EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[tifo]

If they are still on you can claim it's just that you can't if they have gone any that are still there and are incorrect you have the right to claim compensation

 

As i said, the bank removed the defaults but wouldn't give any compensation. I passed it to the Ombudsman and got between £100 - £300 for each default depending on how much it was for.

 

So even if the bank has removed the default, it is still worth passing to the FOS for compensation.

 

A point to note is that if there is anything outstanding on the account either to the bank or a DCA, the FOS will pay them, no matter what the law says, i.e. s.78 compliance, unenforceable etc. They state they are obliged to consider the law in all decisions but not follow it. Contradictory against their own guidelines and regulations but that's what they say.

 

I have many decisions which have gone this way and are with the Independent Assessor now where i am asking for compensation from the FOS for the loss of the money i should have received had it not been for their biased decisions to pay my charges and compensations to the DCA in each account, even on fully settled or unenforceable accounts. Next stage after this may be court.

[knoxvillain]

yeah, both accounts are settled and closed. No chance of getting FOS to award the amount of the default + £1000 then?

[tifo]

No chance of getting FOS to award the amount of the default + £1000 then?

 

Maybe if you can show actual loss and i doubt they'd pay any more than £300 against their 'bosses', which is the maximum 'moderate damage' award in their guidelines. The fact that it screws up your good name doesn't matter to them.

[knoxvillain]

ah well will stick in a complaint and see what I can get. Might as well take a leaf from the bank's book and squeeze every penny I can from them Plus apparently FOS charges the banks £400 for every complaint they receive?

[thecteam]

Just got the letter back from Vanquis that i have been waiting on.

 

i was refused my application for a credit card because of my CRA's report. the company they checked against was Experian.

 

so because of the defamatory defaults on my file i cant get credit and Experian are to blame.

[Sparkie1723]

Just got the letter back from Vanquis that i have been waiting on.

 

i was refused my application for a credit card because of my CRA's report. the company they checked against was Experian.

 

so because of the defamatory defaults on my file i cant get credit and Experian are to blame.

 

Nice one the cteam good and solid evidence the judge will love that I would imagine, what's your next step ....try and get Experian to pay some compensation or small claims??

 

sparkie

[thecteam]

im not greedy, all i want to do is be seen as a upstanding person i am. im not the man i was 5yrs ago. alot has changed .

 

i own my own business which is doing well. but no matter how much i behave i cant get a mortgage or credit card or even a £200 overdraft.

[BEC01]

Have patience and continue your excellent work.

Their methods will be their downfall.

 

Once the system has been broken, the machine will be too big to react quickly and fix it...

 

Good luck thecteam!

 

[Sparkie1723]

im not greedy, all i want to do is be seen as a upstanding person i am. im not the man i was 5yrs ago. alot has changed .

 

i own my own business which is doing well. but no matter how much i behave i cant get a mortgage or credit card or even a £200 overdraft.

 

 

Hi matey,

 

You fight fire with fire.....so fight their greed with you "so called" greed....these CRA's make money out of information good or bad correct or incorrect.

 

You are entitled to as much compensation as you can get because you deserve it, I think it is as simple as that, your greed doesn't come into the issue.

 

sparkie

[thecteam]

well that was an interesting call with Hillesden.

 

they have stasted once again to me that callcredit , experian and equifax was told to remove the defaults from my files.

i raised a dispute on the 29/7/08 and on the 1/8/08 the defailt was updated. asked Hillesden how this has happened. they have stated it wasn't them.

they will gladly put it in writing to me that they had removed the defaults from my files.

 

so Callcredit you are doing the updates on your creditfiles by yourselfs. so you have really broke the data protection act this time. silly silly you.

[BEC01]

Thecteam, I'm watching this thread with great interest.

You have found out a lot of weak points in the oppositions' ranks.

 

It will only need a few strategically placed attacks from a small number to cause complete chaos.

