This is the important part. Each statement states that the accounts were closed and transferred to IDRD. I presume the RD is recoveries department, can't remember the ID part (Nattie can you refresh my memory)

 

According to the Information Commissioners Office:

 

"The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when “the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down”

 

Indicators of a default

 

• The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.
  
• The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided (or would do so if they were not prevented on social rather than commercial grounds or by other regulations, codes of practice or statute).

Taking into account the findings of the ICO each Default should have been recorded in August 2002.

 

NatWest continue on to say:

 

"In conclusion the debt remains outstanding and the Default Notices at teh Credit Reference Agencies (CRA) will remain in place until the debt has been repaid."

 

No mention of why the date of default is incorrect

No mention of why open date of each account is incorrect

 

In fact they did not answer any of my questions but they did kindly provide confirmation that each account was closed and not opened in 2002.

 

It would appear that the default information recorded relates to the accounts opened when it was transferred to their collections department. Not the actual accounts my friend opened.

 

I used to use a site that used to check sort codes, does anyone have a link. I need to make sure that the sort codes that have provided relate to their collections department.

 

So I am going to email Experian later as their 28 days are up. Does anyone have any email addresses for managers, directors, CEO, Chairman etc ???

 

I am also going to CCA NatWest and ask them to explain the incorrect information.

[tbern123]

Ok.. I have read through all the statements and the letter he gave me.

 

The sortcode is 60-50-51 & 60-50-56

 

Checked with:

http://www.postcodeanywhere.co.uk/de...validator.aspx

 

These belongs to

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC

Cms Retail Rec-Telford M1

 

This is their collections department.

 

Matching up the information on his credit file with the information from NatWest, no default information relating to the the original three accounts that he opened was registered with the CRA (or at least showing now)

 

The three defaults relate to the accounts opened by the Natwest Collection department following their closure of his accounts.

 

As these were brand new accounts, that he did not ask to be opened, does anyone know if NatWest can supply CRA's with information relating to these accounts ?

[tbern123]

We sent this to Experian earlier today.

 

29 January 2008

Complaints Department

CreditExpert

PO BOX 7710

Nottingham

NG80 7WE

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Further to the below email of 23 January 2008, sent in response to the concerns, I initially raised on 31 December 2007. Allowing for the New Year, Bank Holiday the 28 day time scale you are permitted by law has expired today. I regret, I have not received a response from Experian in relation to my concerns, which I interpret to mean that you may still be waiting for NatWest to substantiate the information on my Credit File.

 

However, as 28 days have now passed and as confirmed by the Information Commissioners Office,

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...3%20%20doc.pdf

 

“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 respectfully request that this information is suppressed from my file immediately. Can you please confirm your agreement to fulfil my request via email.

 

Regards

 

Mr xxxxxx

 

Attached: Copy of ICO Technical Guidance relating to Credit Reference Agencies and Defaults

[tbern123]

My friend has just sent me this... He received it by email about 20 Mins ago

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on 29 January 2008.

 

Further to our recent correspondence, I have been contacted by Natwest. 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 you contact the company concerned direct at the following address:

 

NatWest: RBS, Tay House, 5th Floor, Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4RS

 

Natwest advised on their reply that for entry C7:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx 00 xxxxxxxx and was opened on 26/07/1996 as a current account and then changed to a Current Plus account on 30/04/01. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

For entry C8 they stated:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx and was opened on 15/12/1998. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

And for entry C9 they stated:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx and was opened in May 2001. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

The 'Notice of Dispute' will remain on your report for 28 days it will then be removed, unless I receive further notification from you:

 

"THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED".

 

You may be aware that you are able to add a short explanatory statement, called a 'Notice of Correction', to your credit report. If you wish to add such a statement, anyone searching your details in the future, as well as companies who have searched the report in the past six months, will see a copy of it and it may have an effect on any future applications you make.

 

If you would like to add a 'Notice of Correction' to your credit report, please let us know the exact wording you would like to use. We cannot add a statement that is longer than 200 words or one we think is defamatory, frivolous, scandalous or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

 

Kind regards

 

Mr Steve A Mcdonald

Consumer Service Officer

CreditExpert

[tbern123]

My initial thoughts.....

