2 defaults Egg and Vodaphone - Default hell!!

[fallen angel]

Ok i have read this entire thread and i am now left extremely confused :-?

 

If i give permision for some one to log info on my credit report and give someone permision to ask a credit reference agency if they hold any info on me can i still ask the credit reference agency not to give out any info on me as i have only given people permision to ask for the info i have not given the cra's permision to disperse such info?

 

Does that make any sense what so ever or am i slowly going insane due to information overload?

 

Kind regards Nicky

[Paddyc01]

OK like many others I sent the S12 letter to the three companies. Like everyone else I got the standard reply from Experian today.

I have typed out the whole letter (which took me ages) and although many have seen it there is one point I have not seen anyone pick up on yet.

One of the paragraphs says "I would like to clarify that our role is to give lenders factual information about you when you apply for credit"

Now does anyone know what steps the CRA's take to assure the information they hold is factual? If I believe information hey hold is NOT factual then isn’t it up to them to find the proof that it is?

I have pasted the complete letter below.

Dear Mr *******

Thank you for your letter dated 12 June 2007, which has been brought to my attention in the Directors Office.

I acknowledge your request under section 12(1) of the Date Protection Act 1998, entitles an individual to write to a data controller to require the data controller to ensure that no decision which significantly affects them is made solely by automatic means.

I am fully aware of the legislation that you kindly quoted in your letter, which is detailed below for your reference.

12. - (1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to an data controller , to require the date controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.

As a credit reference agency, Experian does not make any automated decisions with regards your creditworthiness or any other criteria that are specified within section 12(1). Consequently, we do not have to comply with your request to remove the information that we process by automated means. This is because we are not making any decisions about the information that we obtain and process via automated systems.

I have highlighted the relevant part of section 12(1) that clarifies that it is only when a decision is made by automated processing that you are entitled to have that automated decision reconsidered (s.12(2)(b)).

I would like to clarify that our role is to give lenders factual information about you when you apply for credit. This helps lenders as it enables them to review your current and previous credit agreements but also benefits the applicant as they can be granted credit facilities instantly rather that having to prove that they have a good financial history every time they make an application.

When a lender asks to see the information we hold, we do not offer any comments or advice. Lenders use the information we send them, along with the information you give on a credit application form, to help them decide weather or not to lend. We are not told if the information we have provided has affected the lending decision or, in fact, what the decision is.

If you have been declined for financial services and the lender confirms that the decision was made via an automated process then you do have the right to appeal against that decision and request that your application is manually reviewed.

You may wish to quote the legislation you referred to in your letter in support of any request that you may make to a lender for a manual assessment. Furthermore, you may also like to note that is you add an explanatory statement to your credit report, this will automatically mean that your credit application must be manually reviewed prior to completion of any automated assessment.

You can add a short explanatory statement to your report to make sure that future lenders are aware of your comments. This is called a ‘Notice of correction’. Anyone looking at your report in the future will see your comments and should take them into account before making a lending decision.

If you would like to add a ‘notice of correction’ to your credit report, please let us know the exact wording you would like to use. We can not add a statement that is longer than 200 words or one that we think is defamatory, frivolous, scandalous or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

Before you are permitted to add a ‘notice of correction’ to your report, you must first obtain a copy of your credit report detailing the information that we hold about you that lenders view when you apply for credit. I am enclosing an application form (NO application form enclosed) for you to complete and return should you wish to take up this option.

It is also stipulated within section 5 (Principles or decision-making) of ‘The Guide to Credit Scoring 2000’, that the applicant can appeal for a manual decision to be made if they have been declined purely by means of an automated scoring process.

You might wish to view ‘the guide to credit scoring 2000’ in particular section 5-7, if you wish to see this in full. You can find this on the Experian website at:

www.experian.co.uk/corporate/compliance/creditscoring

In your letter you also refer to the Human Rights Act 1998. This act requires all ‘public authorities’ to act completely within the rights contained in Schedule 1 of the act. As Experian is a private company and not a public body, the human rights act 1998 does not directly affect the work we do.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998 strictly control the personal information that we hold. Both laws give you specific rights and make sure we deal with your information carefully and fairly.

