EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[Studley96]

I expect all credit agreements contain a clause in which you give permission for your information to be shared, but they also as a general rule contain a clause which allows the creditor to vary the terms of the agreement as they see fit by giving notice in writting.

 

Therefore if a debtor wishes to vary the terms of the agreement (i.e. withdraw consent to the sharing of information) and this is refused by the creditor it can be argued that the contract is unfair and therefore unenforcable.

 

I am sure the DPA gives the right to withdraw consent, as I argued this point with a creditor myself and successfully managed to have them and the DCA that followed them remove my phone number permanently from their databases. I will try to reference this if anyone wants it.

 

The thing to do is to write to them informing them that you withdraw consent to process and share your information as is your right under the DPA and require them to acknowledge in writting that they have done so within a specific time period, say 28 days.

 

Leave them a couple of weeks extra beyond reciept of their confirmation, then check your credit reference. If they have left your information there then they have failed to comply with the DPA, and misrepresented that they have complied.

 

Then you have all the evidence that you require, a letter confirming that they have ceased sharing your information as required, and your credit reference demonstrating that they are telling porkie pies.

 

This would be quick and easy for the Info Com to investigate, and gives opportunity for a court order to enforce compliance.

 

Now I may have got it all wrong, but all these organisations have become as powerful as they have through the sharing of our information.

 

The downside would be that if they don't agree to the varience of the contract terms they could alternatively demand immediate repayment and cancellation of the contract. So I would only use this on one I had told to get f****d.

 

We may be straying from the thread topic now, but hey, it's another approach that may be simpler.

 

Would be good to hear what you all think though

[Allwood]

Hi Guys

 

Sorry to nip in.

 

I've made 2 complaints to the Information Commissioner & not heard a dickie-bird from them.

Is this the norm?

 

Also I want to start cleaning up my credit files - what is the best way of accessing them online (ideally for free:wink:)?

 

I filled in a complaint form from Information Commissioners Office because they sent the form to me by way of email due to me sending them a copy of the letter from Equifax stating that one of their clients was given access to my personal data and they confirmed that they had not authority to do so ie not documentation that they should have had before going into my personal data...as a result of Information Commissioners Office getting my email with equifax letter attached they sent me a complaint form to filled and send it back to them, which I did about 8 weeks ago. I have not hear a dickie-bird from them not even an acknowledge of my letter with lots of photo copies of evidence. What a waste of them that was.???

 

I was also refused a credit card last week which I am sure it is because of DCA's putting traces on my credit file.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Allwood

[IIIUMINATI]

Allwood

save yourself a £10 and make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Allwood]

IIIUMINATI, i will send the council a letter regarding the searches they put on my credit report and it should on take 21 days, I must first ring them to find out what department I should send it to.

[Allwood]

Would anyone have at hand the abbreviations on Experian stands for ie what the P1, P2 est means, as that is what the search was done by the council it is under P2, with my name and address and search done, does the P's mean searches.

[foolishgirl]

The 'P' stands for Previous Searches. It is then usually detailed the purpose of the search. eg. credit application, quote etc. The Council on one is stated as 'unrecorded'; this means that it wasn't for a credit search etc. & it will only be seen by the Council ie. no other organisation making searches. It therefore does not affect your credit rating.

[mina2974]

Hi

 

I will be following this with intrest as experian have really got me angry with the amount of incorrect information they refuse to remove from my credit report,

 

I do know that dca's like hillisden have a cais machine in their office and can regulary access peoples complete credit file's without any questions asked, they see far more detail then you would on your credit file, have see some accounts that have had cais run on the seven or eight times within a six month period and thats from just one dca, I worked there in 2004 (hanging head in shame) and by week 2 had access to the cais machine.

 

good luck

 

Sam

[postggj]

hi mina

i had it confirmed by hbos that they have a direct link into the cra,

they deleated my default at source

i know some members of the site team are waiting on confirmation of this practise

 

i think you have just confirmed it

 

mina

 

what does cais stand for

and what extra info are we talking about that a dca see thats not on your personel report

[Studley96]

CAIS = Credit Account Information Sharing pronounced "keys"

 

Mina I almost love you

 

It's a shame you no longer have access to this piece of equipment, I would sneakily ask you to get a copy of my report through it and compare to one obtained through a Subject Access Request. If they were different, well, with the publicity I would get it I would sue and open the floodgates for everyone to do the same

 

Actually this gives me an idea, Mina how long ago did you work for them, and for how long?

