EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[finlander]

whilst we still awiat my replies I thought I would post this.... it's a DCA's reply letter sent to a mr smith (who i suspect is a cag member) and posted on credit today for DCA employees advice. It is quite good. Hope Mr smith doesnt mind me repeating it here.........

 

 

"Dear Mr Smith (if that is indeed your real name!)

 

I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.

 

Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a "begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a "formal request for payment". This is how we, at the Robbem Blind Debt Collection Agency have always, for reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.

 

Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and p!ssant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill- advised. In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin" or, come to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a debtor, with a responsibility to repay that which you have borrowed, albeit with the small matter of interest added. Which, I might suggest, is simply there in order that a profit might be made from the aforementioned transactions?

 

Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the repayments you make "go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Financial Services Industry", a moment’s rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the industry in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned shebang" yourself. The estimates you provide for the chief executive’s disbursement of the funds levied by penalties and interest, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that box-ticking façade of a Quality Assurance scheme."

 

A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don’t simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagarie of the postal system; 2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because the sheer medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.

 

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India" you would still owe us the money.

 

Please forward it by Friday.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Phuk U Mann

Customer Relations "

[foolishgirl]

:D That's brightened my morning!!

[car2403]

Excellent, finlander!

 

Will the Real Slim Shady (or the real "Mr Smith") please stand up?! You deserve a pat on the back for that one!

 

If only I was so elegant in my responses, just as Phuk has been...

 

By the way, I've heard that persons mother got re-married to a "Mr Off", but Phuk chose to keep that name, rather than going double-barreled - you can imagine that surname now, can't you... "Off-Mann".

[citizenB]

[Alphageek]

Very funny

[lornarobins]

HI there guys - I to have been battling wIth ExperIan to remove a default - the DCA have not provIded me wIth CredIt agreement or any other documents despIte sendIng them a CCA request over a month ago!

Call CredIt have removed the entry untIl they are provIded wIth the correct paper work, EquIfax are InvestIgatIng.

 

ExperIan seem to be the only one's sendIng back loads or rubbIsh and refusIng to remove the entry all the way - thIs Is the emaIl I receIved from them thIs mornIng after afew days of raIsIng the dIspute:

 

 

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 prIor to 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.

 

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.

 

I have been contacted by LInk FInancIal (Bcrd). 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.

 

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 CONSUMER HAS DISPUTED THE ACCURACY OF THIS ENTRY AND WE HAVE THEREFORE

ASKED THE PROVIDER TO INVESTIGATE IT. GIVEN THAT THIS DATA IS DISPUTED, PLEASE

TAKE CARE IF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF ANY KIND THAT MAY INCLUDE THIS DATA."

 

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:

 

LInk FInancIal, Camelford House, 87-90, Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP

 

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 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 or has not authorIsed us to make any amendments, as In your case

 

Furthermore, 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. 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 are not oblIged to furnIsh you wIth paperwork from the company concerned

confIrmIng any of the InformatIon recorded on your report, nor are they oblIged

to provIde thIs to us even If we were to request thIs.

 

If you are unhappy wIth the outcome of the querIes that we raIsed on your

behalf, then I suggest that you take up thIs matter wIth the InformatIon

CommIssIoner's OffIce.

 

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.

 

KInd regards

 

Mr SImon Malbon

Consultant Consumer ServIce OffIcer

CredItExpert

 

ExperIan LImIted, a company regIstered In England and Wales wIth regIstered

number 653331 and whose regIstered offIce Is at Talbot House, Talbot Street,

NottIngham, NG80 1TH

 

 

I do not belIeve that they could have InvestIgated thIs as I know that I never sIghed any agreement wIth the OC nor had any notIces from LInk - The OC actually removed theIr default almost ImmedIately when asked to do so!!

 

So my questIon Is where do I go from here - Do I have to make a complaInt to the ICO or can I take them straIght to court under the data protectIon act??

 

Does anyone know where I can fInd a letter to the CRA threatenIng ImmedIate court actIon??

I've never been to court before, but as wIth FInlander I am takIng thIs all the way!

 

Whats my fIrst steps In takIng them to court, what do I need to do to start the court process?

 

I wIll also SAR them to see exactly what InformatIon theIr decIsIon has been based on - do I have to waIt 40 days or Is there a quIcker process consIderIng court actIon Is my next step, and I need the Info to help wIth my defense?

 

Any Ideas as to what to do next would be very much apprecIated!

[postggj]

my advice would be to use the ico first

it will look good in court as you have tried to settle

[citizenB]

Experian were advertising on one of the commercial channels last night !.

[Dipply75]

:lol: That letter was so funny, I choked on my coffee! And so well put lol

 

So again, the CRA admits the accuracy relies on making their client 'promise' to be truthful. So when they are caught telling lies, why are they not being hammered for breach of contract?

 

How many times being caught submitting crap would there have to be before CRA use sanctions of any kind? SURELY they don't just allow companies who break the rules away with it indefinitely ....I wonder what their rules are on that?

[babybear39]

I'm just about to go into battle with all 3 CRAs because DCAs/banks are still defaulting me after my BR was discharged last month I'll have to wait 'til I get my student finances though 'cos the postage alone is going to cost over £40

[stressed_out]

Hi all finding the information on this thread to be really helpful,

I have recently challenged my credit cards, Capital one and Barclaycard over unfair charges….

The date which I started legal proceeding (issued N1), against both companies was the same date which defaults appeared on my credit file.

Both credit card companies paid out in full before a court data was set, but the information on my credit file now indicates a default notice with a satisfied status next to it.

