Cabot - dodgy default on credit file

[Dipply75]

Hi all, no new suprises from the 20w bulbs at Cabot but still affects me badly.

 

Checking my Equifax file and I see default registered for a 'bank debt'

 

Start Date - Nov 2000

Defaulted - May 2003 - balance £656

No payment history at all then

Last updated - Dec 2004 - balance £332

 

I was worried - I have only had a bank account with the one bank for YEARS. Found out by chasing other searches that were done without my consent that this is apparently actually a retail credit debt, a storecard.

 

I think I would remember spending over £600 quid! I would certainly remember paying over £300 quid to a debt during one of the worst (and skint) years of my life........

 

Want to send this letter, any suggestions?

 

 

Re: Unauthorised credit reporting and sharing my information

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I would like lodge a complaint regarding the contents of the latest credit report that I received from the Equifax. Please supply me with a copy of your complaints procedure.

 

Complaint

 

An entry has been recorded by Cabot Financial UK Ltd for an alleged defaulted debt of which I have no knowledge and in which there are serious discrepancies. The entry reflects a ‘Bank Debt’ from your company which apparently defaulted on 10th May 2003 with a balance of £656. There is no updated payment history at all yet the current outstanding balance when updated on 8th December 2004 is showing as £332, implying over half the debt has been paid between those 2 dates. I have never received default notice, or any correspondence, regarding this debt despite the fact both my addresses are a matter of public record.

 

Your staff now advise this alleged debt actually relates to an ‘Adams Retail Credit’ debt – not a bank debt. Your staff were unable to explain why no contact with me was ever attempted regarding this, yet my credit file has been marked. Your staff were also unable to explain how the defaulted amount and updated amount differed and could see no record of payments made. I should not need to remind a company of Cabot’s size and standing that if you process or record my data you have a responsibility to ensure it is relevant and accurate. I have formally disputed this debt and requested a copy of the credit agreement to substantiate this debt – and therefore my written consent to access, share and amend my data.

 

When the validity of this recorded debt was challenged and disputed by Equifax on my behalf, Cabot replied that I was writing to Cabot directly and the account was on hold until my letter was received and the account is investigated. This is completely unacceptable avoidance. You have recorded a debt on my credit file which Equifax has requested proof of and you are obliged to respond with the relevant documents – the fact I am also dealing with Cabot directly does not allow you to ignore or pause a legitimate request for verification. If Cabot does not have any relevant paperwork then this record should never have been entered - and must be deleted. I have instructed Equifax to contact you again regarding this and if no satisfactory response is given I will be complaining to the Information Commissioner and the OFT. The relevant timescales from the original request for proof still stand.

 

What I require

 

Please supply a copy of your complaints procedure.

 

Please clarify if my personal details have been supplied to any other organisation in relation to this debt.

 

Please ensure that the request for proof by Equifax is responded to properly.

 

Please confirm if my recent telephone conversation was recorded – as stated by your advisor – as a transcript may be required for this complaint.

 

In Summary

Please provide answers to my questions listed above – I require these for my separate complaints against Equifax and any other parties involved. If you are unable to provide answers, please confirm your reasons for this.

Please forward me and Equifax the relevant documents containing the proof and accuracy of the data provided by you within the relevant timescale prescribed by law, otherwise I intend to complain to the Information Commissioner’s office that you have recorded and passed on inaccurate data about me without consent.

 

The negative entry on my credit file is both misleading in its content and damaging to me, and the Data Protection Act allows me to seek compensation from both you and the organisation which you instructed to communicate the data through the County Courts and this is also an option which I will consider.

 

I look forward to your earliest response,

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi

It Looks good, however I no expert, I expect you'll get advice very soon

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Dipply75]

The arrogance of Cabot astounds me - twice now I have asked Equifax to check this;

 

1 - The agreement does not exist! I never had an Adams storecard!

