EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[midge61]

I liked the comment at the bottom

 

Presumably Experian gave positive credit references for all these people who are now defaulting or going bankrupt, oterwise they wouldn't have got credit.Calls into question whether Experian serves any purpose, other than its own enrichment of course.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Midge61!

 

Presumably Experian gave positive credit references for all these people who are now defaulting or going bankrupt, oterwise they wouldn't have got credit.Calls into question whether Experian serves any purpose, other than its own enrichment of course.

 

Absolutely. It begs the question: if no Debt Checks had been carried out over, say, the last 20 Years, what difference, exactly, would that have made?

 

The bankers would've had to actually think, and make lending decisions by actually listening to their Customers. You know, like Bank Managers used to do before they were all replaced by clerks with the decision making abilities of a fruit fly.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited July 10, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Still can't Spell or Type.

[Mistermind]

deleted

Edited July 18, 2008 by Mistermind

[foolishgirl]

Well put MM!

 

In addition as reports from all 3 CRAs can differ both in no. of finance companies listed on an individual's credit file and actual credit info. (CCJs, Defaults etc.), surely it is reasonable to assume that a credit decision made by a financial organisation (unless made with info. obtained from all 3 CRAs, which a lot don't) has always been flawed, leaving the lender open to extended risk.

 

Some would say the banks etc. are getting their come-uppance having been so reliant on unreliable info. coming from one outside source over which they have little control or ability to investigate its management, quality checks etc.

 

When do you think this fact, of which borrowers have been aware of for so long, will finally dawn on their CEOs??!!

[Mistermind]

deleted

Edited July 18, 2008 by Mistermind

[Gez]

Experian reiterated plans to cut between 800 and 900 jobs from its global workforce, as announced in January, but gave no further details. This is part of a $110 million (£55 million) cost-cutting programme.

 

In May, Experian reported a 39 per cent increase in pre-tax profit to $549 million for the year to March 31. Experian usually spends between $600 million and $700 million on acquisitions but said that there were currently fewer opportunities than usual so would consider a share buyback instead.

I expect these figures to be drastically different before the year is out! Anyone with shares in these companies might be wise to sell them whilst they're still worth the paper they're written on.

[finlander]

Just a quick update..there isn't any yet... nothing more from experian but they did say it may take 28days...

[Dipply75]

There is also the simple contradiction that the CRA's advertise an accurate and up to date picture of an individuals financial position and history, yet take no responsibility for the information published. They let companies record whatever they want then claim they have no power to change it.

 

As Mistermind pointed out - they spent years encouraging huge amounts of borrowing helping create the position we are in now, and now they are allowing thousands of wrongful defaults etc to be recorded by spiteful companies pushing the cost of borrowing up,s. Still claiming no responsibility.

 

Seems the US has opened their eyes:

 

E.U. regulator may probe credit-rating agencies over subprime - MarketWatch

 

When will this be looked at here?

[Mistermind]

deleted

Edited July 18, 2008 by Mistermind
typo

[foolishgirl]

 

As institutions pay CRAs and consumers do not, neutrality of CRAs would be difficult to maintain. Perhaps there could be a regulatory body of appeal, with the losing appellant paying a fee, this latter income to be used to fund the new regulator.

 

Well spotted article Dipply.

 

I think your suggestion MM would be excellent. After all isn't that similar to how the FOS is constructed. Although let's hope a new commission would be willing to bite a bit more instead of chewing the complaints & spitting them back!

 

In the meantime I'm writing to my MEP & suggest other CAGers do likewise. If the EU is taking such an interest in the US, why isn't it doing so within their own jurisdiction?

 

'The European Commission will investigate the role played by credit-rating agencies in the recent crisis...'

So how long to a new directive?...

Edited July 11, 2008 by foolishgirl
omission

[citizenB]

 

'The European Commission will investigate the role played by credit-rating agencies in the recent crisis...'

So how long to a new directive?...

 

 

Dont hold your breath.

[bobbyh99]

I think we need to distinguish between CRA (Credit Rating Agencies) i.e. S&P and Moody's and CRA's (Credit Reference Agencies) i.e. Experian, Equifax etc!

