Hutchinson 3g defaults

[jeccapf]

Hi, I'm starting this thread because I'm in the middle of trying to remove a default placed by Hutchinson 3g but also because from information on this site, it seems that the CRA's dont have a right to hold this information anyway.

 

I've served a CC case against Hutchinson for non-compliance of a stop order and breaches of the Data Protection Act (inaccurate information and breach of contract) and thats on-going but the CRA thing seems more important as if true, it would affect their ability to hold information even if it were properly defaulted.

 

I have found references to the fact that the CRA's can only hold information in the public domain, which has become a vital point, as this means only CCJ's Insovency Orders etc and not simple defaults that have not been adjudicated by a court, but I cant find where this requirement comes from - which act?

 

It seems that the CRA's themselves DO accept that they only have the legal right to hold public domain info - it says so on their web sites - but choose to ignore this, so it comes down to that and if I can find that one little gem I'd happily take a CC case against a CRA (Experian seem to be the worst offenders)

 

It also seems clear that there is no 6 year rule, I cant find it (someone at the court says its something to do with money laundering but its only for information to be HELD - not SHARED) which is another point that I'm interested in coz a default for say 1 year is a lot less of an impact on your life than 6 years!

 

I'd be glad of any help out there

Can anyone also interested in this shed any light on what I'm missing here?

[car2403]

Copied first post - please help the OP with his Telecoms Default issues here...

[jeccapf]

Thankyou car

[buzby]

Yup you're missing a lot of points, and got a bunch of major misconceptions, so rather than quote in context, (which would make this message huge) I'll provide some of the answers I can respond to off the top of my head.

 

If by 'CC' case, you mean 'CCA' - then this is irrelevant, as the CCA does not apply to service contracts, also the firm is Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. So you'll need to expand on what 'stop order' you believe you had, and dince Hitchison's contracts have always required customers to release their data to a CRA, anyh complaint in this regard would be pointless, as the permission to do so has already been given by the customer.

 

As for CRA's only holding information 'in the public domain' - wrong argument, then can hold any indormation they acquire about you from public sources. The government also have looked after them by given then explicit access to information that is or would be otherwise deemed 'private'. Two examples of this include their ability to access the FULL electroal register, not the 'edited' version that allowed people to opt out. Secondly, when a death is registered, the CRAs also are advised. Both measures provided to help in the fight against 'fraud'. Further, for court actions, the courts now no longer keep records of judgements or defaults. This was privatised with the creation of Registry Trust Ltd, who thn sell on the data to the CRA's so that all those CCJ's can be neadly applied to the person that defaulted.

 

Next, non CCJ defaults. This is covered by the 'permission' granted earlier by the data subject. By signng up for a mobile contract, the customers is credit checked to see if they are worth the risk, and thereafter all their financial dealings and late payments are logged by the various computer systems. The issue here is the use of the language, if you don't pay a bill that is due, the customer is said to 'be in default' - a nice touch, as this is not a standard Default in the accepted sense - but has rapidly been taken to be so. For that to me demoted to its original stature, you need to take this up with the firms that view it in that way.

 

 

Since the consumer has consented to their data being disclosed, this information is then non public domain, but private for the disclosure to the CRA and its registered clients, who also have tight conditions on what they can do with the data they have obtained.

 

You are right, there is no '6 year rule'. Nobody has claimed there is. Harking back to the court defaultsm they were part of the public record for 6 years, so the CRA's decided that, snce the ICO and DPA declared the could hold this data for a 'reasonable' time, they asked for and got agreement that as with the courts list, 6 years would be reasonable. The reason why this is not stipulates, is that they are wanting this increased from 6 to 10. This is why it is stupid to refer to something 'dropping off' your credit file. NOTHING 'drops' off - it will stay there in perpeduity, simply that the data will be masked to only show what they have agreed to. This eans that if in 2010 the government say that due to the abandonment of the ID card scheme, they will allow CRAs to retain data for 10 years, obernight all those 'expired' defaults will magically re appear on your file.

 

My issue with the ICO, is that as the data subject, I should be entitled to all data the CRA holds on my, not limited by some arbitrary time limit set by the firm, I want everything, but the ICO do not see it that way.

 

So, even if you sign no contract, buy no property or have mobile phone - a CRA will have you listed if you are on the Electroal Register, and it looks as though the next thing will be the Council Valuation Rolls will be added at some time soon.

 

Depressing thoughts - and all with us because of the nonsensical need to combat terrorisrm, and have responsible lending.