2 - The info would still be way off - bank debt? Over £300 paid to it over 2004? No chance!

 

Equifax's efforts amount to 2 messages to Cabot saying:

 

consumer still disputing the default registered and the account information as not correct.

 

Thats it. Cabot then have the cahoonas to state that they need to investigate the account - have never had the agreement and cannot request one from the OC until I write to them!

 

Oh really? It was Cabot that registered the account and the default - not the non existent OC. To this, Equifax closed my dispute and removed the dispute notice!

 

The all bloody powerful cabot speaks and Equifax bow and say ok. I see the DPA doesn't get a look in.....well not with me.

 

Lets see what Equifax say about:

Ignoring the DPA

Breach of contract maybe (I pay them for monthly online)

Libel (as per sparkies genius find)

 

As for Cabot. Not too bright are they. They actually put in writing that they have never had the agreement and have to investigate the account (whats to investigate, its accurate lol)

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[NailPost]

If Cabot and Experian are collectively playing silly beggars make your complaint direct to the Info Commissioner. He's a bit busy so you may have to press them to take notice and do something but he does have the pwoer to take action.

 

Alternatively send Cabot a letter before action instructing them to remove the default within a certain time or to come up with proper evidence that this debt exists. If they don't then sue them for defamation. That'll cost them but serves them right.

[stikky62]

subbing

[Dipply75]

I agree Nailpost - will not be spending weeks arguing with them all. Have replied to the online team with this - which you can bet they will avoid answering. Will be time for an SAR then.

 

Thank you for your quick response. I will be taking this up with the Information Commissioner, therefore can you please clarify for me:

 

1 - No request for actual proof of this default or account has been made by Equifax - just a note to Cabot stating it is disputed, requiring only a note back to confirm?

 

2 - Equifax are taking no responsibility for the accuracy of the information published about my accounts?

 

3 - After Cabot have clearly stated that they have never had the agreement even though they are the owners, Equifax are still happy to 'assume' Cabot had permission to amend my data?

 

4 - Cabot clearly stated they have to investigate the account, yet state it is accurate. Are Equifax still content there is no dispute over accuracy?

 

5 - As per your own guidelines - are you refusing to suppress this information from my file, even though Cabot, as the owners, are unable to and refuse to provide proof of this account and the default?

 

Please provide clarification on these questions and I will then contact the ICO.

[timewarp3]

Subscribing...

[Dipply75]

Hi all

 

Had a reply from Equifax:

 

Re: CABOT FINANCIA

Although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies, 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 we have recently disputed the above account with the lender in question and advised you of the outcome. At this stage I can only advise that you contact the lender with the details requested to further there investigation.

 

If however, you wish to make a complaint, please note our regulatory body is {Information Commissioners Office blurb}

*sigh* - its not our fault and we asked them if it was right so its not our fault.......boohoo

 

I repeated my questions that they conveniently ignored and got this:

 

thank you for your recent correspondence, details of which have been passed to me for investigation and resolution.

 

As previously advised, although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies, 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.

 

 

SOOO, they carry out 'multiple validation checks on the agreements do they

 

How does the last paragraph read to you? To me it means either: we will follow any guidelines only if you contact the Information Commissioners Office OR, as you have said you will contact the Information Commissioners Office we will now follow guidelines, am confused.

 

So, /i have naturally asked what validation checks were done on this agreement (this should be good as it doesn't exist). I have also warned them that even though I have told them this debt is not mine, does not exist, they refuse to verify it - therefore ignoring my basic rights and their own rules - to which I will consider further action if this continues.

 

Holding my breath for the next non-answer

Edited July 7, 2008 by Dipply75
oopsed

[babybear39]

Since when did the CRAs hold credit agreements

[Dipply75]

OMG babybear, well spotted! That is not my typo - I copy and pasted.

 

They can't even lie properly.

