My bank has given my address out, is this allowed??

[nickiirko]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to be posting in, but i hope that someone can either help me or point me in the direction of somewhere that can.

 

I've spent the morning trawling the internet and cant find any information that can help me.

 

I recently moved house and had a dispute with a company regarding cable. This has been sorted they have wiped the debt for me, it seems they've forgotten to inform their debt collectors who to my surprise sent a letter to my new address. I had not informed this company of where i had moved to i communicated with them totally electronically.

 

The address they used was wrong in part, so i know full well that it was my bank that gave them this as they also have part of my address wrong( and still havent changed it on the system no matter how many times i tell them!)

 

Are my bank allowed to give out this kind of information?? Did they think it wouldn't get traced back to them?? Because they should've checked they had my address word for word if that was the case!!

 

If anyone can help, or if i'm posting in the wrong type of forum i do apologise, i simplying couldnt think of any other way of finding the information out!!

 

Thanks

[buzby]

What I think will have happened, is that you've already agreed with your bank that they can disclose details to a CRA. When you told the bank you moved and provided your new address, this change would be automatically flagged to the CRA. A creditor can then use your credit file to instigate a fishing exercise - you'll probably find that Wirgin have similarly forced this disclosure as part of their terms of trading.

 

In essence, you've already agreed to these disclosures, and any errors (whether by the debt collector firm or actually in your credit file) can only be corrected, not removed. Your file will probably also show a default for the cable debt, and your old and new addresses are now 'linked'.

[nickiirko]

Thanks Busby

 

Am I right in thinking a CRA is a Credit Ratings Agency?

 

I signed with my bank over 10 years ago so if i'm honest I cant remember if i signed for that too.

[buzby]

Yes - Credit Reference Agency (Experian, Equifax, Callcredit).

 

From memory, the banks slipped the disclosure requirement in from around 1995 (at least that's when I first spotted it, so it might have been earlier).

[nickiirko]

Well i ordered my credit report to check the address on there and its correct. there are no tie to the address the bank have for me, so does this mean the bank did give address out or has there been a clerical mess up somewhere??

[yourbank]

Please read post 2 again. The change of address is flagged with the CRA's and that is how the address was obtained by the DCA who would have used a tracing agent and can you guess one of the organisations that they check? CRA's. The bank have not given out your address DIRECTLY to the DCA but indirectly by changing your address they have traced you.

[nickiirko]

I'm slightly confused.

If my bank have passed the address they have for me on to the CRA's then surely on my credit reports there would at least be a tie to this address? There are ties to my 2 previous addresses detailed. There is no mention of the address the bank have for me on any of the 3 reports i have checked.

 

If the DCA were using the CRA to trace me then it would stand to reason they would have got my correct address as this is clearly stated on every report on me? Is this not correct?

 

Just to reitorate my bank has one line of my address wrong, which is the same line thats wrong on the letters from the DCA, and its an error which isn't easily made as it bears no resemblence to the actual line of my address. My address on all 3 of my Credit Reports are my correct address where i current reside.

[buzby]

You need to check all THREE reports (from each company) to join up the dots and discover the culprit. Alternatively, ask the bank who they use, or which agencies they have arrangements. Most banks will use 2 agencies as a minimum!

[nickiirko]

Thanks for the reply buzby, i've checked Experian, Call Credit and Equifax, are those the only 3 there are?

 

I'm sorry i know i sound a bit dumb, but i've never really gone into anything like this before!

 

Just to add all 3 of the above reports detail my correct address, i've now finally managed to change my address to the correct one through my bank (after i'd checked all 3 CRA's, purposely not before) but haven't mentioned the fact i'm concerned yet, as obviously dont want to go in all guns blazing if there is an innocent explanation!

[BlueSquirrel]

Was just reading this thread and it raised an interesting point. If I took out my bank account in 1976 (scarey but true) presumably I wouldn't have given my consent for information to be given to CRA's? Can I complain if my bank then does this?

 

Be interested to see what you find out nickiirko. Any organisation is only as strong as it's weakest link! I used to hear people in my office giving out information that they shouldn't all the time.

[buzby]

Thanks for the reply buzby, i've checked Experian, Call Credit and Equifax, are those the only 3 there are?!

 

Callcredit are tiddlers in this game, but they are the only three firms able to process your data in this way. There are other specialised agencies that deal with commercial and fraud transactions, so there will always remain the possibility that the incorrect data came from one of those, or is was just incompetence on the part of the bank (and that's not an unknown scenario!).

