CRA Attempt to stop processing data

[sbfido]

 

I am about to challenge all CRA's in respect of disputed accounts that are unenforcable.

 

This include the finding of on an account that is viewed unlawful by the information commisioner.

 

can people add or advise on the following letter. I am asking they stop processing items in serious dispute fully, a notice of correction is not acceptable and formally removing consent to process while the matter is legally resolved.

 

_________________________________________________________

Name and address details with date of birth

 

The information can be verified from your own records.

Accounts in Dispute Letter Before Action

 

Please be advised the the following accounts are now in disputes for breaches of the consumer credit act or have been found to have breached the data protection act.

 

As such I require you to immediately stop processing the disputed information as continued processing will be viewed as a breach of the data protection act.

I require to remove information in accordance with the act until the matter has been resolved using the legal process or until the regulatory or official bodies have made judgment on these matters. Confirmation from the provider is not sufficient evidence to continue processing unless legal or regulatory conclusion is reached

 

I do not accept a notice of dispute placed on my file pending a resolve to the matter as you will still provide information that is misleading to third parties. These items are in serious dispute and should therefore not be processed from receipt of this letter.

 

While the accounts are in dispute you do not have consent to process disputed information, unless you provide me with a copy of a written excuted agreement that I have signed in respect of the accounts giving consent to continue processing. As the information pertains to me as the data subject you should seek legal guidance form the information commissioners office if you are unsure of the validity of this request

 

You are required to ensure data you process is accurate if you fail to ensure this then you will be in brach of the data protection act and I will pursue for compensation should I find you have ignored this request. This letter should be consider as a letter before action for court purposes.

 

Below are the details of the accounts in dispute and a brief reason including details of any agencies that have assisted in the dispute being raised or any formal requests.

 

Account details including solicitors appointed by me and who complaints have been rasied with ie - FSA ICO Telephone Hararament ect.

 

 

________________

 

Finally i will be requesting they send a confirmation letter of this request and will consider it served two days from posting allowing 2 days to stop processing.

 

After 14 days i will request a DSAR.

 

lol

Edited June 20, 2009 by sbfido

[kiptower]

font bit taken out etc and few typos, for you,

 

"Accounts in Dispute Letter Before Action”

 

Please be advised the following accounts are now in disputes for breaches of the consumer credit act or have been found to have breached the data protection act.

 

As such I require you to immediately stop processing the disputed information, as continued processing will be viewed as a breach of the data protection act. I require you to remove information in accordance with the act until the matter has been resolved using the legal process or until the regulatory or official bodies have made judgment on these matters. Confirmation from the provider is not sufficient evidence to continue processing unless legal or regulatory conclusion is reached.

 

I do not accept a notice of dispute placed on my file pending a resolve to the matter, as you will still provide information that is misleading to third parties. These items are in serious dispute and should therefore not be processed from receipt of this letter.

 

While the accounts are in dispute you do not have consent to process disputed information, unless you provide me with a copy of a written executed agreement that I have signed in respect of the accounts giving consent to continue processing. As the information pertains to me as the data subject you should seek legal guidance form the information commissioners office if you are unsure of the validity of this request.

 

You are required to ensure data you process is accurate if you fail to ensure this then you will be in breach of the data protection act and I will pursue for compensation should I find you have ignored this request. This letter should be considered as a letter before action for court purposes.

 

Below are the details of the accounts in dispute and a brief reason including details of any agencies that have assisted in the dispute being raised or any formal requests.

 

Account details including solicitors appointed by me and to whom complaints have been raised with i.e. - FSA Information Commissioners Office Telephone Harassment etc.

[crippy182]

To be honest, there's not much of a case there.

 

No.1 The ICO and CRAs although different, act on the same principals. There's thousands of people per day disputing information on their files, some legitimate - some not so much - (just chancing their arms).

 

No.2 It's impossible for the CRA's to hold signed credit agreements for over 600,000,000 records - hence should you need to challenge this information they have agreed with the ICO as per DPA that they will contact the data supplier to validate the information held on their records. Should that company then come back to say it is accurate, the CRA has done its side of the bargain in accordance to the DPA and liabilty then lies on the company.

 

No.3 CRAs can't remove this data unless they have authority from the company supplying this directly. All they are is database who if asked, will challenge this info for you.

 

If you have already disputed your information with CRAs, then your beef lies with the companies who say it's correct and continue to supply it.

 

Plus, in reality if you're disputing a lot of info on your file, then you're not goin to be applying for credit anytime soon; so no-one is goin to see this info anyway.