 

Did you have regular access to the machine?

 

Why do you believe the information on it is different to that available under a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) or shown to the subject on their credit file?

Edited September 26, 2008 by Studley96

[foolishgirl]

Hi

 

they see far more detail then you would on your credit file..

 

 

 

 

Why do you believe the information on it is different to that available under a S.A.R

 

Mina's comments above are well known Studley; however if you SAR the CRA you should get all the info they hold which would include details that are only usually available to subscribers. Depends on what info. you want to confirm & if you think it's worth the extra £8.00 to obtain it.

[Studley96]

Hmm, my experience of S.A.R with regard to loan companies is that I receive a pile of copy statements, a barely inteligible list of events, and a photocopy of the agreement and nothing else. then when questioned through the CRA about their recording they make reference to information that was not contained within the S.A.R.

 

So I dont expect the CRA's to work any differently

[finlander]

update....

 

strange letter back from millsy... still wont answer my question regarding registering defaults without a cca and if this is company policy...just keeps stating he has already answered that when he hasn't. I smell panic....... oh good........

[humbleman]

update....

 

strange letter back from millsy... still wont answer my question regarding registering defaults without a cca and if this is company policy...just keeps stating he has already answered that when he hasn't. I smell panic....... oh good........

 

Their business model is based on similar theme as some of the banks, in so far as they are selling something they shouldn't, don't own, or obtained otherwise. It will only take one person to expose this and the whole company becomes almost worthless. This is a very critical issue for them and they will employ all the resources available to them.

 

But I am sure you will get there.

[foolishgirl]

Put in a nutshell, Humbleman!

[car2403]

update....

 

strange letter back from millsy... still wont answer my question regarding registering defaults without a cca and if this is company policy...just keeps stating he has already answered that when he hasn't. I smell panic....... oh good........

 

Maybe Millsy should read this, from the Information Commissioners Office;

 

Recording defaults in respect of improperly executed credit agreements;

 

The office line, following the House of Lords decision in Wilson in 2003, has been that - where an agreement was not signed by the debtor or did not include the prescribed terms, the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable and details of the agreement should not be recorded with the credit reference agencies. This line applies only to cases where the improperly executed agreement is "irredemably unenforceable" as a result of the effect of section 127(3) CCA 1974. Where the agreement could be made enforceable on order of the Court the findings of the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Modupe should form the basis of our policy with regard to the recording of liabilities under such agreements with the credit reference agencies

 

Here's a link to the actual letter sent to a complainant;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/111211-defaults-background-removal-methods-2.html#post1361298

 

(Bear in mind that this letter actually misinterprets s.15 CCA 2006, stating that s.127(3) was repealed, when it was only in fact repealed after the enactment of the 2006 Act)

Edited September 27, 2008 by car2403

[humbleman]

Maybe Millsy should read this, from the Information Commissioners Office;

 

Here's a link to the actual letter sent to a complainant;

 

 

Just had a quick look at this and then read the conclusion, which basically says they can transmit the information to the CRA's

[noomill060]

"Just had a quick look at this and then read the conclusion, which basically says they can transmit the information to the CRA's"

 

This is based on the misinformed and mistaken belief of the writer of that letter, that s.127(3) is retrospective. It isnt.

 

Pointing that fact out to the ICO would allow you to use the logic expressed in the rest of the letter, to illustrate that processing of data to CRAs is in fact, by the ICO's own interpretation of the DPA, unlawful.

 

Read the rest of the letter.

[car2403]

Agreed, noomill.

 

It will be interesting to see how the Information Commissioners Office can justify the same result, as expressed in that letter, when the s.127(3) retrospect error is pointed out to them.

[foolishgirl]

If you read Flash's post (the ICO letter recipient), it would appear that the ICO ignored/backtracked that corresp. after Flash informed them of their error. His last post in March 2008 leaves it that he was writing again to the ICO & also Ministry of Justice.

 

Has anybody got an update since then?

[Wirral]

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?

Regarding earlier postings about info under Freedom of Information Act Act.