 

Remember, the banks are at their weakest for a long time - possibly ever - so hit them full on, they are really going to struggle.

 

I also think that the sub-prime is the weakest point to hit first. And the CRA's are also a great starting point. Experian make so much money from other sectors that they will stop pandering to the banks very soon. This is for 2 main reasons as far as I can see;

 

 

• The banks have misused the service to artificially create a "sub-prime" market, thus attempting to justify overly high rates to people who are completely credit worthy. This is beginning to become apparent and it presents great risks to the CRAs' businesses.
  
• The banks have run out of money to lend. This means a massively lower number of searches, a massively reduced income from the banks, and less clout from them as a customer of the CRAs.
  

These are two very good starting points at which to get all the poor - and often illegal - practices the average consumer has had to put up with for the last 10 or so years.

 

[Sparkie1723]

I know I 've posted the stuff from the Information Commissioners Office but I'm posting it again to support the argument I put forward.

 

sparkie

 

Here’s a big argument to put to all CRA’s, They claim that they are impartial and make a big deal about it and claim they do not take sides, then;

 

When an individual data subject tells them that the information of their credit is wrong and it is causing the damage because there is no agreement for the information to be supplied about and under and ask them to remove it, Why do they always take the “word” of the supplier of that incorrect data when the Information Commissioners Office says;

 

 

 

It is important to note that by virtue of (a) above it is not enough for a data controller to say that, because the information was obtained from either the data subject or a third party, they had done all that they could reasonably have done to ensure the accuracy of the data at the time. Now data controllers may have to go further and take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data themselves and mark the data with any objections. The extent to which such steps are necessary will be a matter of fact in each individual case and will depend upon the nature of the data and the consequences of the inaccuracy for the data subject. This approach exceeds the requirements of the Fifth Principle in the 1984 Act.

 

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to showan agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed.

 

Is the lender prepared to take court action if not why not?

 

 

By not ensuring there is a lawful agreement to support the data/default and by not removing the entry they are not impartial, they take the word of one over another without proof. That’s a lie then isn’t it?

[TideTurner]

Oops!!

 

Quote: Thisismoney.co.uk 11/08/08

 

 

Goldman Sachs has downgraded the UK's biggest credit rating agency, Experian, 5p cheaper at 409⅖p, from neutral to sell and slashed its price from 421p to 375p. Goldman expects Experian's credit-related operations to remain under pressure and that this will spread further across the business as clients become increasingly cautious and price-sensitive. The broker has reduced its 2009 earnings a share forecast by 7% and that for 2010 by 10%. Goldman said unless Experian demonstrated it could sustain growth against a much changed credit environment, it would not return to its post-demerger rating.

 

Maybe somebody is questioning their 'legitimate' business, and the probability of future legal action, libel, defamation and regulatory fines. Jump ship now!!

 

Tide

[BEC01]

Oops!!

 

Quote: Thisismoney.co.uk 11/08/08

 

 

Goldman Sachs has downgraded the UK's biggest credit rating agency, Experian, 5p cheaper at 409⅖p, from neutral to sell and slashed its price from 421p to 375p. Goldman expects Experian's credit-related operations to remain under pressure and that this will spread further across the business as clients become increasingly cautious and price-sensitive. The broker has reduced its 2009 earnings a share forecast by 7% and that for 2010 by 10%. Goldman said unless Experian demonstrated it could sustain growth against a much changed credit environment, it would not return to its post-demerger rating.

 

Maybe somebody is questioning their 'legitimate' business, and the probability of future legal action, libel, defamation and regulatory fines. Jump ship now!!

 

Tide

 

They are so vulnerable after years of being "untouchable".

The next 18 months is the time to hit them.

 

:grin:

[sillygirl1]

Yes, a very worthy victim of the credit crunch if this lot get stuffed... if people aren't borrowing searches won't be done and addresses won't be mysteriously linked, and lenders won't want to rely on 'old' data anymore.

 

A very different climate from the one that Experian were born in.