Edited June 11, 2009 by crippy182
typo

[jeccapf]

To be honest, there's not much of a case there.

 

No.1 The ICO and CRAs although different, act on the same principals. There's thousands of people per day disputing information on their files, some legitimate - some not so much - (just chancing their arms).

 

No.2 It's impossible for the CRA's to hold signed credit agreements for over 600,000,000 records - hence should you need to challenge this information they have agreed with the ICO as per DPA that they will contact the data supplier to validate the information held on their records. Should that company then come back to say it is accurate, the CRA has done its side of the bargain in accordance to the DPA and liabilty then lies on the company.

 

No.3 CRAs can't remove this data unless they have authority from the company supplying this directly. All they are is database who if asked, will challenge this info for you.

 

If you have already disputed your information with CRAs, then your beef lies with the companies who say it's correct and continue to supply it.

 

Plus, in reality if you're disputing a lot of info on your file, then you're not goin to be applying for credit anytime soon; so no-one is goin to see this info anyway.

 

See now I disagree with this point of view,

 

1 the CRA's are data controllers too, and cannot process your information if you tell them not to (I believe Surleybob actually managed to get Experian to confirm this in writing).

 

2 Also, they need to take extraordinary steps to ensure the information is correct, if they put your arguments of why its wrong to the company and the company (as in my case) just reply with "we have reviewed your file and cannot correct it" with no addressing of the points made, well, thats not enough to say that they have ensured the information is correct.

 

3 The Data Protection Act only allows the CRA's to process information which is in the public domain (ie CCJ, bankruptcy...) if they do so they are in breach of Human Rights Article 6 - right to a fair defence

 

4 Nowhere, NOT ANYWHERE, in the DPA do the CRA's have permission to hold anything (at all, nothing, nada...) for 6 years, push them for the statute and they will eventually just say "its industry standard" (which is not good enough for ruining your life)

 

5 when you do push them, they will come back with a standard response of (erm paragraph 6 sched 2 DPA) which they boldly say "which view is shared by the Data Commissioner - but this section actually says "except where the processing is unwarranted... because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject and there is actually case law that an effect to your credit rating is such a prejudice (Khaporah or something? its on this forum somewhere!)

 

So, yes you have a case against the companies themselves, I'm in the process of doing mine and I'm hunting everywhere for an example of one that has turned up to defend the case - interested in that if anyone has one!

 

But also, I strongly believe that the CRA's are acting unlawfully too - soooooooooo tempted to bring a case, but I'm sure they'd hire top lawyers to challenge it so not confident enough to do it alone yet. The more I research it, the more I think its the new bank charges case, if I was as well informed and confident as Surleybob or Car or Tinkerbell for when the case got going and they tried to baffle me with bulls*** I'd love to give it a go.

 

Just dont feel confident enough to do it alone - what dya think?

[crippy182]

I fully understand where you're coming from, and the frustration you're receiving must be body crippling and stressfull.

 

It's not alaways fair, but I have recently applied for a credit card and when I read through the terms and conditions it states that by signing this agreement, you consent to all the above terms and that this is our information to share to other CRAs etc. After all it is the Bank's money. If I borrowed my Dad's money, he's entitled to let anyone know that I have just borrowed it, and if I didnt pay him back - then he's allowed to say that too.

 

Banks get a raw deal in things too - they lose millions in unpaid loans and and defaults etc.

 

I hope that you will get this sorted, especially if this is WRONG info - no-one deserves to have incorrect details stored on them.

[jeccapf]

I fully understand where you're coming from, and the frustration you're receiving must be body crippling and stressfull.

 

It's not alaways fair, but I have recently applied for a credit card and when I read through the terms and conditions it states that by signing this agreement, you consent to all the above terms and that this is our information to share to other CRAs etc. After all it is the Bank's money. If I borrowed my Dad's money, he's entitled to let anyone know that I have just borrowed it, and if I didnt pay him back - then he's allowed to say that too.

 

Banks get a raw deal in things too - they lose millions in unpaid loans and and defaults etc.

 

I hope that you will get this sorted, especially if this is WRONG info - no-one deserves to have incorrect details stored on them.

 

Yep I've heard that argument, but checking the terms of the contracts that I've had, that permission expires when the contract ends, it doesnt say any exceptions if its due to default and anyway on two of these, I crossed through that term when the sales person wasnt looking and it wasnt noticed so was accepted. I also feel encouraged as I have just located someone who actually served a county court case against experian on this basis - they didnt show up and he won by default... gotta wonder - whats that all about????