 

Am off to ask that very question hehe

[Dipply75]

I had a response by the time I logged on to ask that question - read the bit about their contract with the lenders ........very interesting implications

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence, details of which have been passed to me for investigation and resolution.

 

Final Response

• 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.

• 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.

• My final investigation into this matter is now closed. If however you are not satisfied with the outcome of my final review, I would suggest that you may wish to contact the Information Commissioner.

 

So have replied with this - and then its straight to the ICO, I'm not having this:

 

Having just read your 'final response' let me clearly state the facts as I understand them, so they are on record in my account for the investigation and compaint.

 

There is an account recorded on my Equifax credit report that I have disputed as the debt is not mine and does not exist.

 

Equifax claims to take the accuracy of information they provide on the credit reports very seriously, complying with the Data Protection Act and following the guidelines set by the Information Commissioners

Office.

 

These guidelines clearly state:

Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

 

Please note: this states the Agency should ASK THE LENDER TO SUBSTANTIATE the disputed info - if unable to in the timeframe - SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION FROM THE FILE.

 

Equifax has not asked or substantiated any information and now refuse to suppress the information within the timescale stated.

 

Equifax clearly stated they would 'examine the companies data', yet did not do so.

 

You state:

Please note that this guideline is only enforced if the lender in question did not reply to the dispute raised with the recommended timeframe - which is different to the actual guidelines shown above (substantiate info changes to just responding?)and therefore another attempt to mislead my regarding my rights.

 

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an 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.

 

As Cabot placed the default, they are responsible for verifying it - not another lender/company. Equifax have refused to verify this default or its existence when reasonably disupted.

 

Equifax is now refusing to mark a genuinely disputed account as disputed. Your own guidelines state that a dispute is on until it is RESOLVED, this is clearly not resolved.

 

You state:

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

 

Your contractual agreements with your subscriber are not above the Data Protection Act which provides that information published about me must be accurate and you have a duty to verify this accuracy. If you contract with Cabot allows them to amend my data without providing proof of permission or accuracy, with the protection of contractual secrecy then Equifax has agreed with Cabot to seriously breach my, and others, rights. I am dismayed that a company so obviously aware of the Data Protection Act would try to avoid their responsibilities when dealing with my personal information.

The negative entries on my credit file are damaging to me and the Data Protection Act allows me to seek compensation from both you and the organisation which communicated the data to you through the County Courts and this is also an option which I would also consider.

 

Again, I am giving you a final opportunity to deal with this dispute correctly. Cabot have no proof of either the account or its accuracy (I have already discussed this with them). I am giving you one final opportunity to follow your own rules.

 

Sorry for the LONG posts but they write SO much crap

 

Any comments on the 'contractual obligations to lenders' line?

[babybear39]

It's a pile of BS.

 

Send them an LBA and state that you WILL sue persuant to breaches of the DPA.

[itsamomentintime]

you need to sue the CRA. its the only language they understand.

[2Grumpy]

It's a pile of BS.

 

Send them an LBA and state that you WILL sue persuant to breaches of the Data Protection Act.

 

and libel?

[foolishgirl]

Just picked up this thro' Finlander's thread, Dipply.

 

I'm amazed, truly amazed. Disgusted that they seem to think they can treat anyone like this & you'll just roll over.

 

BB's got the answer - LBA & then go all the way! Think there's been a recent post re. taking libel action in County Court- I'll try to find it.

[Dipply75]

I still can't quite get over it myself yet. i think you are all right, what choice are they leaving me?

 

So, are Equifax have contractual obligations to their subscriber - they have put to me, in writing, that they are obligated to the company, they are under contract.

 

It is swimming round and round in my head, there is something really significant there...............driving me nuts!!!

 

Could that be the proof they are not impartial - are they agreeing between them what validation checks will be acceptable (if any) as part of their contract - not what the law says. As it is then in the contract, Equifax is then obligated to side with the company - and all in secrecy. Am I missing the point, does anyone see what I am struggling to get at?