I have recently mailed Information Commissioners Office to enquire about the number of complaints they have received against Arrow Global Receivables, CBS Transcom and Experian. Have not received reply as yet. But take a look at the link below re Naming and shaming by the FOS. It's fairly recent and may help scores of people in the future.

creddittoday.co.uk .....................online news

FOS to expose firms with most complaints

[WhatiswrongwithUKPlc]

For those of you who don't know, you can actually add any wording you like to your Notice of Correction, subject of course to certain limitations like defamatory statemnts. Here is a correction I have requested recently in a dispute with that nasty little firm Lowell:

"MR XXXXX DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO LOWELL FINANCIAL OR ANY COMPANY OR ORGANISATION IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT. IN PARTICULAR, MR XXXXX DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IS IN DEFAULT. MR XXXXX STATES THAT HE INTENDS TO DISPUTE THIS RECORD WITH LOWELL. MR XXXXX FURTHER STATES HOWEVER, WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING OR ADMITTING TO THE AMOUNT REGISTERED BY LOWELL, AS BEING MONEY OWED TO LOWELL, OR ANYONE IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT, AND THAT ONLY LOWELL CAN HAVE THIS RECORD REMOVED; THAT IT IS IN HIS IMMEDIATE INTERESTS TO HAVE ANY ALLEGATION OF A DEFAULT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME REMOVED FROM PUBLIC RECORD, AND SHOWING AS SETTLED. MR XXXXXX STATES THAT THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE HIS FUTURE RIGHT TO CONTEST THE AMOUNT IN COURT AND/OR THAT HE WAS EVER IN DEFAULT."

[wilipwoy]

Did the CRA put that up on screen?

[car2403]

For those of you who don't know, you can actually add any wording you like to your Notice of Correction, subject of course to certain limitations like defamatory statemnts. Here is a correction I have requested recently in a dispute with that nasty little firm Lowell:

 

"MR XXXXX DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO LOWELL FINANCIAL OR ANY COMPANY OR ORGANISATION IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT. IN PARTICULAR, MR XXXXX DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IS IN DEFAULT. MR XXXXX STATES THAT HE INTENDS TO DISPUTE THIS RECORD WITH LOWELL. MR XXXXX FURTHER STATES HOWEVER, WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING OR ADMITTING TO THE AMOUNT REGISTERED BY LOWELL, AS BEING MONEY OWED TO LOWELL, OR ANYONE IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT, AND THAT ONLY LOWELL CAN HAVE THIS RECORD REMOVED; THAT IT IS IN HIS IMMEDIATE INTERESTS TO HAVE ANY ALLEGATION OF A DEFAULT REGISTERED IN HIS NAME REMOVED FROM PUBLIC RECORD, AND SHOWING AS SETTLED. MR XXXXXX STATES THAT THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE HIS FUTURE RIGHT TO CONTEST THE AMOUNT IN COURT AND/OR THAT HE WAS EVER IN DEFAULT."

 

A NOC isn't worth the paper it's printed on - most CRA credit checks are credit scored and are therefore unable to take any information in the NOC in to account.

[WhatiswrongwithUKPlc]

Yes they did put it on the screen as the law requries them to. However, as has been pointed out, most credit checks are credit scored so these will not take into account any NOC. Experian did say howeverthat where a NOC exists, the law requires a manual credit check to be carried out. Not sure how much this will help as i assume they will still only look at the credit score.

 

So, how is it that CRA are simply completely disinterested in listening to the individual. It can't surely be so cynical that it is down to the fact that the credit providers pay their 'wages'?! It should be quite simple - if the indidivudal is disputing the claim then it must be temporarily removed until agreement has been reached. This is just entirely logical.

[foolishgirl]

...the law requires a manual credit check to be carried out. Not sure how much this will help as i assume they will still only look at the credit score.

 

Correct! Finance industry seem to think the law doesn't apply to them! Prob. what is wrong with UK plc, whatiswrongwithUKplc

 

It can't surely be so cynical that it is down to the fact that the credit providers pay their 'wages'?!

 

Correct again!

 

It should be quite simple - if the indidivudal is disputing the claim then it must be temporarily removed until agreement has been reached.

 

Wrong! Just until the finance company tell the CRA it is correct regardless of whether it is or not.

 

It's a mucky ole world ain't it?