[jeccapf]

Yup you're missing a lot of points, and got a bunch of major misconceptions, so rather than quote in context, (which would make this message huge) I'll provide some of the answers I can respond to off the top of my head.

 

If by 'CC' case, you mean 'CCA' - then this is irrelevant, as the CCA does not apply to service contracts, also the firm is Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. So you'll need to expand on what 'stop order' you believe you had, and dince Hitchison's contracts have always required customers to release their data to a CRA, anyh complaint in this regard would be pointless, as the permission to do so has already been given by the customer.

 

As for CRA's only holding information 'in the public domain' - wrong argument, then can hold any indormation they acquire about you from public sources. The government also have looked after them by given then explicit access to information that is or would be otherwise deemed 'private'. Two examples of this include their ability to access the FULL electroal register, not the 'edited' version that allowed people to opt out. Secondly, when a death is registered, the CRAs also are advised. Both measures provided to help in the fight against 'fraud'. Further, for court actions, the courts now no longer keep records of judgements or defaults. This was privatised with the creation of Registry Trust Ltd, who thn sell on the data to the CRA's so that all those CCJ's can be neadly applied to the person that defaulted.

 

Next, non CCJ defaults. This is covered by the 'permission' granted earlier by the data subject. By signng up for a mobile contract, the customers is credit checked to see if they are worth the risk, and thereafter all their financial dealings and late payments are logged by the various computer systems. The issue here is the use of the language, if you don't pay a bill that is due, the customer is said to 'be in default' - a nice touch, as this is not a standard Default in the accepted sense - but has rapidly been taken to be so. For that to me demoted to its original stature, you need to take this up with the firms that view it in that way.

 

 

Since the consumer has consented to their data being disclosed, this information is then non public domain, but private for the disclosure to the CRA and its registered clients, who also have tight conditions on what they can do with the data they have obtained.

 

You are right, there is no '6 year rule'. Nobody has claimed there is. Harking back to the court defaultsm they were part of the public record for 6 years, so the CRA's decided that, snce the ICO and DPA declared the could hold this data for a 'reasonable' time, they asked for and got agreement that as with the courts list, 6 years would be reasonable. The reason why this is not stipulates, is that they are wanting this increased from 6 to 10. This is why it is stupid to refer to something 'dropping off' your credit file. NOTHING 'drops' off - it will stay there in perpeduity, simply that the data will be masked to only show what they have agreed to. This eans that if in 2010 the government say that due to the abandonment of the ID card scheme, they will allow CRAs to retain data for 10 years, obernight all those 'expired' defaults will magically re appear on your file.

 

My issue with the ICO, is that as the data subject, I should be entitled to all data the CRA holds on my, not limited by some arbitrary time limit set by the firm, I want everything, but the ICO do not see it that way.

 

So, even if you sign no contract, buy no property or have mobile phone - a CRA will have you listed if you are on the Electroal Register, and it looks as though the next thing will be the Council Valuation Rolls will be added at some time soon.

 

Depressing thoughts - and all with us because of the nonsensical need to combat terrorisrm, and have responsible lending.

 

 

No by CC case I mean County Court (too lazy to type it out!) its not a credit agreement, we've had that conversation before, I issued a stop order under the Data Protection Act to stop processing data which can be done to any Data Contoller (including the CRA's but theres no point in that since I dont mind them processing data as long as its accurate!) also, my permission for them to process data ended with the contract, which was way before the alleged default.

 

I disagree that the CRA's can hold any information, and that information actually came directly from Experian, who say they can only legally hold info in the public domain and the rest of what they do hold is under Schedule 2 from contracts where you have given your permission, which is the dispute as above in this case. they cant hold it without permission unless there is a public interest which doesnt prejudice the subject. the can hold CCJ's coz - well thats public domain - I'm not aruging about that, I'm arguing about the non public domain stuff

 

YOu can demand (I have seen it done loads of times) that the CRA's stop automated processing of your data - they then can only show a searcher a notice that says they dont have permission to give ANYTHING and if the searcher wants to know something, they have to check any and all companies manually - of course this may mean you dont get any credit, or it may mean you have to go to your own bank manager... remember those days.

 

The 6 years thing - again I disagree, they werent "granted" permission to hold info for 6 years, the courts had no such power (parliament makes legislation not judges) what was said was that it was AGREED that the CRA's between themselves would recognise 6yrs as an industry standard - there is no legal right to it and if it can be shown that holding it causes the subject prejudice, well then there is an argument for removal.