[julian1968]

I have two matters with HSBC for not supplying cca's for a loan and a credit card account

 

Is it worth my sending the above letter to the cred refs as a first step?

 

Thanks

[Yorky2008]

It's not alaways fair, but I have recently applied for a credit card and when I read through the terms and conditions it states that by signing this agreement, you consent to all the above terms and that this is our information to share to other CRAs etc.

 

If they cannot produce the signed agreement though then surely they cannot prove that you have agreed to the T&Cs?

 

Yorky.

[jeccapf]

It's not alaways fair, but I have recently applied for a credit card and when I read through the terms and conditions it states that by signing this agreement, you consent to all the above terms and that this is our information to share to other CRAs etc. After all it is the Bank's money. If I borrowed my Dad's money, he's entitled to let anyone know that I have just borrowed it, and if I didnt pay him back - then he's allowed to say that too.

 

There are a couple of points here,

 

Firstly, "you agree to these terms and conditions" - but for how long? if it forms part of the contract then the term ends with the rest of the contract - no contract, no right to process - if it says for 6 years afterwards then did you willingly agree with that or was it forced upon you with no access to negotiation?

 

Secondly, the very ethos of "you agree to these terms and conditions" is called into question if you do not have the ability to negotiate, a contract is a negotiated agreement, not a decree by omnipotent dictatorship, so without the means to negotiate the terms, it could be argued that the contract is too heavily weighted to the side of the lender and therefore the term is an Unfair Contract Term.

 

Thirdly and in any case, you ONLY give consent (and the contract ONLY REQUESTS consent) for ACCURATE information - if its in dispute then it is by definition to be deemed inaccurate until such time as it is adjudicated on - in which case it would be in the public domain.

 

If you AGREE that the default is your own fault then you obviously have no problem with it being reported as fact, as long as it was done so within the terms of the contract which you were happy to agree to, but if its in dispute then printing it is possibly defamation and definately prejudice under the terms of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act.

 

Also, and abit of an aside, no it isnt the "Banks" money, its money borrowed by the bank from the investors, and the terms of its use are (or should be) again subject to negotiation not only between investors and bank (and we all know that THAT hasnt happened in the last 10 years) but also NEGOTIATION between the bank and the borrower - most crucially NOT to be too heavily weighted on either side. Too long have the banks got away with pretending to be all knowledgable about whats best, there has never been a better time to say "hang on a minute...".

 

Finally, If I were to borrow money from MY dad, it would be under terms of absolute confidentiality unless there were some malfeasance and if that were the case, the consequences would depend on the proof of malfeasance and the stated consequences of the contract for whatever malfeasance it was - which consequences would not be arbitary, but would be measured and proportionate to the fault.

 

The argument for disproportionality under Human Rights does have some basis in precedent, as in the handling of criminal records.

 

Now a Criminal Record will stay on your file forever, its not uncommon to find people now in their 40's for instance who got in trouble aged 16 and it still shows on the record - its not acted on, but its there for consideration.

 

I think we'd all agree that a criminal record can have a far harder impact on your life than a bad debt - but even here, there had to be proportionality - therefore 5 years after a conviction, you can apply to have the record expunged and dependent on the nature of the conviction (obviously the more serious the conviction the more likely it is to stay) and your behaviour in the meantime - it will be ADJUDICATED as to whether there is sufficient interest in continuing to negatively affect your life.

 

The point is, there has to be room for rehabilitation, even in the case of criminal behaviour, the punishment must be proportionate, and the same applies to a bad credit history, you have to have the right to a defence and even when found guilty, it has to be in proportion.

 

There is for instance the argument that in recent years the lenders should be taking some responsibility for contributory neglegence as they have in some cases been throwing money at people who could neither afford to pay it back nor afford to refuse to take it. So if such a borrower learns a hard lesson of punishment, shouldnt that punishment be limited to their fault in the matter without being also punished for the wrong doing of the lender (who lets be honest should be the ones that knew better) and shouldnt there be a chance for redemption once the lesson has been learned?

 

The "6 year rule" takes this into account (its not in the Data Protection Act at all by the way) and it says "information can be HELD for 6 years" not that "Information can by SHARED for 6 years" - that little power the CRA's have granted to themselves, without the benefit of any discussion or adjudication. They have in fact decided that they ought to be appointed the same power as a District Judge and us little people had better not argue.

 

Me, I think its time to have that argument, for the sake of all of us.

