EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[knoxvillain]

car2403, they do kind of contradict themselves though by going on to say that the information belongs to the banks and we cannot amend it without their permission blah blah

[tifo]

My point exactly - does anyone have any idea what these checks are that they claim they do?

 

This is what they send the creditor in case of a dispute (and what comes back). Not much, eh?

 

[Sparkie1723]

As we process over 100 million personal data items each month, we believe it would constitute a disproportionate effort on our part to have to check the validity of each data item against contracted terms and conditions.

We can assure you that we take our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 and all other relevant regulations very seriously, but in the case of a dispute between a consumer and a data controller over the validity of a particular credit record, we feel it appropriate to process the record as provided, until we are instructed otherwise by the data controller.

 

 

it sure does to me, which i find hard to believe that they put it to print, so have done a screen shot of the page i got it from in reply to my question i asked.

 

totally shocking

 

 

Hi every one too many to mention .....First point I would add about what Mr Hancock says ....is he refers to the data controller ...Experian are a data controller ....they are dual data controllers alomg with each supplier of the data ...each with exactly the same resposibility to and for each and to the data subject....if one is wrong so is the other......if they feel it is appropriate to process the data and it is wrong and unlawfully supplied and further processed by them, then they are libelling the individual..........the very first rule of libel is......if you do not and cannot prove what you have published (printed) DO NOT PRINT IT....i f you do you are open to a libel claim. Tell Mr Hancock that if they are serious about complying with laws and regulations, to be very much aware of the libel act, if he is publishing something he cannot be bothered to check is correct and true ....he is in trouble and big trouble.

 

If incorrect dat such as a default is put on your credit file and maintained there by the CRA......if nobody ever sees it....that is not libel defamation or anything at all........the very moment someone searches your credit file and it is viewed by them that is the moment the libel kicks in.....it is defamatory information being passed on to third parties.

 

Forgot to add this....Mr Hancock should realise that it is not the supplier that actually libels you as they do not pass the info on in this issue....they do not control who a CRA passes the info on to....they just pass it to the CRA .....if the CRA passes it on that is 100% down to the CRA concerned. It is the CRA that libels you.....not the supplier although they could be held complicit to the fact.

 

sparkie

Edited July 17, 2008 by Sparkie1723
addition info

[reallymadwoman]

Promised reply from Experian - I've added the bold type.

 

 

 

I may be prepared to accept that the Information Commissioners Office considers their usual procedures to be 'reasonable' in the normal course of business. However, I strongly suspect that simply adding a notice of correction, and then threatening to remove it as soon as the creditor says the information is correct (which isn't mentioned, but that's what they did) with no proof whatsoever, is in no way reasonable. Unfortunately, Experian's reply isn't as specific as the one from Call Credit, but I will certainly be making a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office anyway and I strongly encourage every one else with a similar dispute to do the same. It costs nothing but time (and I have plenty of that at the moment!), so why not. It will only take one complaint to be upheld .....

Actually, it will probably take hundreds, but from little acorns ....

And I will be writing back to Experian for further clarification - again it only takes a few minutes and emails are free.

 

Clarification received from Experian:-

We keep a tally of the number of disputes that we receive in relation to each company that supplies us with information and of those, the number that are actually amended due to the details initially submitted to us being inaccurate. If the number of disputes or amendments reaches a certain level we will take this up directly with the client if we have concerns regarding the quality of the data they are providing. Ultimately, we would withdrawn their entire portfolio if we felt that the data could not be relied upon.

 

I am sure you can appreciate that companies using Experian would soon turn to an alternative credit reference agency and withdraw their business with us if they thought that the quality of the data we provided was unreliable. In view of this Experian does everything possible to ensure that the data we received and load to our database is accurate although it is impossible for us to individually check every piece of information that is provided to us. This is because lenders rely on the data that they are viewing being accurate and up to date to ensure that they are making informed lending decisions.

 

Full of 'ifs' and 'buts' as expected. They didn't answer my question about on what grounds they were planning to remove the notice of dispute, so another email will be on it's way shortly.

[Sparkie1723]

Who decides the data is accurate

Data subject Say's it is ...incorrect

Supplier say's ...............it is.

Therefore without proof who is correct it should be removed until actually proved either way not just a notice of dispute added ......other searchers of your file take not one bit of notice of it.

What Experian are saying.....whoa hold on .....if we upset our clients they'll take their business elsewhere and we can't have that we will lose too much money.....hard luck "little person". just go away.... Bxxxxxks.

 

In letters to CRA's allways quote Lord Hershells and Lord Dennings interpretation of a misrepresenative statement.

Quote..."A statement is either true or false there are no such things as half truths"

 

sparkie

Edited July 17, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[car2403]

Who decides the data is accurate

 

A Court, IMHO.

[finlander]

Still no word from experian... but other good news..my council tax has dropped a band after my appeal........ so if your thinking about appealing it's worth it.

 

All the posts here are intresting and it's good to see some of the feeble arguements put forward by experian. They seem desperate to get everyone argueing over the Data protection act, CCa etc. MMMM wonder why that is.....