 

A credit rating agency (CRA) is a company that assigns credit ratings for issuers of certain types of debt obligations as well as the debt instruments themselves. In some cases, the servicers of the underlying debt are also given ratings. In most cases, the issuers of securities are companies, special purpose entities, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, or national governments issuing debt-like securities (i.e., bonds) that can be traded on a secondary market. A credit rating for an issuer takes into consideration the issuer's credit worthiness (i.e., its ability to pay back a loan), and affects the interest rate applied to the particular security being issued. (In contrast to CRAs, a company that issues credit scores for individual credit-worthiness is generally called a credit bureau or consumer credit reporting agency.)

 

BobbyH

[thecteam]

ok i know this one isn't Experian but this is a reply from callcredit i got.

 

Hi Thank you for your message.

Your concerns are noted, however, we can confirm that our contracts with all of our data providers make it clear they must fulfil their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998, which would include ensuring all data provided is accurate and up-to-date.

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.

 

all hiding behind the its to much work to check, im sorry but that really don't cut it anymore.

well if they can't check every file that comes into them with evidence from the data providers, it simply does not get attached to a file. whats wrong with working like that. ok it would slow the whole process up. but then it would mean everyone in the land wouldn't be having libel statements made against them by credit companies dca's.

 

i know if the boot was on the other foot they would use the same actions against us if we was making libel statements and affecting the run of business they are used to.

[Gez]

if the boot was on the other foot they would use the same actions against us if we was making libel statements and affecting the run of business they are used to.

Precisely, so don't give them an inch of slack!

[Dipply75]

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. OK, even being understanding about that, how about just doing it when a dispute is raised? Um nope, we won't even bother then?

 

 

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.

Should it not be the other way around? The record is suppressed until otherwise PROVED by the data controller? They are stating they will purposefully process a disputed record, and will not demand proof?

 

They gave you that in writing The Information Commissioner should be invited to comment

[thecteam]

i think it is time for everyone to question the ethics of these CRA's and the way they run there business with relation to the consumer.

 

ok need to work out a letter for The Information Commissioners to have a look at. im sure i have the same quote from Experian and i dont doubt for one minute Equifax reply will be any different. but as of yet haven't tackled them so this is pure guess work not a statement.

[reallymadwoman]

Hi Thank you for your message.

Your concerns are noted, however, we can confirm that our contracts with all of our data providers make it clear they must fulfil their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998, which would include ensuring all data provided is accurate and up-to-date.

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.

 

I'm expecting a similar reply from Experian any day now. Will post when it arrives, and send on to the Information Commissioner.

[elizabeth1]

ok i know this one isn't Experian but this is a reply from callcredit i got.

 

Hi Thank you for your message.

Your concerns are noted, however, we can confirm that our contracts with all of our data providers make it clear they must fulfil their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998, which would include ensuring all data provided is accurate and up-to-date.

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. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO = CHECK EVERY ITEM IS 100% CORRECT!!

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. :o How about they make data controllers PROVE THEIR RECORDS ARE CORRECT like they are supposed to do?

 

all hiding behind the its to much work to check, im sorry but that really don't cut it anymore.

 

well if they can't check every file that comes into them with evidence from the data providers, it simply does not get attached to a file. whats wrong with working like that. ok it would slow the whole process up. but then it would mean everyone in the land wouldn't be having libel statements made against them by credit companies dca's.

 

i know if the boot was on the other foot they would use the same actions against us if we was making libel statements and affecting the run of business they are used to.

 

I reckon you take this to the ICO etc.. these companies should do more to ensure records are not typed and recorded just cause some company says it is correct - These CRA's really do take the "P".

 

It's high time they did a batter job and quit with their frilly excuses - there are NO EXCUSES for them getting this data so wrong. The consumers are always treated as though they are wrong/lying - meanwhile the companies involved get away with recording dubious info about the consumers? Needs to be taken far more seriously by the bodies that are supposed to ensure DPA is adhered to.

[reallymadwoman]

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

 

When you notified us that the XXXX accounts were incorrect, we contacted the company on your behalf and marked the entries as disputed. In doing this, we fulfilled our legal obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998. The account information we hold actually belongs to the lenders. Only they can amend it or tell us to amend it for them. We cannot amend or delete entries without lender's direct consent. I would advise you that as a licensed client of Experian each supplying lender is obligated to ensure that the information they provide us with is accurate.

