Egg - ARC who are the people Ive been paying ever since.

[angry cat]

Thankyou to you Angry Cat for the idea and to Ruprect for bringing up the rear (er, not literally I'll have you know) I shall do just that (Subject Acess) this week.

 

Provide the documentary evidence to the ICO Re: the information contained within your CRA credit files and;

copies of the original DN/DN's.

 

Use the Data Protection Act 1998, as it should be used; to protect an individual's data!

[Deb T]

You can do a subject access request against the credit reference agency, send them the £10 and make sure you state you are aware of the £2 statutory report they can give and you do not want this, you want all data you are entitled to under the act. You might like to add that you do not want them write back offering you the £2 one.

 

I did one against experian once, they phoned me to say they would send a courier with it! Sure enough the next day a whole box of 2,500 pages arrived! LOL ...... be careful what you wish for! Maybe they do it on a CD these days.

 

I am still using what they sent as scrap paper 5 years on, there is still half of the box left.

 

 

What address did you use when requesting a subject access request from Experian? as in theirs (not yours of course)

[Deb T]

If you have and entry on your credit file as a default.

..which then expires after it's 6 year date..

.but you've been paying regularly on it until about 1 year before the expiration of the default.

...so no stat barred etc.

..but the default expires and you then reach a settlement..

.can/does the company you reach the settlement then mark your file accordingly?

 

I can't see how they can if the default has expired but it seems utterly pointless to me from a credit record point of view to reach a settlement only for it to continue you on your file for another 6 years etc?

 

I ask this because

a/ Egg have adjusted my default date..

.and it's now back on my file after 6.5years..

.not that I'll be settling with them at all....

 

but

b..because one company out there have offered a settlement and I may accept

...but their default dropped off etc...

.don't want to settle if it means they mark the file again..

I'll just pay them the reduced amount I have been for the last 4 years or so.

[cerberusalert]

Only one default can be registered, once it drops off another cannot be added nor can the original default date be altered.

[Deb T]

Only one default can be registered, once it drops off another cannot be added nor can the original default date be altered.

 

 

Egg have certainly altered the date and I have the evidence to show that...but I[m more interested in how a DCA would report a debt as settled when the debt was not on the credit file, would they update a persons credit file to show a debt has been satisfied? I don't suppose they can really.

[cerberusalert]

Complain to the Credit Reference Agency & the ico; https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

[Deb T]

In regards to the CRA and complaint,

 

I'm just collating some info and then I intend to do just that...

.but according to form and from at least one other cagger (one of my last few posts somewhere)

 

it appears that Egg are indeed altering default dates so as to extend them past the six years,

when they're taken to task on one credit ref agency they remove it but then add to another CRA's...

.and so it continues.

 

The difficulty I think I may have is when they add the new default date to a different CRA that I have no had a report from and as such no evidence to support the earlier default being on my file...if you see what I mean?

 

So is the next step to Subject access all 4 main CRA's so as to see what has been added and when etc?

At the same time as this an before I take egg to task I'm wondering if I should write to them again

(bearing in mind they've previously cashed a postal order for a subject access but not provided the subject access) asking them to provide me with the relevant default notice for the new date or thereabouts of the newly added default?

 

I have the earlier default and termination letter etc...they don't know that though.

[cerberusalert]

They difficulty I think I may have is when they add the new default date to a different CRA

It doesn't matter, although a default can be updated by different DCAs the original entry cannot be altered.

[harrassed senior]

Sorry to barge in here, just a quickie, so, if as you say default can be updated by different DCAS but the original entry cannot be altered, if the OC enters the original default then after a couple of months' sells on and marked account to zero balance, then DCA start a completely new entry later default date (I guess date of sale) what is the position there.?

[Deb T]

Not articulting myself very well...

 

On Experian

 

Default added Feb 04 - Default expired 2010 - New default appears but with the same account details as the above....new default date will expire Feb 2011

 

I can query this with Experian because I have a credit report with them dated 2009 and two dated 2010 . They can look behind the scenes so to speak and see the account numbers and that they match...A letter to the cra or egg would see the new default take off (followed up by a letter to the Data Commissioner and OFT etc...

 

The problem is, I don't have credit reports with 2 of the 4 main ones out there, I do with equifax so a quick renewal for a month and I think I could indentify the problem same as above and get it removed ..

 

The problem that may occur as seems to have ocurred with another cagger is that Egg when notified of their unlawful actions remove the details from the CRA in question...but then add it to a different CRA ...nice of them to do that....the crux is this...I can easily identify the problem with experian/equifax because I have the evidence to do so by way of previous credit reports...but with the likes of Call Credit I do not...so how would they know when the account had been defaulted, or updated and extended? I can't prove it as I have no history with them....so I guess the only way to try and prove it is to subject access each of the main cra's in the hope that the evidence will be in there somewhere.