If you have any further queries, please fell free to contact me directly either by email at *****@uk.experian.com, by telephone on ***** or by writing to me at the following address.

Blah Blah Blah

[Paddyc01]

Today i got the same kind of reply from Equifax (still no reply from callcredit). Does anyone know any other road I can go with this?

 

As Experiam quoted in the letter "I would like to clarify that our role is to give lenders factual information about you when you apply for credit" Does anyone think there is a further route i can take with this whole "Factual" thing?

[cresswell80]

blimey well this is an anti-climax...3 hours reading the 22 pages and no conclusion! no test case!

 

is the general consensus that a s10/s12 to the bank is the best route for just one default removal?

[un1boy]

Cress, the best thing is to sue the b-tards.

 

I have never used a s10/12 - I have used other methods, ie, claiming that hte default is unlawful because no default notice was sent/no original application/agreement is available.

[fallen angel]

Ok i have read this entire thread and i am now left extremely confused :-?

 

If i give permision for some one to log info on my credit report and give someone permision to ask a credit reference agency if they hold any info on me can i still ask the credit reference agency not to give out any info on me as i have only given people permision to ask for the info i have not given the cra's permision to disperse such info?

 

Does that make any sense what so ever or am i slowly going insane due to information overload?

 

Kind regards Nicky

 

Anyone?

[Paintball]

blimey well this is an anti-climax...3 hours reading the 22 pages and no conclusion! no test case!

 

is the general consensus that a s10/s12 to the bank is the best route for just one default removal?

 

 

I used SurlyBonds' letter enclosing an S10 Notice and have sent it to NatWest, Barclaycard and Capital Bank. The former two I have issued N1s to and my POCs included removal of Default and all reference to the Banks from my credit file. Capital Bank stands alone. Responses and results to date:

 

1. NatWest - removed Default from file 14/8, money claim still ongoing

2. Barclaycard - removed Dafault from my file 14/8, money claim still ongoing

3. Capital Bank - letter acknowledging S10 received 17/7 informing me that 'the appropriate department' would be dealing with my request. No further correspondence from them. The 21 days is up (I have given them more time owing to the postal dispute), LBA going off today giving 7 days' notice before I commence court proceedings.

 

I have today also issued CapOne with an S10 Notice and request for removal of adverse marker data using the same principles in law, on a credit card account that is closed and settled (charges & CCI refunded earlier this year).

 

So, I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from these responses. I intend to pursue my claims with CapOne and Capital Bank in court as it seems to be the only way these banks will take things seriously.

 

HTH Painty xx

[Lizzy]

Anyone?

 

Hi Fallen Angel

 

If you would like an answer to your question it is best you start your own thread. More people will see it then.

 

Read as much as you can in this section, the answer to your question is long and complicated.

 

Lizzy

[andrew1]

Many of the Debt Collection agencies are now 'managing their risk' and segregating accounts into subsections by establishing what assets the debtors have or haven't got. By that I mean the Land Registry and seeing whether they can obtain a charging Order on your property if you own a house and owe a debt. What merits are there in slapping a section 10 or 12 on the Land Registry to stop them providing this information to Debt Collectors?

[Paintball]

Many of the Debt Collection agencies are now 'managing their risk' and segregating accounts into subsections by establishing what assets the debtors have or haven't got. By that I mean the Land Registry and seeing whether they can obtain a charging Order on your property if you own a house and owe a debt. What merits are there in slapping a section 10 or 12 on the Land Registry to stop them providing this information to Debt Collectors?

 

That's very interesting, I don't like the sound of that at all. Can I ask where you obtained that info as your suggestion is worth pursuing.

[andrew1]

Ehmm! source eh? Whistleblowing - me ? Actually it is a known fact from our friends ( I'm a Fan! ) in Cabot Financial amongst many other dca's I might add, I just love Cabot though - that that is exactly what they are doing. take a read of this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/82835-cabot-kings-hill-no1.html

 

I take it you mean searching the Land Registry? One only has to send in a Data Protection Subject Access Report to the DCA's - any DCA and you will be provided with the whole gambit of their activities. Just read the notes carefully and you'll find just what you need. Now I'd keep that to yourself rather than air it on an open forum because I wouldn't want to be responsible for providing the DCA's with a whole load of admin work from thousands of applications of course.(Don't forget the £10 P.o. ) People are generally inclined to send a CCA request to confirm that they have the copy of their agreement, which most don't of course, but not many send off to a dca for a complete breakdown with the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request).