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbern123

1)

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £x

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

2)

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Current Account

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £xxx

Current Balance: £xxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

3)

 

Company name: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK

Account type: Loan

Started: 28/08/2002

Default Balance: £x,xxx

Current Balance: £x,xxx

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

File updated for period to: 11/07/2004

 

Credit File says

Start Date: 28 August 2002

Default Date: 11 July 2004

 

Now NatWest have told Experian

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbern123

Natwest advised on their reply that for entry C7:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx 00 xxxxxxxx and was opened on 26/07/1996 as a current account and then changed to a Current Plus account on 30/04/01. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

For entry C8 they stated:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx and was opened on 15/12/1998. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

And for entry C9 they stated:

 

"The account number was originally xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx and was opened in May 2001. Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxxxx account numbers were changed. The default is correct and will not be removed."

 

In summary

Account A was opened 26 July 1996 NOT 28 AUGUST 2002

Account B was opened 15 December 1998 NOT 28 AUGUST 2002

Account C was opened May 2001 NOT 28 AUGUST 2002

 

In relation to each default NaWest have said:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbern123

Due to a system upgrade in 2002, Mr xxxxxx account numbers were changed.

 

Admittedly following the takeover of NatWest by RBOS, NatWest systems were changed (I think in 2002). However, as confirmed by the Statements and Screen Prints that NatWest sent, all of these accounts were CLOSED and TRANSFERED to IDRD on 29 August 2002.

 

The new account details, are for accounts held at their collections department and not the branch at which they were originally opened. As the home branch" has been changed, I would presume that these are totally new accounts.

 

The default information only relates to these new accounts..

 

So what should I do next ???

[tbern123]

This was my favourite quote:

 

Experian said in their email today:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbern123

Unfortunately I am unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the company in question.

 

This was after I said:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbern123

As I am sure you will not dispute the Information Commissioners Office, within their guidance confirms that a Credit Reference Agency does not need the permission or the authority of the Lender, to suppress unsubstantiated disputed information. The ability of Credit Reference Agencies to suppress information without the permission or the authority of the Lender is also confirmed in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended in 2003:

 

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

 

The Data Protection Act 1998, also confirms that Credit Reference Agencies are Data Controllers and as a Data Controller, you are permitted to suppress this data.

 

PART I

PRELIMINARY

 

1 Basic interpretative provisions

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

“data controller” means, subject to subsection (4), a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed;

 

PART II

RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS

 

9. Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency

(1) Where the data controller is a credit reference agency, section 7 has effect subject to the provisions of this section.

 

Taking into consideration the content of the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998, I trust that you will not write to me to tell me that you are unable to suppress this information without instruction from the owner of the information (the Lender), as was previously stated in your email of 3 January 2008:

“I am writing to them for you. This is because I cannot amend your report without their consent. I will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.”

 

The above statement is contradictory to the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office and is factually incorrect. I also trust that you will not suggest I refer my concerns to the Information Commissioners Office, as their guidance is crystal clear in relation to your obligations

[tbern123]

ok, I have had a few hours to consider how we should respond to the email sent to my friend.

 

Here is what I am thinking of sending, apologies in advance for the length (also have to say sorry for that) and any formatting (this was written on Word 2007

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Mcdonald,

 

Thank you for your response to my concerns that was received via email on 29 January 2008. As I am sure you will fully appreciate your response does not resolve my concerns or fulfil Experian’s obligations. To avoid any confusion, I feel that is may be beneficial for me to break down my concerns on an individual basis.

 

Topic Page

Concerns in Relation to Credit File 2

1.Start Date 2

2.Current Balance 2

3.Default Date 3

4.File Updated For Period To 4

Summary of Concerns in Relation to Credit File 4

 

Your Response of 29 January 2008 5

Consumer Credit Act 1974 5

Data Protection Act 1998 6

 

Information Commissioners Office Data Protection Technical Guidance 6

 

Resolution 7

Questions 7

 

Sources of Information 7

 

 

(In word the above is a table of contents)

 

 

Concerns in Relation to Credit File

 

1. Start Date

 

Credit File:

C7 Started: 28/08/2002

Your Response:

"The account number was opened on 26/07/1996.”

 

Credit File:

C8 Started: 28/08/2002

Your Response:

"The account number was opened on 15/12/1998.”

 

Credit File:

C9 Started: 28/08/2002

Your Response:

"The account number was opened in May 2001.”

 

As detailed above and confirmed in your email of 29 January 2008, the start date for each entry is incorrect. In the worst case, the start date on my credit file is over six years after the account was actually opened.