 

Oh yes I know... it wastes time... well ... Robert Murat did rather well today from people who publish untruths... wonder how Experian will do in court come that fateful day...

 

The bit about not having to send you a exact copy of you CCA is classic.. it might carry weight in the CCA act but in the end it would have to be produced in court during a defamation action... wonder how they will cope with that?

 

chuuuuuching.............

[Sparkie1723]

Hi finlander,

 

I can assure you the CRA's do not like the words "Libel Action" It is not a long winded Act and only 3 criteria to meet .....if you can meet them you will win.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

A Court, IMHO.

 

 

agreed 100%......the CRA's decide at present...so they are the ones responsible for all of it.

 

sparkie

[TideTurner]

Experian does everything possible to ensure that the data we received and load to our database is accurate although it is impossible for us to individually check every piece of information that is provided to us.

 

This is very similar to saying "I didn't know it was stolen officer". Ignorance is no excuse.

 

They are clearly admitting that the information they hold COULD be inaccurate, and is provided to third parties UNCHECKED. If they cannot guarantee the accuracy of information provided, as required by law, THEY SHOULD NOT PROVIDE IT. Everybody who has incorrect information provided by these arrogant baffoons should sue for libel.

 

Of course, if the little man on the street was to give false information, he would be shut down immediately.

[finlander]

ok.... sparkie as a help can you brief the fine people on here how to take a action for libel to county court. Just the simple steps...

 

I think many would be interested in kicking over experians and the CRA's apple cart ......

 

After all would we stand for them writing 'criminal' on our files?... NO?... then why defaulter unless they can prove it?.......

[cashins]

sub

[Sparkie1723]

ok.... sparkie as a help can you brief the fine people on here how to take a action for libel to county court. Just the simple steps...

 

I think many would be interested in kicking over experians and the CRA's apple cart ......

 

After all would we stand for them writing 'criminal' on our files?... NO?... then why defaulter unless they can prove it?.......

 

 

Hi finlander I'll post about libel as soon as find that in my BUNDLE of docs and I do have a BUNDLE, .............I'll be back says Arnie.

 

sparkie

[finlander]

cool........... the feline is firmly amoungst the winged creatures......

[thecteam]

i think this is the only step forward for all of us this will then hopefully have a knock on affect with the councils selling our data.

 

all linked the lot of them making money hand over fist from our names and address.

 

still not had a reply from Mr Hancock with regards to the reg 7 that angry cat posted.

and thank you to sparkie for this quote.

quoted

In letters to CRA's allways quote Lord Hershells and Lord Dennings interpretation of a misrepresenative statement.

Quote..."A statement is either true or false there are no such things as half truths"

 

sparkie

quoted

[Sparkie1723]

I'm back, first though the bits and pieces I post mention jury etc .....but all that has changed it has now been ruled Libel can be actioned now in the County Courts, to enable the normal citizen to have access to this law and it is now not just for the rich and famous, also the Privy Council 1908 ruling still stands today which ruled "Credit Reference agencies cannot be expected to have immunity to libel action"

 

Just a couple of additions of my own

Libel Action must be started within 12 months from the last date of the libel

Defamation has a 3yrs time scale

 

 

sparkie

THE 1996 DEFAMATION ACTOne of the aims of the Act was to make libel actions more accessible to the public. Libel still remains the only civil action for which you cannot get Legal Aid but if plaintiffs are willing to accept damages of £10,000 or less they can take advantage of the new 'fast track' procedure. This, of course, makes newspapers much more liable to be sued.

S8-10: New summary procedure

The summary procedure under Ss 8-10 of the Act aims to assist the ordinary litigant by controlling and reducing the role of the jury without abolishing it - thus making libel more predictable, more accessible and quicker and cheaper for the ordinary litigant.

 

In a suitable case a plaintiff wanting a quick apology and modest damages will not be forced to incur huge legal costs in getting them.

 

Claims will be dealt with without a jury.

 

The court may dismiss plaintiff's case summarily if satisfied it has no reasonable prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.

 

Equally, Court may give judgment for the plaintiff if satisfied there is no defence which has a realistic chance of success.

 

Summary relief consists of any or all of the following:

 

* Declaration that the statement was false and defamatory

 

* Order to publish suitable correction and apology

 

* Damages not exceeding £10,000

* Injunction restraining further publication

 

To win a case for libel the plaintiff must prove:

1. The words complained of are defamatory.

2. The words complained of refer to him.

3. The words complained of have been published to a third party.

The test for identity: "Are the words such as would reasonably lead persons

acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to."

"We're safe if we don't name them."

Not always. All a claimant has to demonstrate to the court is that his family and friends understood the offending article to refer to him.

 

Group Defamation.

The law allows groups of people, rather than individuals, to sue as a body but the courts keep the numbers as low as possible.

Libel is the publication of a statement which exposes a person to:

 

Hatred, ridicule or contempt or which causes him to be

shunned or avoided or which has a tendency to injure him in his

office, trade or profession in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally

 

 

Libel is all about words that damage a person's reputation

in the eyes of reasonable people.The first question when you consider a libel action: "Is what I have written basically true?