 

For further clarification of this you may wish to contact the Information Commissioner's office at the following address:

 

The Information Commissioner: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF

 

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.

 

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 before they provide 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.

 

We actively encourage people to check their own credit reports regularly and to tell us if they have any concerns about the information we hold. If any specific issues are brought to our attention we will also query the accuracy of the specific entry being disputed with the company concerned and add a Notice of Dispute alongside the information being queried.

 

I hope I have clarified our position regarding this.

 

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.

[elizabeth1]

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.[/quote]

 

I couldn't agree with you more!! It's time these CRA's began to tow the line and treat consumers more fairly - their approach is never nearly as fair as it should be.

At the end of the day the data they are allowing these companies to register should be 100% accurate - not "almost correctt".

 

If enough people complain something will be done about it I am sure.

[reallymadwoman]

Maybe whilst it's 'all quiet on the bank charges front', we should be concentrating on getting the CRAs in order

[elizabeth1]

Maybe whilst it's 'all quiet on the bank charges front', we should be concentrating on getting the CRAs in order

 

 

Sounds like a plan to me

 

I am sure I've seen a template complaint letter in Rory's signature - but I can't remember if it was for CRA's complaints though.

 

We could do with getting some complaint letters together and try to encourage ICO to take some action with these CRA's cause it's beyond a joke that they sit there publishing rubbish about people isn't it?

 

We consumers shouldn't have to do the jobs of the CRA's and pick up on every mistake being written by these companies - the CRA's should be doing their jobs and ensuring that what the companies write is a truthful and honest reflection of what the state of accounts is. The CRA's are lazy and take advantage of consumers and they need stopping.

[thecteam]

i used this little beauty on callcredit they removed the file i was complaining about. but i know it will go back on at some point. even though you can't have 2 defaults for the same debt from 2 different companies.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/149449-put-your-credit-reference.html#post1581179

 

just need to get a template letter ready for the Information Commissioners Office.

 

i will check back over my experian replies to see what they put with regards to it is all to much hassle to check remark.

Edited July 11, 2008 by thecteam

[Dipply75]

Response from Equifax - there seems to be a common theme here....we do multiple checks/there are 200 generic checks. No really we do blah blah.....but we will not/cannot tell you (the little people) what they are.

Equifax replied:

 

As previously advised, although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies (what?), the owner of the information continues to be the financial institution, and not the credit reference agency. The credit reference agencies are unable to amend or delete information, unless they have been advised to do so directly from the data owner. At present the Lender in question are not refusing to provide you with the requested details they have advised you to provide further details.

 

With reference to your comments regarding the quality of data provided to Equifax by our subscribing clients, we wish to assure you that we carry out multiple validation checks on all credit agreement information supplied, to ensure that the appropriate information has been provided and there is no conflict contained within this information. However, there is certain information which we are not able to independently validate, as the only source of this information is from the supplying financial institution.

 

We would also advise that the supplying organisation has a responsibility under the Data Protection Act to provide accurate information.

 

As you have advised that you are contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office, we will follow any guidelines and requests accordingly, or alternatively should the lender advise of any amendment.

 

• Please be advised that we do not provide our validations checks to consumers as this information is company confidential. I am therefore unable to discuss our contractual obligation with the lender concerned with you. (what does this imply?)

• The Notice of Correction has been removed from your Credit Report as the dispute that was recently raised with the Lender has now been closed and the lender has requested that you contact them directly as previously advised.

With reference to your comments regarding Equifax’s guideline regarding the removal of the information after 30 days. Please note that this guideline is only enforced if the lender in question did not reply to the dispute raised with the recommended timeframe and as a response was received in this instance the information will remain on file until Equifax receive confirmation for this to be amended or removed by the lender concerned.

 

Now reading between the lines, I assume by generic and multiple checks they mean basic checks for contradictions/missing or duplicated data etc.....oops, nope, they happen too. So what checks can they possibly do, and why are we not allowed to know what processes they are putting our data through?

Edited July 11, 2008 by Dipply75
missed bits

[thecteam]

i can say for sure they don't check for duplicated defaults. on all 3 of the CRA's i have looked at the big 3 that is. they all have had a duplicated default, from barclaycard and cabot on my file.