.

[citizenB]

 

There is for instance the argument that in recent years the lenders should be taking some responsibility for contributory neglegence as they have in some cases been throwing money at people who could neither afford to pay it back nor afford to refuse to take it. So if such a borrower learns a hard lesson of punishment, shouldnt that punishment be limited to their fault in the matter without being also punished for the wrong doing of the lender (who lets be honest should be the ones that knew better) and shouldnt there be a chance for redemption once the lesson has been learned?

 

The "6 year rule" takes this into account (its not in the Data Protection Act at all by the way) and it says "information can be HELD for 6 years" not that "Information can by SHARED for 6 years" - that little power the CRA's have granted to themselves, without the benefit of any discussion or adjudication. They have in fact decided that they ought to be appointed the same power as a District Judge and us little people had better not argue.

 

Me, I think its time to have that argument, for the sake of all of us.

.

 

 

This is already being argued in various parts of the forum. The CRAs are Private (for profit) companies, not government bodies or court appointed officials.

 

There appears to be nowhere on record that these companies have been granted the LEGAL right to process our information in this manner.

[jeccapf]

Absolutely, but they continue to do it, and they continue to argue that they have the right. I think a challenge is due, I'm on the verge of attempting it, only stopped by the thought that they have bigger lawyers than me, and maybe, I cant do it alone. Still thinking.

[sbfido]

Ok to update on the situation they have until 2nd July to enter there defence. Lowell have until monday to file a defence, mmmmmm

 

if not judgement time lol

 

I have prepared the paperwork for the case but been advised not to post on here just yet, dont want to give them a head start when we go to court.

 

I am aware they often have people reading the threads lol.

 

Roll on Monday when i want Judgement re Lowell Portfolio as for equifax (the one i have also summoned to answer hope they are readyto eplain the three defaults that were on my account all of wish ended with a legal process challenge or the ICO. All of wish were deemed unlawful) How much compensation should i get for 7 years of misleading processing of information. Once this is resolved the same action will be taken today.

Edited June 20, 2009 by sbfido

[citizenB]

Good luck for Monday

[sbfido]

I have issued judgement today as they haven't put in defence, i love it lol

[jeccapf]

I have issued judgement today as they haven't put in defence, i love it lol

 

Way to go Fido! did you put a case in against the CRA or just against Lowell? I've put one in against Hutchinson 3g - am wanting to put one in against the CRA too, but would love to know what you put on the particulars!

 

Well done though, brilliant result!

[sbfido]

Way to go Fido! did you put a case in against the CRA or just against Lowell? I've put one in against Hutchinson 3g - am wanting to put one in against the CRA too, but would love to know what you put on the particulars!

 

Well done though, brilliant result!

 

 

Judgment Issued. 23rd of June 2009. Northampton County Court.

 

Considering statatory demand and hope they ignore that too lol.

[welshwizard]

Considering statatory demand .

 

Go on, I dare you...

[sbfido]

I like a dare lol - but will give them chance to pay me lol.

[out of cash]

GOOD Luck sbfido,

 

the big guys dont always win.

 

i love your determination send em the stat they will s- - - themselfs:D

 

regards

 

out of cash

[sbfido]

Does anyone have a statatory demand template i could use lol!

[citizenB]

Just bumping your thread for you. I am not sure if there is such a template on CAG.

[sbfido]

Update

 

Equifax submitted defense cant wait to receive it lol.

 

The first question i am going to ask is do they have my consent to share the information - The ICO have rule there is no enforcable agreement. Awwwwww

 

2nd Have other concerns been raised in relation to the handling of default information by Lowell. If so what action did Equifax take to ensure information was processed.

 

3rd Did Equifax refer my notice of correction to the ICO as per their guidance when they decided to remove this. (opps)

 

Why Not -

 

4th Can i see a signed copy of the agreement from you and your co accused for consent

 

5th How do you verify disputed information in circumstances when numerous concerns have been raised against your partners.

 

will word it better but playing at the moment lol

 

they broke the ICO guidance lol - Awwwwww so i hope they use it as a defence.

[jeccapf]

Update

 

Equifax submitted defense cant wait to receive it lol.

 

The first question i am going to ask is do they have my consent to share the information - The ICO have rule there is no enforcable agreement. Awwwwww

 

2nd Have other concerns been raised in relation to the handling of default information by Lowell. If so what action did Equifax take to ensure information was processed.