 

If it is not true in substance and in fact then you will be deprived of the two classic defences:

* Justification - you are justified in damaging a reputation because what you are saying is true.

* Fair Comment - the comment complained of has to be based firmly on fact.

 

The other great defence is Privilege - the recognition by the state that sometimes a person's reputation must be allowed to be wrongly defamed in the greater interests of free speech and open justice.

[finlander]

ok people now we are talking.... thanks for that sparkie....... I think we can start to see that the DPA and the CCa are very much the weaker relations next to this lovely piece of law.........

 

In my view (and my legal advice) as the credit refrence agencies state in the terms and conditions to their 'customers' (the banks ) that they both agree to -

 

12. Following the law

1. Both of us agree that, in relation to providing and using the Services (as appropriate), we will both follow all relevant legislation and regulations. These include:
   
   • the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
     
   • the Data Protection Act 1998 (including the Data Protection principles);
     
   • all amendments to the above Acts;
     

Experian Terms and Conditions

 

 

that means that if they have no CCA ........ they have no legal agreement... they are bound by the CCA.... therefore the default is registered under the CCA....... no agreement means no enforcement..

 

No agreement means the default cannot be truthful. a default under the CCA means ' the debtor has failed to keep to the terms of their agreement'.

 

what agreement?....... that statement above cannot be the truth if no agreement under the act exists. :grin:

[Sparkie1723]

This is the most significant part to concentrate on

 

 

In a suitable case a plaintiff wanting a quick apology and modest damages will not be forced to incur huge legal costs in getting them.

 

Claims will be dealt with without a jury.

 

The court may dismiss plaintiff's case summarily if satisfied it has no reasonable prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.

 

Equally, Court may give judgment for the plaintiff if satisfied there is no defence which has a realistic chance of success.

 

This actually means that the judge makes his mind up on the evidence you submit and if he says you have a case ...it is highly unlikey that it will be defended as the judge has already given out the signals that you will win, if it is dismissed all it has cost you is the initial court fees.....IMHO this is the way to attack a CRA because as I have said they do not like the words libel/defamation...........they continually woffle on about the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioners Office ......all of which are useless.

 

sparkie

[finlander]

thanks sparkie

 

Being unconquerable lies with yourself; being conquerable lies with your enemy.You cannot stop innovation.

 

Sun Tzu 'The Art of War'

[redsue]

this thread just gets better and better - thanks everyone for your ammunition - I'm beginning this long road with all 3 CRAs

[Sparkie1723]

Just another final point from me

 

 

Justification is theoretically the simplest form of defence against a libel or defamation claim but at the same time it is certainly the most dangerous. An unsuccessful plea of justification could increase the damages.

 

This is what a CRA may ateempt to rely on.....but to rely on this they will have to prove beyond any shadow of doubt what they published ( passed on to 3rd parties) is completely true....if they cannot...then B.I.N.G.O. down goes a CRA.

I will be taking this step very soon ...after my RBS Claim is out of the way and sorted once and for all.

 

sparkie

[finlander]

england is known as the libel capital of the world... the reason? Our libel laws are amoungst the harshest and most punishing in the world for those who publish false stories. Look at Robert Murat. Why do you think that he sued the english papers for repeating allegations made in portugese papers?

 

because his solictors knew that if it was taken to an english court then god help the papers.......

 

If you don't believe me look at this......

 

IFEX ::

[Sparkie1723]

england is known as the libel capital of the world... the reason? Our libel laws are amoungst the harshest and most punishing in the world for those who publish false stories. Look at Robert Murat. Why do you think that he sued the english papers for repeating allegations made in portugese papers?

 

because his solictors knew that if it was taken to an english court then god help the papers.......

 

If you don't believe me look at this......

 

IFEX ::

 

Totally agree and this is the exact reason why I have said many times mention libel and defamation to a CRA and they have a flush of "the hot spots";)

 

 

sparkie

[knoxvillain]

does the above mentioned stuff apply in Scotland too?

[Sparkie1723]

does the above mentioned stuff apply in Scotland too?

 

Hi knox villain,

All I can find on your question at this moment is this ....if I find any more I post it OK?

sparkie

Scotland

 

Scottish libel law is influenced by English law, but with some differences. The laws in Scotland are very similar apart from you have 3 years in Scotland to make a claim, one year in England and Wales, and in Scotland there is no jury.

 

What is defamation?

 

A defamatory statement is injurious and capable of harming a person's honor or reputation. The statement must be false and offensive in nature.

 

Defenses

 

The primary defense is that the statement is true. It is not necessary for a defender to prove that all allegations made are true as long as the material allegations are proved to be true. There is also the defense of fair comment designed to protect the expression of opinions on public events and public figures. The essentials of the fair comment defense are; the statement concerned must be a comment of fact, the facts must be truly stated, and the facts must concern a matter of public interest. The defense of absolute privilege is a complete defense. All papers, reports, votes and proceedings published under the authority of parliament are absolutely privileged.

 

Remedies

 

The most common remedy invoked against the media is a demand for an apology or a retraction. High court costs often prompt an early settlement of libel cases.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Sparkie1723