I have contacted the credit card companies and the CRA only for the credit card companies to insist that I breached my credit agreement and for the CRA to state that after contacting the relevant companies the information on my file is correct.

I don’t really now what to do next; I will submit the relevant information to the IOC with all the letters which I have sent whilst reclaiming my charges along with court documents and see what the outcome is.

I think I have seen somewhere that financial institutions can not communicate any information to third parties is an account is in dispute….is this correct, because I will add this information into my IOC paperwork…………

Any advice anyone could give me would be greatly appreciated.

I also have a dispute with TSB, regarding the same matter but this case is currently on hold pending the outcome of the current test case, although this is on hold, I have a default from TSB regarding these account and have a collection company called 1st Credit phoning me every day to ask for payment, and they have recently indicated to my that they are commencing legal proceeding…….still waiting for written conformation……

[Sol]

Hi all finding the information on this thread to be really helpful,

 

I have recently challenged my credit cards, Capital one and Barclaycard over unfair charges….

 

The date which I started legal proceeding (issued N1), against both companies was the same date which defaults appeared on my credit file.

 

Both credit card companies paid out in full before a court data was set, but the information on my credit file now indicates a default notice with a satisfied status next to it.

 

I have contacted the credit card companies and the CRA only for the credit card companies to insist that I breached my credit agreement and for the CRA to state that after contacting the relevant companies the information on my file is correct.

 

I don’t really now what to do next; I will submit the relevant information to the IOC with all the letters which I have sent whilst reclaiming my charges along with court documents and see what the outcome is.

 

I think I have seen somewhere that financial institutions can not communicate any information to third parties is an account is in dispute….is this correct, because I will add this information into my IOC paperwork…………

 

Any advice anyone could give me would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

I also have a dispute with TSB, regarding the same matter but this case is currently on hold pending the outcome of the current test case, although this is on hold, I have a default from TSB regarding these account and have a collection company called 1st Credit phoning me every day to ask for payment, and they have recently indicated to my that they are commencing legal proceeding…….still waiting for written conformation……

 

I'm having the same problem and just had an email from Equifax this morning saying they've closed the matter after confirming with HBOS it's correct

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

[citizenB]

 

 

I also have a dispute with TSB, regarding the same matter but this case is currently on hold pending the outcome of the current test case, although this is on hold, I have a default from TSB regarding these account and have a collection company called 1st Credit phoning me every day to ask for payment, and they have recently indicated to my that they are commencing legal proceeding…….still waiting for written conformation……

 

Is LTSB, a credit card or current account ?

[thecteam]

I'm having the same problem and just had an email from Equifax this morning saying they've closed the matter after confirming with HBOS it's correct

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

you can update the question you asked. i dont like how they just close a question like that either.

 

but they are the law and you must obey them, when they say they are right. bring forth the holy hand grenade.

 

tell them you are not happy and what proof was they given as you would like to see it.

 

they will come back with some story like it is private between them and the HBOS.

 

 

i have to wonder if a freedom of information act request will sort this little lot.

[foolishgirl]

y

 

i have to wonder if a freedom of information act request will sort this little lot.

 

Freedom of Information Act can only be used for public bodies - pity

[thecteam]

thats a shame. never mind im sure it will all fall around there ears sooner or later.

 

once someone makes a move and gets a result, the flock will follow.

[knoxvillain]

surely since they are talking to the bank about your personal information, you could SAR the CRA for it or the bank?

[finlander]

just a trhought if anyone can answer...would a freedom of information request to the OFT get the names of the 13 DCA's warned re there conduct by them. Would be interesting to have the evidence that these DCA's also supply experian and the others with default notices. The same dca's that experian trusts to tell the truth..what do you think?

 

[babybear39]

I'm sure I've read that the OFT won't release the names as they consider it confidential. You could try a Freedom of Information Act request though, it can't hurt and the worst that will happen is they say no.

[foolishgirl]

Think it's worth serious consideration Finlander but do you think the OFT would try & hide behind the 'exemptions' eg Part II (22) Information intended for future publication or maybe (43) Commercial Interests?

 

Not too sure of the fees involved either for what may be a wasted exercise?

[citizenB]

I'm sure I've read that the OFT won't release the names as they consider it confidential. You could try a Freedom of Information Act request though, it can't hurt and the worst that will happen is they say no.

 

 

I did ask this question when speaking to my Trading Standards Office. The answer was NO they wont release this information.

[Dipply75]

knowing who 'the 13' are is certainly in the public interest. If you get those names you can then prove who breached this apparent accuracy clause in the CRA contracts. Would the cra then not have to justify to us, or the Information Commissioners Office, how they police this accuracy clause and what they do when it is breached?

 

pmsl, kidding myself on again maybe

Edited August 22, 2008 by Dipply75
missed a bit

[sosumi]

Helpful link:

WhatDoTheyKnow - file and explore Freedom of Information (FOI) requests

Don't give up, don't get despondent, don't despair and don't give in.

PS: That's as much for me as anyone!!

We'll get 'em.

[babybear39]

Thanks for that link sosumi.

 

You're probably right FG, I've read about it somewhere on here but can't remeber the clause they're hiding behind...

[finlander]

THE ENTERPRISE ACT.. thats the clause... however that is all very well but there is a public intrest angle here. whilst these companies remain unnamed they can continue to ruin peoples credit standing etc... there must have bee some substance to the case against them in order for them to be warned, CRA's are relying on these people, who the oft has concerns with, to verify the truth of credit file entries... I think it's worth ago... I will try and knock a letter up to do one.

 

anyone know when they were warned?