 

3rd Did Equifax refer my notice of correction to the ICO as per their guidance when they decided to remove this. (opps)

 

Why Not -

 

4th Can i see a signed copy of the agreement from you and your co accused for consent

 

5th How do you verify disputed information in circumstances when numerous concerns have been raised against your partners.

 

will word it better but playing at the moment lol

 

they broke the ICO guidance lol - Awwwwww so i hope they use it as a defence.

 

Yo way to go Sbfido!

 

Would love to know whats in their defence, when the case is heard can you let us know (very interested) would even attend court on date of hearing if you wouldnt mind that.

 

could you also tell us what you put in your particulars, (that wont prejudice your case coz the defendant already has that!) I'd be interested in looking at it coz I'm gonna do my own one against Experian.

 

Keep us posted Sbfido

[jeccapf]

well, this is interesting,

 

Called the Data Commissioners Office asking a series of questions about the duty of a normal company in keeping accurate records, how far you have to go to ensure accuracy and they were quite strict, you have to go to reasonable lengths, but 'reasonable' is quite close to 'certain' that its accurate, you have make sure...

 

Called them again asking what the CRA's have to do and the answers are very very different.

 

It took me 20 minutes discussion to get the advisor I spoke to to admit that they are in fact data controllers - I was surprised about that so called them again on just on that very subject and got the same response, "no see, they aren't data controllers they are data processors" - only arguments about their credit scoring and advisory roles (and "Oh look I'm on your website and Equifax is registered as a Data Controller") made the ICO admit that CRA's infact are data controllers.

 

On the subject of checking accuracy I was told that all the CRA's have to do is 'ask if the company' is comfortable with putting a default on the file', far less than the steps I was advised would be necessary for any other company.

 

Interestingly I was also told that what the CRA's say in their standard responses about their role under "Schedule 2... " is a "Red Herring" that in fact all that means is they can hold information until its proved innaccurate and as long as it does no harm"

 

On the amount of time information can be held, - it will be different in each companies case - 'as long as it is necessary and relevant' - which is pretty vague really, but I havent been able to obtain a record of when 6 years was agreed as industry standard for CRA's, the ICO didnt know when these discussions and agreements were made or what it was based on.

 

All in all, seems the DCO has different rules for the CRA's than any other company, and when I said that thats how it seemed, the advisor said "well yes, it is true to say that we handle CRA's slightly differently." which I think is astonishing! Definately a reason NOT to take a complaint about a CRA to the apparently biased Data Commissioners Office.

[sbfido]

well, this is interesting,

 

Called the Data Commissioners Office asking a series of questions about the duty of a normal company in keeping accurate records, how far you have to go to ensure accuracy and they were quite strict, you have to go to reasonable lengths, but 'reasonable' is quite close to 'certain' that its accurate, you have make sure...

 

Called them again asking what the CRA's have to do and the answers are very very different.

 

It took me 20 minutes discussion to get the advisor I spoke to to admit that they are in fact data controllers - I was surprised about that so called them again on just on that very subject and got the same response, "no see, they aren't data controllers they are data processors" - only arguments about their credit scoring and advisory roles (and "Oh look I'm on your website and Equifax is registered as a Data Controller") made the ICO admit that CRA's infact are data controllers.

 

On the subject of checking accuracy I was told that all the CRA's have to do is 'ask if the company' is comfortable with putting a default on the file', far less than the steps I was advised would be necessary for any other company.

 

Interestingly I was also told that what the CRA's say in their standard responses about their role under "Schedule 2... " is a "Red Herring" that in fact all that means is they can hold information until its proved innaccurate and as long as it does no harm"

 

On the amount of time information can be held, - it will be different in each companies case - 'as long as it is necessary and relevant' - which is pretty vague really, but I havent been able to obtain a record of when 6 years was agreed as industry standard for CRA's, the ICO didnt know when these discussions and agreements were made or what it was based on.

 

All in all, seems the DCO has different rules for the CRA's than any other company, and when I said that thats how it seemed, the advisor said "well yes, it is true to say that we handle CRA's slightly differently." which I think is astonishing! Definately a reason NOT to take a complaint about a CRA to the apparently biased Data Commissioners Office.

 

 

AS WITH FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS DO YOU FEEL THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICO AND CRA SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT AND THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME.

 

IF SO PLEASE WRITE A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE ICO.

 

I AM SENDING MY CONCERNS TO WATCHDOG, BBC AND THE NEWS OF THE WORLD AND HAPPY FOR THEM TO INVESTIGATE THIS APPALING PRACTICE.

 

FEEDBACK WELCOME