[Bookworm]

Was just reading this thread and it raised an interesting point. If I took out my bank account in 1976 (scarey but true) presumably I wouldn't have given my consent for information to be given to CRA's? Can I complain if my bank then does this?

No, if you kept the account going as the new T&Cs came into force, you would find that you had agreed (implicitly, I grant you) to the new terms, your choice being to read the changes, deciding you don't want anything to do with it and movign elsewhere... where they will be doing exactly the same thing.

[buzby]

No, if you kept the account going as the new T&Cs came into force, you would find that you had agreed (implicitly, I grant you) to the new terms, your choice being to read the changes, deciding you don't want anything to do with it and movign elsewhere... where they will be doing exactly the same thing.

 

Completely, utterly and totally WRONG!

 

Whilst it depends on what the OP actually agreed to at the time - the period between 1986-1992 was a state of flux with some applicants being required to disclose their details and others not. It all depended on the individual policy of the bank. From 1992 however, all banks had signed up to the idea and the credit reference agencies then became major players, simply because it heralded a major expansion to their business model - they were no longer simply recording payment details of 'credit' agreements.

 

The Data Protection Act has provisions that allow consumers to disclose their financial affairs to third parties, but they must knowingly give consent for this, it is not permitted for an organisation to simply change their T&Cs and declare that the customer is deemed to have accepted them. This works for most changes, but not under Data Protection laws.

 

I'm surprised you missed the furore generated last year, or it could have been in 2006, then the Labour Government in its usual guise of destroying both its credibility and consumer privacy, accepted an argument put forward by the banks that it was not possible to implement 'responsible lending' criteria if possibly a million customers who opened their bank accounts before the CRA disclosure rules were applied would slip through the net.

 

The Data Protection Commissioner was consulted and the decision was that as the Data Protection Act currently stands, a customer who has the benefit of this level of privacy (regarding disclosure to CRAs) will retain it, it is not a sufficient exemption ('responsible lending') to allow such disclosure. The Government then advised that it would bring in an amendment to the DPA to specifically allow this. As of 2008 this has still not happened, nor is it likely to. On one hand, the problem becomes less of an issue with these oldies all dying off and their accounts being closed. By doing nothing, this problem will simply go away, and in any event the ID card scheme has taken a greater priority.

 

As it seems likely that Labour will be out of office come the next election, along with the demise of the ID card scheme and £250 passports, this is one less worry, but those aged from (say) 48 and over will probably retain this level of privacy in their financial affairs, however any change in account-type, will effectively mean the new account will operate under the disclosure rules it is only by NOT changing them will the protection continue. I have 3 accounts that enjoy this protection and I guard them jealously.

[BlueSquirrel]

Does the permission to disclose information cease when the account closes?

[buzby]

That I can't answer - it will depend on what was formally agreed at the time the account was opened and will be in the T&C's. When my bank tried to get me to switch to a new account, along with the clearly worded section on who they would disclose to, I asked them if this disclosure ended the moment the account was closed. I was told yes, however the data would still form part of your credit file (but not updated) until it became time barred.

 

I didn't open the account!

[BlueSquirrel]

I have just sent a CCA request to M & S and I have the agreement in front of me. Under the disclosure statement it says

"The Company are hereby authorised by the Cardholder to disclose to any third party having a right to such information any details regarding the Cardholder and the Cardholder's account." Do CRA's have a right to the information?

[buzby]

It's actually very clever wording - what it really means is this;

 

"Before we give you credit/charge/store card, we need to be seen to be responsible lenders and because of this we will check with one or more credit reference agencies. Unfortunately, these firms won't tell us anything unless we agree to give them information on you and how you conduct your business with us. So, as it is no skin of our nose, were passing on your personal data with no possibility of opting out."

 

There is no 'right' on their part, it is their arrangement with CRAs that require them to pass on the information because if they didn't, they could end up lending to lots of people who might not pay them back!

[BlueSquirrel]

So, could I argue that as I have only agreed that information was passed on to those that had a right to it, and CRA's don't, then it shouldn't have been passed to them?

[buzby]

You could argue it - but they could in turn respond by saying the Labour Government required them to be 'responsible lenders' and as such were only following their advice. It would seem the consumer is way down the chain, as the lender would be required to supply this information in order to prevent fraud and ensure they responsiby lend, and this translates into them being obliged (the 'right') to disclose your details.

 

The easiest option would just not do any business with them!

Edited July 30, 2008 by buzby