 

It's a bit too big brother for me, and given that the dca's are jumping for joy with getting access to 'white data' it's only going to get worse.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

an excellent thread for default matters !!!

[andrew1]

an excellent thread for default matters !!!

 

Glad you approve!

[powerful_rogue]

I havent got round to reading the entire thread yet, currently upto page 12, however I found this that I thought was interesting on the Information Commisioners website.

 

The Data Protection Act gives you, as an individual, a limited right to prevent significant decisions being taken about you solely by automatic processing. This affects only those decisions made by a computer where there is no human involvement in the decision. It could include, for example, a decision about your performance at work or your credit worthiness.

You also have the right to be told, as soon as reasonably possible, when this type of decision has been made about you.

What can you do to stop this type of processing?

 

You can write to an organisation telling them not to make decisions about you on this basis. It would be advisable to send your letter by recorded delivery and keep a copy.

The organisation has 21 days to tell you how they intend to respond to your objection. They can either reconsider any decision they have made or make a fresh decision not just using a computer. If you are not satisfied with the response, you can go to court and the court can order the organisation to reconsider the decision they have made or take a new decision on a different basis.

 

Some fully automated decisions are exempt from these provisions. These are where the decision is taken

• in relation to entering or carrying out a contract, or
  
• is authorised or required by an Act of Parliament, and
  
• the decision results in the granting of a request you have made, or
  
• steps have been taken to safeguard your legitimate interests, such as, there is an appeal to the decision.

 

Ive highlighted the interesting parts on bold.

 

Im presuming if you sent an order to the CRA to stop automated processing of your data, they can still show it to anyone you agree to conducting a credit check in relation to a contract.

 

Now ive looked over the DPA and cant seem to locate these exclusions in the act

[car2403]

I havent got round to reading the entire thread yet, currently upto page 12, however I found this that I thought was interesting on the Information Commisioners website.

 

The Data Protection Act gives you, as an individual, a limited right to prevent significant decisions being taken about you solely by automatic processing. This affects only those decisions made by a computer where there is no human involvement in the decision. It could include, for example, a decision about your performance at work or your credit worthiness.

You also have the right to be told, as soon as reasonably possible, when this type of decision has been made about you.

 

 

Ive highlighted the interesting parts on bold.

 

Im presuming if you sent an order to the CRA to stop automated processing of your data, they can still show it to anyone you agree to conducting a credit check in relation to a contract.

 

Now ive looked over the Data Protection Act and cant seem to locate these exclusions in the act

 

Note: You can't stop the CRA's from processing your data, as they have a "legitimate" interest in the data that is shared with them from their customers (financial institutions) with them - the right to share that information (between customer (financial institutions) and CRA) must be based on a contract between you and the customer. (A bank, for example) Without having express written consent from you, sharing of information with any third party (where there isn't provision for it in the Act - such as Crime investigation/prevention, for example) is a criminal offence under s.35 of the DPA.

 

Having said that, the Act allows you to prevent automated processing of your data, which is what I think you're referring to PR? That can happen, but as the CRA's only use automated processing (you can't stop processing all together, as I've mentioned above, but they aren't geared up for manual processing at all) to share information, asking them to stop doing so would result in you having no credit reference information being publicly available at all! (Is having no record better than having a bad one? You'd have to decide that based on the merits of your own case)

 

You can read this in this thread, from post 14, as Surleybonds talks about how to do this and a bit about potential impact;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/20118-default-hell.html

[powerful_rogue]

Hi car2403,

 

It was indeed the second part of your post I was refering to. Ive read a lot about how people have send letters to the CRA to stop them automatically processing thier data. Not something I would consider at this time as I believe it would appear suspicious to lenders.

 

However the main point of my post, was that according to the ICO this wouldnt have any affect because:

 

Some fully automated decisions are exempt from these provisions. These are where the decision is taken

• in relation to entering or carrying out a contract, or
  
• is authorised or required by an Act of Parliament, and
  
• the decision results in the granting of a request you have made

 

So it appears The CRA would still be able to give an automated decision everytime you apply for a contract as this is an exemption. However for some reason I can not seem to locate this actual exemption within the DPA.