 

I am not allowed to know what checks were done with my information???!!! because they can't tell me as they agreed not to do checks (or v little) in their contract, which must be private as it contradicts their duties?

 

Sorry, trying to think outloud.....could they be that arrogant, is sounds far fetched maybe?

[Dipply75]

thats it....how can they be innocent disseminators if they have contractual obligations to their subscribers, can agree what individual validations will be accepted, and afford them confidentiality over this?

[palomino]

Since when did the CRAs hold credit agreements

 

Since they say they do perhaps Dipply75 should send off a CCA request for a copy.

[foolishgirl]

I can see exactly where you're coming from but can't recall ever seeing anything where CRA (or anybody else) claims they are completely independent, impartial etc. Can you point me to a source Dipply? If you're right, it could have big implications, not least TDA. Needs some further research I think.

 

But in the meantime, at the very least, your letter of admission of contract with suppliers should provide ammo for anyone wanting to take them to court re. defaults etc.

Edited July 8, 2008 by foolishgirl
typo

[Dipply75]

You're right foolishgirl - it all depends on the exact wording of who and what they claim they are and they do, I have to get to the bare bones of it.

 

Thanks, this is why it needs discussion! I know I have read/seen it somewhere - or is it just in all their general blurb, the implication......I have a headache lol

 

Will do some proper research tonight when I can think straight. Probably just still angry that they will not deign to discuss with little me what they did between them with MY information

[2Grumpy]

There's bound to be a contract between CRA & bank.

 

It will set the level of charges for doing enquiries as well as committing the bank to providing updates to the CRA.

 

The banks do pay the CRAs for their 'services', so there is bound to be some leverage over them.

 

I agree that the exact detail & anything else that it contains would be interesting - but unlikely to be forthcoming ...

[2Grumpy]

Probably just still angry that they will not deign to discuss with little me what they did between them with MY information

 

Have you sent them a full SAR rather than a credit report? As well as requesting all data held by them, you could also ask for any any audit trails, who has accessed your data and any automated decisions made.

[Dipply75]

Hi 2grumpy - thats my next letter!

 

I understand that there would be a general contract you describe with the banks - main lenders etc. What is worrying me that this seems to extend to dca's, tracing agents, any little slimy company out there as long as they are paying a fee they are getting access, no questions asked.

 

If there are questions asked apparently now they are company confidential and a contractual agreed obligation between dca and cra - which we are not allowed to know! So they agree between them how they will process our info, but its a secret.

 

Main lenders, doing the lending one thing. Every other company in the land that MAY have a finger in a pie?

 

Its all gonna come down to what 'vetting' of a company is done before subscribing (haha) and what checks they agree between them will be ok for recording info - if any! Could it seriously be "we have vetted you, therefore trust you, and will accept your word in practice - we will just not tell Miss so n so this as she will crack up,we'll say its confidential....

 

But I agree - snowballs chance in hell of finding that out.

 

Am so p!!sed off

Edited July 8, 2008 by Dipply75
spelling

[Dipply75]

Letter of complaint, CCA request etc received by Cabot today. start the clock....

 

Oh and message from Equifax in a much nice tone suddenly - clearly stating that they have removed the dispute from my file because, in their opinion, cabot's response has been satisfactory and they have requested I contact them directly. Actual complaints procedure started now (am gonna do this by the book ), not some uppity woman just telling me she will not discuss it anymore. Shame, as the ammunition she was supplying was priceless

 

So, cabot have provided proof (yeah right) which I am not allowed to know about, but Equifax have accepted - and as they want to deal with me direct the dispute has been removed. They are refusing to put the dispute notice back on. Dig a hole Equifax.

 

There is also the small matter of Equifax allowing themselves to be another route for a dca to force you to contact them. Place a default then tell the cra nothing will be done unless you contact them directly - cra complies.

 

There are serious conflicts of interest here.