 

2. Current Balance

 

As you are aware, my credit file states:

 

C7

Current Balance £3

 

C8

Current Balance £113.00

 

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the letter attached to this email (NatWest One). In her letter of 25 January 2008, Miss J Owen, Manager, Customer Care Team states:

 

“I note that during 2006 you made a claim to the Bank Customer Relations Unit for a refund of charges. As a goodwill gesture they offered you a refund of £2,017.38 and following acceptance of this sum, you were sent a cheque on 15 December 2006”

 

However, Miss Owen has unfortunately forgotten to mention that the above mentioned refund was offered and accepted in full and final settlement. Following the acceptance of their offer, the current balance of C7 and C8 should have both been reduced to £0.

 

On 2 August 2007, the Information Commissioners Office published Data Protection Technical Guidance Filing defaults with credit reference agencies (please note has this document has recently been removed from your website, this link directs you to the Information Commissioners Office website). I have taken the liberty of attaching a copy of this document to this email.

 

 

 

 

 

Please refer to page thirteen of this guidance:

 

Recording the amount of default

 

29. Original amount and current balance

 

Default records should show the original amount of the default as a snapshot in time and should reflect subsequent payments by showing the current balance of arrears. A common cause of disputes relates to the accuracy of the current balance. The current balance should be filed both by those who file monthly account information and those who file only defaults. It should be updated regularly.

 

3. Default Date

 

C7 Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

As per the attached copy statement (ONE), this particular account was closed on 29 August 2002

 

C8 Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

As per the attached copy statement (TWO), this particular account was closed on 29 August 2002

 

C9 Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

As per the attached copy statement (THREE), this particular account was closed on 29 August 2002

 

As confirmed by Miss Owen in her letter of 25 January 2008:

 

“By way of background your banking facilities were withdrawn and control of the accounts transferred to this Office for collection of the debt on 28 August 2002.”

 

Please refer to page five of the Information Commissioners Office guidance:

 

The definition of a default

 

“The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when “the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down”

 

10 Indicators of a default

 

1. The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.

2. The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided

 

If we were to relate this guidance to both the attached statements and letter:

 

1. Statements show accounts referred to internal debt collection department on 28 August 2002

2. As confirmed by Miss Owen, my banking facilities were withdrawn on 28 August 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Page Eight)

15 Current accounts

 

Breakdowns on current accounts will happen in relation to overdraft facilities. We recognise this is a complex area because of the range of factors affecting the relationship with the customer, and the indicators in paragraph 10 above are of limited relevance.

 

On these accounts the following are indications of a breakdown.

 

• The lender has closed the account

 

(Page Thirteen)

The date of default

 

31. The date of default recorded on the file should be the date on which a decision to file a default becomes effective according to the criteria discussed in paragraphs 9 to 16.

 

Considering the guidance of the Information Commissioners Office, each account should be recorded as defaulted on 28 August 2002 and not 1 February 2003 (a difference of more than five months).

 

4. File Updated For Period To

 

C7, C8 and C9 were last updated on 11 July 2004.

 

Please refer to page thirteen of the Information Commissioners guidance

 

Recording the amount of default

 

29 Original amount and current balance

 

The current balance should be filed both by those who file monthly account information and those who file only defaults. It should be updated regularly.

 

Considering that this data has not been update for more than three years, it could not be described as being updated regularly.

 

Summary of Concerns in Relation to Credit File

 

I have four areas of concern in relation to the data that Experian retain about me and disclose to 3rd parties.

 

 

1. Start Date

Worse case, information is incorrect by over six years

2. Current Balance

Does not taken into consideration of refund

3. Default Date

Recorded five months after default

4. File Updated For Period To

File not updated since July 2004

 

Sadly I have been able to identify four areas (containing a total of eleven separate incidents) of concern. As a “Data Subject”, I have brought these concerns to your attention as the “Data Controller” as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Your Response of 29 January 2008

 

In your email of 29 January 2008, you state:

 

“Further to our recent correspondence, I have been contacted by NatWest. They have confirmed that the details we hold are accurate and have requested that we retain the information on our database.”

 

As stated in my email of 23 January 2008, the Information Commissioners Office has stated within their guidance;

 

(Page Fifteen and Sixteen)

 

“Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days”

 

In light of the number of discrepancies I have brought to your attention, can you please detail what evidence NatWest provided to substantiate the disputed information within the permitted time scale of 28 days.

 

You also state:

 

“Unfortunately I am unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the company in question.”

 

Can you please clarify on what basis and legal interpretation that this statement is made, as the Information Commissioners Office, within their guidance confirms that a Credit Reference Agency does not need the permission or the authority of the Lender, to suppress unsubstantiated disputed information.