 

Of course, there is always the 'power of the internet' and people won't put up with incorrect information floating around - especially when jobs can be at stake. Their 'slow stranglehold' has now been outed and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

Off my soapbox now and getting ready to go to work in the pouring rain....

[finlander]

on the link attached we have started a campaign to get an oft investigation. I urge all people who read this thread to post the letter to the oft and sign the petition.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

[ncf355]

Absolutely right - but an agreement can be more than one page, and if separate T&Cs are referred to on the app. form, they are treated as being 'embodied' (included) in the agreement:

 

From CCA s189 (4) - definitions:

 

(4) A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in another document referred to in it.

 

So where that judgement says the prescribed terms cannot be in 'another document', that doesn't include any document that is referred to in the signature page/application form - such a document is part of 'the agreement itself'.

 

 

Sorry I'm a bit late referencing this quote but just wanted to say I have had this element used against me in court and the judge accepted it

 

The sig page just had a general "I agree to the T and C's", no direct references to particular terms, and the creditor showed a T and C page that he claimed was the 2nd page of the doc I signed, this was taken via "balance of probability"

 

[Dipply75]

Oops!!

 

Quote: Thisismoney.co.uk 11/08/08

 

 

Goldman Sachs has downgraded the UK's biggest credit rating agency, Experian, 5p cheaper at 409⅖p, from neutral to sell and slashed its price from 421p to 375p. Goldman expects Experian's credit-related operations to remain under pressure and that this will spread further across the business as clients become increasingly cautious and price-sensitive. The broker has reduced its 2009 earnings a share forecast by 7% and that for 2010 by 10%. Goldman said unless Experian demonstrated it could sustain growth against a much changed credit environment, it would not return to its post-demerger rating.

 

Maybe somebody is questioning their 'legitimate' business, and the probability of future legal action, libel, defamation and regulatory fines. Jump ship now!!

 

Tide

 

SELL SELL SELL!

 

As Sparkie said, their big lie has been outed. I had it in writing from them that they have "contractual obligations" to their client regarding the "proof" they will accept, which they won't discuss with little ole me as they are confidential!

 

Liar lair, business for sale, lease or hire

[falcon185]

Hi Diply,

I got the same letter, " Contractual Obligations" So they think a contractual obligation means they can flout the law?? Correct me please if I'm wrong but I thought the LAW has the last say not a contract ;-)

 

Just a thought, if thats the case could these contracts be deemed as unlawful???

Edited August 13, 2008 by falcon185

[Sparkie1723]

Just checked my credit file with Callcredit and noticed that the HBOS default entry has magically disappeared the same way as it magically appeared.

So I have just sent Callcredit this e-mail

 

I notice that the default on my credit file inserted by HBOS has now been removed. I have received no notification that this had been done.

Callcredit have informed me that HBOS would not allow you to remove it and you could not.

Please explain why since I informed you that you had made misrepresentative statements to me, and I intended to take action against Callcredit, it has been removed after categorically stating you would not remove it only a few days ago.

Would you also confirm;

1.Did Callcredit that removed it on the instruction of the HBOS or ;

2.Have Callcredit removed it on their own initiative,

I requested this information for use in my court claim.

Should you not answer these questions freely, Callcredit to will be asked them in court in order for the court to proportion the amount of blame to Callcredit and HBOS for this unlawful damaging default ,

Thank you

Yours sincerely

[Allwood]

Similar thing happened to me with Equifax regarding an entry about agreeing to pay an alleged debt, marks such as ...111 lots of them, which were on my credit file for years. When I queried this with Equifax they told me that this entry would stay on my report indefinitely. However, after I queried it with them I noted that the marks that were against the entry were gradually diapering. I then sent a SAR to the Bank and after months when I finally received the result of the SAR there was no agreement in the bundle, I then sent a SAR to Equifax and when I got that back there was nothing regarding the entries that was on my credit report for years and had been taken off.