 

I'm going to take egg to task on just the experian issue alone, but for now the extended default can sit there whilst I gather my relevant evidence etc.

[Deb T]

Sorry to barge in here, just a quickie, so, if as you say default can be updated by different DCAS but the original entry cannot be altered, if the OC enters the original default then after a couple of months' sells on and marked account to zero balance, then DCA start a completely new entry later default date (I guess date of sale) what is the position there.?

 

In my opinion it's one default one debt, a DCA can't default you for the same debt I don't think...the credit agreement was with the orginal creditor...but some dcas do seem to add them when they supposedley buy them but adding another default entry...I don't think they can..

[harrassed senior]

I thought so too, but both my sister and I have at least 2 cases each where this has happened, so may have to query them. Thanks

[Deb T]

in Egg that dispenses with the phone drones of Customer Services?

 

I've phoned Egg 3 times today and each time they've given me a different name of the head of their Customer Services?

 

So if anyone has any names further up the chain of command and an address to write to them as well.....well that would be lovely.

[Pinky69]

Egg is now part of Citi and the CEO is Bert Pijls

 

[email protected]

[Deb T]

Thats a start, thank-you. I'd still want the Egg ceo I think, not sure if Citi would be the people to attack just yet.

[Pinky69]

He is the Egg CEO.

[Deb T]

Perfect, thankyou!

[Deb T]

I sent them a SAR's request : They cashed the postal order but no SARS received

 

My egg default of 6 years dropped off the CRA' files as per the 6 years

 

2 Months later Egg update the CRA with a new default date and balance.

 

I write to the CRA, who inform me that they have written to Egg who consented to remove the amendement

, the cra also state that it was egg that adjusted both the default date and balance and that I should contact

them direct.

 

I wrote to egg 6 weeks ago - no response.

 

Next step other than the obligatory complaints to the OFT/ICO ?

[Mistermind]

I believe the legal response period to SAR request is 40 days. Not that any regulator will be that bothered if the limit is exceeded to a limited extent. I have heard of a SAR arriving after 90 days. Very little chance even this will trigger a fine. You could hurry Egg up, but only if your complaint reached someone higher up in the pecking order who can make things happen.

 

It looks as if your SAR request woke up the sleeping dog, who then fell in with established IT and office bureaucratic procedures laid down and followed without question by low level staff.

 

If the freshly inserted DN record unjustifiable after 6 years has now been removed by Egg, hard to see the thrust of your proposed complaint to the regulators. Unless you say that during the short period this entry appeared on the CRA file you lost a job or mortgage application because of it, and that you are after compensation for injury. If so the regulator is more likely to invite you to mount your own lawsuit in county court where an impartial judge is empowered to weigh the damage versus the reparation sought. I suspect the most that regulators would do is rap Egg's knuckles with a stiff letter -- naughty, don't do it again or else.

 

As Egg retreated and removed the entry when challenged, this would be a case of maladministration (cockup) rather than malfeasance (law-breaking with intent). As for Egg admin and clerical staff being in a muddle, what else is new? The regulators would yawn.

[Deb T]

SARS was sent 12 months ago, default notice was not just updated but the date of the default and the account balance was changed, the account number stayed the same, this isn't maladministration but

instead it is clear manipulation of a credit file. I am not alone with this particular issue, there are other egg account holders some of which can be found on this forum that have had exactly the same done

to them....Also, once egg were notified they did indeed remove it from the cra but then went and put in on another CRA.

 

When the default dropped off I took a copy of my credit file to show the default gone. I applied for an bank account, it was refused and they quoted adverse entries on my credit file which caused me to

check my report and which is when I noticed the updated/changed/unlawfully added default. I would say that their actions were wholly responsible for my application for an bank account being refused

particularly as there were no other defaults or ccj's on my file. Once it was removed I applied for the same account again and it was given.

 

I will take it further. am in the process of identifying a particular individual within egg (even though they're up for sale or have recently been sold)

[Mistermind]

SARS non-compliance for 12 months is inexcusable. It could be that Egg after 6 years of account inactivity removed your paper file to archive storage.

 

If a case was compiled to show a sustained pattern of non-compliance and defiance this would certainly get the attention of the OFT (I should send it attn. CEO John Fingleton) who have the legal authority to withdraw Egg's licence to operate their card. Your proof of consequential demonstrable personal loss will strengthen your case.