 

(Page Fifteen and Sixteen of guidance)

 

“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”

 

The ability of Credit Reference Agencies to suppress information without the permission or the authority of the Lender is also confirmed in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended in 2003:

 

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

 

 

 

The Data Protection Act 1998 also confirms that Credit Reference Agencies are Data Controllers and as a Data Controller, you are permitted to suppress this data.

 

PART I

PRELIMINARY

 

1 Basic interpretative provisions

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

“data controller” means, subject to subsection (4), a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed;

 

PART II

RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS

 

9. Application of section 7 where data controller is credit reference agency

(1) Where the data controller is a credit reference agency, section 7 has effect subject to the provisions of this section.

 

Data Protection Technical Guidance - Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

As you have previously indicated that you will not suppress this data from my credit file, I would recommend that you read the following extract from the Data Protect Technical Guidance, published by the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Introduction

 

“The aim of this guidance note is to set out our view to credit reference agencies and their clients on the data quality standards which should be met when filing information with credit reference agencies about defaults. 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.

 

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 lenders1. 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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution

 

Questions

 

Please answer the following questions in their entirety

 

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 would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and assistance in regard to this matter and I look forward to receiving your response in due course.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Mr xxxx

 

Sources of Information

 

 Information Commissioners Office

 Data Protection Technical Guidance Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

(copy attached to email)

 

 Legislation

 Data Protection Act 1998

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998..._19980029_en_1

 Consumer Credit Act 1974

Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 Correspondence

 NatWest – Letter of 25 January 2008 (copy attached to email)

 NatWest – Statements and Screen Prints (copy attached to email)

 Experian – Email of 29 January 2008

[tbern123]

I am pleased to report things are getting better. I noticed today two strange entries on the statements they sent him..

 

29 Jan 2004 cr recd 7/3/03 £75.00

29 jan 2004 cr recd 4/12/02 £75.00

I am guessing cr recd means credit recieved and the date is when they actually recieved the funds.

 

Now this is interesting because according to his credit file

 

Default Balance: £176

Defaulted On: 01/02/2003

 

As the credit of 4/12/02 was not taken into account until Jan 04, the amount of the default must be wrong

[tbern123]

As a result of the information on his statement, I have added the following

 

3. Default Amount

 

C7 states an original default amount of £176.00 on 1 February 2003. However, if you refer to the attached statement (Four), you will note an entry made on 29 January 2004. Payment Details:

 

29 Jan 04 CR RECD 4 December 2002 £75.00

 

As this credit was received on 4 December 2002 and not applied until 29 January 2004, it was not taken into account, in relation to the default amount on 1 February 2003

 

and

 

Summary

 

As you are fully aware each credit file record has ten different fields

 

1. Entry Number

2. Name and Address

3. Date of Birth

4. Company Name

5. Account Type

6. Started

7. Default Balance

8. Current Balance

9. Defaulted On

10. File Updated Period to

 

As clearly explained within this email, I am able to demonstrate and provide documented evidence to show that five out of the ten fields are inaccurate and misleading. I am sure you will share my concerns as these five fields, each specifically relate to Default information and are clearly in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Taking into consideration the undisputable evidence that I have provided, I am sure you will agree that you have no option other then to suppress the disputed data. Failure to suppress this data will result in litigation.

[tbern123]

I have today sent an email to NatWest, very similar to the one sent to Experian just personalised for NatWest.

 

I have also made a formal complaint to the ICO about both Experian and NatWest. I have sent the ICO copies of all the statements and the other evidence with copies of the response from both companies..

 

Not expecting much but let's see what happens...

[tbern123]

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

[tbern123]

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.......

[tbern123]

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

[tbern123]

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

[tbern123]

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

[tbern123]

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

[Miss XYZ]

Dear Sir,

I have recently received my credit report, i could find Natwest bank with address; - NATWEST,RBS, Tay House, 5th floor, Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4RS, been given to know who the lenders are to know my defau;t payments. I was looking for a telephone number to ring them up and know the facts. But couldnt find on the internet. Could you please help me in this regard.

Thanks

XYZ

[Dorabell]

Dear Sir,

I have recently received my credit report, i could find NatWest bank with address; - NATWEST,RBS, Tay House, 5th floor, Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4RS, been given to know who the lenders are to know my defau;t payments. I was looking for a telephone number to ring them up and know the facts. But couldnt find on the internet. Could you please help me in this regard.

Thanks

XYZ

 

Hi miss XYZ welcome to the forum:) you need to start your own thread on this has you wil get plenty off help:) i dont now the telephone number but i am sure some one will be a long shortley with it good luck DB:)

[liquidauctions]

Hi

I know this post is 2 years old but what was the conclusion??