 

There were 2 traces on the my file one from Westcot and one from BCW, Westcot one was taken off but the BCW stays on my report due to an alledged debt that there is no agreement to despite requesting it from the Bank.

 

The SAR was sent in December 07 and I got it back in February but no agreement, I got the same bundle back in March from the bank again with no agreement, I then got a letter from the bank int he middle of May stating that they had no more data for me. However, in July I received another letter from the Bank stating that they were still looking for more data on me but have not heard anything back as yet.

 

How long is a reasonable time for a bank to produce documents in relation to an SAR, it is 9 months now since I first the SAR to them.

[Sparkie1723]

tHi Allwood,

 

Happens a lot what you had.......mine was an actual Default entry that 5 days ago Callcredit had told me HBOS would not let them remove it so it would stay there, and said that was the end of the matter,

then I sent the email telling them they were making false statements and that I was going to take Callcredit and HBOS to Court.

 

Today default completely gone.

 

By the way An SAR request must be complied with within 40 days from the time they cash your cheque or money order.

 

If they don't they are in breach of the Sixth Principle of the Data Protectipon Act 1998

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Just had another answer e-mail from Callcredit because I sent them another one.

 

 

Hi William, Thank you for your recent message. You comments will be passed over to John McAndrew in due course. I can confirm that the default has now been removed from your credit file. It does not show on our records. It is likely that this account was removed by HBOS in one of the updates they have sent through to us since your last correspondence. We would be unable to remove the data without the permission of the data provider in this case HBOS and as they did not provide this authorisation before we would have been unable to remove it. If HBOS has removed the account at their end this would have filtered through on to our system. I would advise you contact HBOS directly to ensure this is the case. I trust this information is of assistance. Kind Regards, Customer Care2008-08-14 11:28:37

 

This means that John McAndrew CallCredit managingdirector has at last found out that HBOS do not have an agreemt under which they can supply info.....something they would have found out if they had complied with the Fourth Principle of the DPA in the first place BEFORE Callcredit allowed it to put on my file...everyone can bet their bottom dollar its off to court with HBOS and Callcredit

 

sparkie

Edited August 14, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[thecteam]

got my letter from Hillesden today confirming that all default notices put on my files by them have been removed.

 

equfiax are now causing me problems. cant get a business telephone line for my new shop from BT. even though i have 2 other lines with bt. these CRA's need to be brought into line and damn quick. these are the ones messing up peoples lives.

 

my mortgage is paid off 13yrs early yet it is still causing me problems. for two months of late payments. disgusting. means i cant move on.

time to ring barclays i think.

as Experian has not answered my request with regards to Barclays. in over 7weeks now i beleive. maybe 8 weeks. think they have broken there 28day rule there.

[TideTurner]

Just had another answer e-mail from Callcredit because I sent them another one.

 

 

It is likely that this account was removed by HBOS in one of the updates they have sent through to us since your last correspondence. We would be unable to remove the data without the permission of the data provider in this case HBOS and as they did not provide this authorisation before we would have been unable to remove it.

sparkie

 

Let me get this straight.

 

I run a company called CallCredit

I receive default information from financial organisations in relation to individuals

I do not verify the accuracy of the information

I publish / offer the information subject to a fee to others

This causes me to break the law

It means by company is defaming individuals on a large scale

Despite this I AM UNABLE TO REMOVE / CORRECT THE INFORMATION WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL PROVIDER!!

 

Haven't heard such cr4p since Northern Rock announced they were stable...

 

...threaten them with Court, and while you're at it, make sure a complaint is fired off to the Information Commissioners Office for every entry.

 

It does not matter where the information came from, the fact is they are breaking the law and causing you damage, the onus lies with them to ensure the information they hold is accurate.

 

BTW - the question must be asked whether it is lawful for them to hold your personal information, and questions asked as to the security of this information, as the leak here appears to be they will provide it to anybody who is prepared to pay for it.

Edited August 14, 2008 by TideTurner