 

The difficulty lies in proving malicious intent instead of bureaucratic muddle. If pushed up against the wall Egg could simply say they did send the one-inch-thick SARS bundle, without registered post which is not their legal obligation. Egg would send out electronic update files to different CRAs, not necessarily on the same day, and not necessarily updated on CRA databases on the same day. Unless the second mis-publication of unjustified DN was demonstrably instigated after Egg's withdrawal of the first (e.g. different default date and balance), then hard to prove it was not part of the same bungle -- that Egg rescinded each wrongly published DN as it was pointed out, but did not proactively audit their hundreds of thousands of fresh DN's already notified to various CRAs.

 

During the long long period when some consumers held back repayments pending unenforceability test cases, Egg had no other recourse except for issuing DNs, more to blacken credit history as a deterrent against non-payment than as a precursor of legal action. But wilfully and repeatedly issuing unjustified DNs to circumvent the six-year dropoff will not be tolerated by the Information Commissioner, nor by the OFT as licensing authority.

 

As for nominating compensatory damages to the injured person, I have not heard of the regulators having such powers. The FOS is known to take ages, however upon taking on your case at all they will charge Egg £400 win lose or draw. FOS will not take on a case until both parties have tried to negotiate but have ended in deadlock lasting a minimum period of time, I believe many weeks, details from the FOS.

 

Egg will not like in the least losing face if your case is publicised, so the threat of articulate publication should concentrate their minds to do what they need to -- but only if this threat reaches a high-up manager.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Mistermind
typo

[Deb T]

The compensation issue is not important, it's usually a token amount, what is important that egg are shown up for their underhanded tactics.

 

I was paying their bully boys ARC until just before I applied for the SARS but quit paying them when egg sent a suspicious looking credit agreement

with signature on it I didn't recognise.

 

No SARS received and despite several reminders to them nothing ever was received (I don't know if anyone has actually gotten a SARS from egg)

My sars and subsequent follow ups were sent recorded and proof of delivery was taken from the RM website.

 

I'm not sure what loss i would incur on not receiving a bank account, the loss would be zero...but what is important to me is that a company such

as egg should be accountable for what is clear manipulation, they were written to by one CRA requesting clarification of the renewed default

and egg removed it...only for them a week or so later to add it to another CRA ...had the renewed default been added to the two cra's at the

same time and then removed when put on the spot I could see an argument for poor administration but for them to be put on notice via one cra

that there is something wrong with an account to then admit the error by removing it but then update a different cra with the same...I don't

see any reasonable argument for that behaviour and if you times that by at least 3 people (on this forum along with me) then there is a

worrying pattern emerging from egg and in the absence of any explanation from egg I'm reasonably sure they are playing games with peoples

credit files.

[Mistermind]

Egg makes no difficulty about complying with SAR. I know because I received same, as did armies of claimants who from 2006 onwards requested SAR in order to compile an accurate dated list of unlawful penalty charges to reclaim. However this one-inch-thick bundle comprising many manual screen prints would probably take one employee half a day to compile -- multiplied by thousands of SAR requests. Egg therefore offered an alternative IT-generated list of charges items with dates for a discounted price of £5. Many selected this option, which Egg did produce and send out faster. I would not suggest Egg refuses SAR pointblank as policy, such an attitude has not been reported in the forum. Slowness, yes.

 

In your particular case I suspect, guessing only, they had problems compiling your bundle because your account is very old and inactive for a long time, and paperwork may have been misfiled, and IT records archived and hard to restore in full. I suspect that in their impasse they cashed your £10 cheque as their first step in a standard drill, then further down the office chain some clerk or manager found himself in a predicament with no standard way out. Instead of coming clean with the customer he chose to go silent hoping you lose appetite for persisting. They should have known better when you repeated your requests.

 

High-handed and underhand tactics to browbeat individual customers as a matter of policy is not on. If you coordinate efforts with the other known sufferers and present evidence naming chapter and verse in black and white to the OFT and the Information Commissioner, Egg will not get away with it. Egg have the fear of God when their licensor becomes their adversary. The keyword in all this is intentional defiance of the regulator, not accidental defiance.

 

One individual standing up to a faceless nameless monolith is not to be underestimated. But bear in mind it cost one lady 2.5 years of wrestling before Egg finally capitulated in exhaustion.

 

Good luck!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/27135-egg-default.html

[Bosund]

Hi Deb,

 

Yes good luck.

 

Hope you don't mind but am subbing to this thread because am looking at other underhand tactics by Egg.

 

Regards,

 

Bosund.

[Deb T]

Hi Bosund.....tactics such as?