 

I'd be right up there if there was an argument for it to become 10 years as I think that would breach the human rights act as disproportionate.

 

So, what other misconceptions do you think I made?

[buzby]

Because you seen to think placing a 'stop' is the same as providing a cloak of invisibility? If you've had your contract terminated adversely then all the information you agreed they could disclose has already been distributed. The contract may have ended, but debt collection is still allowed, whether through the original network, or their nominated DCA or whoever they sold the debt on to. In this latter case, you have two strengths, they cannot place a default on your file, and they probably have minimal paperwork if any to support their claim.

 

I'm not aware that Experian say they only hold info that is in the public domain. If they do, it is a misrepresentation. What about fraud? There is a CISAS marker on everyones file indicating potential or actual fraud. Everyone knows it is there. It's not public information, so how can they say they don't hold it?

 

Where did I say 6 years was the limit? The LAW says it is to be held for a 'reasonable' time. Sixs years is generally accepted to be the 'norm', but whilst you seem to think if challenged this will be reduced, their getting ready for it to go the other way. And I think I know (being a 'glass half-empty' realist) what direction it is going to go. As for 'human rights' c'mon now! The same argument for ID Cards (If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about) will be trotted out here, as I've already heard the arguents and the massaged figures about how they can identify financial mismanagement much easier over 10 than they can for 6, as it removes much of the cyclic nature of bad lending.

 

I'm not their apologist - just well-versed on how the systems will be manipulated with a kn owing nod from the government was they see millions more people prevented from getting financial products because they need to lend responsibly.

[car2403]

One thing to think about here is s.12 DPA, which allows you to prevent them from making automated decisions about you - such as continued processing of data in an automated fashion.

 

We all know that these CRA's are unable to process your data manually - can you imagine that - but of course there's the down side that all your CRA data with that CRA will be suppressed, which isn't useful if you want to apply for credit, as a nil return from a CRA search notoriously will result in a decline of any application.

[jeccapf]

Because you seen to think placing a 'stop' is the same as providing a cloak of invisibility? If you've had your contract terminated adversely then all the information you agreed they could disclose has already been distributed. The contract may have ended, but debt collection is still allowed, whether through the original network, or their nominated DCA or whoever they sold the debt on to. In this latter case, you have two strengths, they cannot place a default on your file, and they probably have minimal paperwork if any to support their claim.

 

No a stop order isnt meant to be a cloak of invisibillity, thats not the point, it simply prevents them from increasing the damage, the actual information already shared is inaccurate misleading and damaging, and the CC action is to correct that and remove it.

 

they have NO paperwork to support their claim because their claim is wrong, they've been informed of this and they had no answer to that but still have not removed the offending material, thats a separate issue to the stop order - to Hutchinson to prevent any further attempts to add info and to the CRA to prevent them accepting it.

 

I'm not aware that Experian say they only hold info that is in the public domain. If they do, it is a misrepresentation. What about fraud? There is a CISAS marker on everyones file indicating potential or actual fraud. Everyone knows it is there. It's not public information, so how can they say they don't hold it?

 

On Experian's site they say "We have a legal right to hold information about people that is already in the public domain (e.g. CCJs, IVAs, etc). All other information is collected and supplied under cover of the Data Protection Act 1998 Schedule 2.1 which says that the data subject should have given their consent. This will be collected by your lender or supplier when you apply for a product. A section on the application form will typically direct you to a section on the use of your personal data and will state that "by proceeding you are agreeing to your information being used in this way".

 

So they dont say they DONT hold other information but they acknowledge that they can only LEGALLY hold the public information and everything else that they DO hold is in accordance with the DPA. Now, if you can show that it ISNT or (more crucially) that holding it is prejudicial and/or damaging (and the act actually specifies an affect on creditworthiness as such prejudice) then you can require that it is removed.

In my own case I'm only talking about the Hutchinson stuff, which is inaccurate - I do in fact have another default from 2005 but I bloody deserved that, it was after my husband died and I simply ignored the lenders extraordinary attempts to resolve it before they finally defaulted on me, so I have no intention of arguing with that, even though its not in the public domain AND there could I suppose be a potential argument that its prejudicial. I'm only disputing the Hutchinson information and one "Alias" who in fact is not me.

 

Where did I say 6 years was the limit? The LAW says it is to be held for a 'reasonable' time. Sixs years is generally accepted to be the 'norm', but whilst you seem to think if challenged this will be reduced, their getting ready for it to go the other way. And I think I know (being a 'glass half-empty' realist) what direction it is going to go.