[andabar79]

where is surly bonds he contributed loads then went away?????

[maybelline]

great thread but has grown some since my last visit - is there a template for letter to send to cra's still processing the data, I have done my S10 to the relevant parties but no response at all months ago, also have already had one prelim hearing with one party and just waiting for listing but they are still updating file with incorrect data - arggghhhh!!

[car2403]

great thread but has grown some since my last visit - is there a template for letter to send to cra's still processing the data, I have done my S10 to the relevant parties but no response at all months ago, also have already had one prelim hearing with one party and just waiting for listing but they are still updating file with incorrect data - arggghhhh!!

 

Why would you want to write to them again? The s.10 template acts as a LBA, so the next step is a Court claim or a complaint to the ICO.

[maybelline]

Hiya car2403, my S10 went to the creditor dishing this info out like smarties! I have complained to experian but now starting again with equifax, I have not S10 to either of these, since I am already in court (hearing to be listed) re same with the creditor I have assumed the court outcome will deal ultimately with the issue in a way the agencies cannot ignore?

[car2403]

Hiya car2403, my S10 went to the creditor dishing this info out like smarties! I have complained to experian but now starting again with equifax, I have not S10 to either of these, since I am already in court (hearing to be listed) re same with the creditor I have assumed the court outcome will deal ultimately with the issue in a way the agencies cannot ignore?

 

If your claim asks for a Court Order under s.14(1) and s.14(3) Data Protection Act 1998 it should.

[xfox]

I used SurlyBonds' letter enclosing an S10 Notice and have sent it to NatWest, Barclaycard and Capital Bank. The former two I have issued N1s to and my POCs included removal of Default and all reference to the Banks from my credit file. Capital Bank stands alone. Responses and results to date:

 

1. NatWest - removed Default from file 14/8, money claim still ongoing

2. Barclaycard - removed Dafault from my file 14/8, money claim still ongoing

3. Capital Bank - letter acknowledging S10 received 17/7 informing me that 'the appropriate department' would be dealing with my request. No further correspondence from them. The 21 days is up (I have given them more time owing to the postal dispute), LBA going off today giving 7 days' notice before I commence court proceedings.

 

I have today also issued CapOne with an S10 Notice and request for removal of adverse marker data using the same principles in law, on a credit card account that is closed and settled (charges & CCI refunded earlier this year).

 

So, I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from these responses. I intend to pursue my claims with CapOne and Capital Bank in court as it seems to be the only way these banks will take things seriously.

 

HTH Painty xx

 

Have you got a link so I can do the same to HSBC?

They have put incorrect information on my credit file, need to issue N1 claim form but don't know what to put on the POC.

[car2403]

Have you got a link so I can do the same to HSBC?

They have put incorrect information on my credit file, need to issue N1 claim form but don't know what to put on the POC.

 

Hi xfox,

 

Here's the link to the template letter;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24013-defaults-proposed-method-removal.html

 

It's worth starting your own thread so you can get some specific advice on your individual case as you go along. Here's how if you're unsure;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

[maybelline]

If your claim asks for a Court Order under s.14(1) and s.14(3) Data Protection Act 1998 it should.

 

my claim in under Agreement Unenforceable, (lack of prescribed terms) all figures are wrong (tcc and apr) I have included removal of default in the claim, however, creditor seem to think the Judge will say it can stay even if the agreement is found unenforceable and security removed, arguing the debt is not void. this argument has been done elsewhere and I believe the default should be removed since it is based on an unenforceable agreement, with mystery charges and fees all over it, no prescribed terms and the figures and dates of default are also incorrect, DPA states processing of 'accurate' information, does it not.

[maybelline]

another problem with the credit reference agencies is that they are so hasty to record not only inaccurate information but record 'blind' information, a payment may be late for reasons totally out of the persons control and not their fault at all but still it 'appears' as if this is so! this information is being shared all too randomly without sufficient checks as to accuracy and causing asbolute mayhem without it seems any way of stopping them - it takes much time and effort to sort out and is not an option for everyone:(