 

Are now, this was being hawked around Parliament by 'certain' individuals who have recently been in the news a while back (and it was, I acknowledge, waived in the same morkish manner as 'someone' waived a pathetic cheque and wore a badge as she resigned) but (oddly???) the tone has changed of late!!!

 

I think the likelyhood of ANY of our illustrious (and I use the term lightly) leaders having the guts at least within the next say 3 years of raising such a possibility could be viewed as suicidal and certainly would call their mental health into more serious question than it is already. Even "He" isn't quite THAT mad!

 

As for 'human rights' c'mon now! The same argument for ID Cards (If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about) will be trotted out here, as I've already heard the arguents and the massaged figures about how they can identify financial mismanagement much easier over 10 than they can for 6, as it removes much of the cyclic nature of bad lending.

 

There are a couple of arguments under human rights, the most prominent of course is the argument that such a move would be draconian and disproportianate, but there are others - its a different issue than that of the ID cards (which btw I thought would be passed here but then over ruled by Brussels - but thats another discussion altogether). The effect of hugely negative and largely unsubstantiated information affecting the lives of ordinary (and actually some not so ordinary) people for a whole decade is just not gonna happen - I see riots! there would be alot more challenges to the non-public domain information of course coz that - unadjudicated - would be a breach of Article 6, i could also see Articles 8, 12 and 14 challenges - at least. The ten year thing was being bandied about in Parliament, but never really loudly, it was soooo delicate it was only whispered and now, its pretty much dead.

 

I'm not their apologist - just well-versed on how the systems will be manipulated with a kn owing nod from the government was they see millions more people prevented from getting financial products because they need to lend responsibly.

 

thats only 1 argument, because its not just access to financial products that would be affected, but its not even worth considering that for now, it hasnt (and realistically wont) happen, its fodder for a distant future attempt for government to get back on the track of Orwellian irresponsibility. Maybe in a few years time, but I think a few Caggers would be addressing that by then.

[catfish]

Please let me know how you get on with the CC against Hutchison 3G. I very much like to do what you are doing and that include taking action against Experian for taken Hutchison 3G on face value without any verification that Hutchison 3G might not be telling the truth.

Hutchison 3G should obtain a court judgement before a default can be put against someone's name.

[buzby]

Sorry, you're falling into the same trap. It is NOT a Default. (With a capital 'D'), but that the account holder is 'in default' (small 'd') and by that I mean has not conducted the account within the agreed terms.

 

The consumer has also given explicit permission for their financial dealings to be shared with CRA's - so your complaint is a complete non-starter and has no basis for a challenge.

 

At the last small claims action I attended (as an observer) Hutchison 3 - who was taken to court by a customer - won, and had full expenses awarded against the pursuer.

[car2403]

At the last small claims action I attended (as an observer) Hutchison 3 - who was taken to court by a customer - won, and had full expenses awarded against the pursuer.

 

Why, when costs are limited under CPR? Did they act unreasonably, for example?

[buzby]

Because the loser always pays. The customer's action was seen as being unreasonable as it was obvious (to the judge) his claim had no merit. Since the company had to pay a solicitor to rebut the claim, the costs for doing (limited, nevertheless) were awarded. For the pursuer, this meant it cost them £50-odd to rais the action, and £80 as the capped fee for losing. In this particular case, the customer didn;t bother attending court, and when the case called 3UK's solicitor confirmed the matter had been settled with hte pursuer paying the defenders costs.

 

To be fair, iI don;t have an issue with this - it cuts down of vexatious or specultive actions, expecially if they're aware it'll cost neared £130 if they lose. Even here at CAG we always advise the winner asks for costs ans interest - so it remains a two-way street!

[car2403]

Because the loser always pays. The customer's action was seen as being unreasonable as it was obvious (to the judge) his claim had no merit. Since the company had to pay a solicitor to rebut the claim, the costs for doing (limited, nevertheless) were awarded. For the pursuer, this meant it cost them £50-odd to rais the action, and £80 as the capped fee for losing. In this particular case, the customer didn;t bother attending court, and when the case called 3UK's solicitor confirmed the matter had been settled with hte pursuer paying the defenders costs.

 

To be fair, iI don;t have an issue with this - it cuts down of vexatious or specultive actions, expecially if they're aware it'll cost neared £130 if they lose. Even here at CAG we always advise the winner asks for costs ans interest - so it remains a two-way street!

 

Preaching to the converted there, as you know already

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/111666-car2403-o2-wescot-dca.html