challenging the CRA's-have we all missed something?

[lickthewallfatboy]

you know I'm a good boy!!

[Kraken1]

The regs are basically about preventing misleading or aggressive practices and ensuring that businesses trade fairly.

 

see here:

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

[lickthewallfatboy]

can it be applied retrospectively?

[babybear39]

No. The regs came into force in May 2008 and are actual law rather than the OFT guidlines.

[lickthewallfatboy]

so any enforced consent before May 2008 cannot be challenged this way....

[babybear39]

Unfortunately, not using the CPUTR anyway.

[lickthewallfatboy]

it'll just take some poking around to see what other stick we can hit them with

[car2403]

Blimey. I was going to offer my opinion, but someone else beat me to it

 

 

This is all a farce, as you've seen me say beforehand.

 

The issue here is the power of the consumer - take my claim against O2, on these very grounds. I was effectively "muscled" in to foregoing any continuance of my claim, even though I still believe it had grounds and would be successful, because of the potential cost implications that continuing it would have had. Effectively, the Judge gave a threat that if I didn't withdraw, I would be allocated to Multi-track and the case would be referred to the Commercial Court in the High Court, as I was challenging O2's standard terms and conditions of business. Quotes from him such as "this is how it has always been" and "O2 are a big, international company, so they wouldn't do this if they weren't allowed to" still disturb my easy sleep to this day. The full debarcle is laid bare, here, for you to read;

 

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

 

What you do need to be careful with, though, is that an enforceable agreement isn't required to process your data. Effectively, you give permission to a data controller to process, but they don't need your permission. In fact, this applies to the CRA's, as they claim they have a legitimate right to process the data, they claim for credit referencing processes. That is outlined in the DPA 1998. This is why I think you should attack the creditor, rather than the CRA, as you're just banging your head against a wall there. (Check my avatar, if you don't believe me!)

 

Oh, by the way, another relevant question to be asking here is why was s.35 DPA 1984 repealed, exactly? That section made it a criminal offence to process data without express written consent!

[vint1954]

Just one thing if you wouldn't mind clarifying please vint...

 

 

 

Is the 'correct' in response to the first part of that question or the second part?

 

Sorry lexis, decided to go out yesterday.

 

If you go for manual handling, then any creditor who checks out your account via automated handling will obviopusly be alerted to a possible problem.

 

The consensus is, that by going to a manual system, prospective creditors woll be alerted to a possible problem, and just decline the application.

[lexis200]

Ahh I see, it's a bit of a double edged sword to get it done then. You feel better for it, but it's not actually likely to help you if you are applying for credit/mortgages etc.

 

Thanks:)

[lickthewallfatboy]

this whole problem should be laid in the hands of a solicitor who has access to a barrister expert in contract law

[suzby83]

I'm in total shock watching C4 Dispatches Undercover Debt!

[Jules55]

Where does it state in law that your data has to be held on a credit file for 6 years? I can hat would be correct for CCJ's etc but can't see anything for defaults or any other data. Maybe we are all being duped here?

[lickthewallfatboy]

there is no law-they make it up as they go

[never-in-doubt]

I'm in total shock watching C4 Dispatches Undercover Debt!

 

I know! Can you believe some of the drivvle they were coming out with! That poor woman who had to give opinion on what they were up-to was horrified - you could see it in her face! :lol:

Edited July 22, 2009 by never-in-doubt

[lexis200]

I was sat there going 'NOOOOO' pretty much every time they said anything:D

 

What really struck me though was when that one lady on benefits phoned up, and the monkey speaking to her said 'they can always get money'. They really do think everyone in debt is not paying because they're trying to get away with something don't they? There's never any inkling that they might actually just have no money, maybe through no fault of their own.

 

And I hope the callous cow talking about that chap's baby has a bit of Karma kicking her door down very soon:mad:

[PGH7447]

Reply today to my earlier question from Experian

 

Dear PGH

Thank you for your email, which we received on xx July 2009.

I am a Consultant within Experian's Contact Centre and I have been asked to respond to your query.

When an individual signs a financial agreement (usually under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act (1974)), one of the terms and conditions of that agreement is that the company concerned reserve the right to pass details of the account to a credit reference agency. By signing the agreement you agree to those terms and conditions. For us to hold financial information about you, you will have signed a contract allowing that company to pass information onto us.

The information we hold about you can only be viewed by companies once they have received your authorisation to do so. This is usually given during the application process where the applicant will sign or provide verbal authorisation for the lender to access a credit reference agency's records to help them make an informed lending decision. This is also detailed under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This means that you effectively control the circulation of the information that we hold about you.

It is not in our own, consumers or companies interests to provide information that is not accurate. This is why we encourage people to request a copy of their credit report. All information that we receive is subject to our own internal quality checks. As a licensed client of Experian, each company is obliged, under the Data Protection Act 1998, to make sure that they provide us with accurate information.

We actively encourage people to check their own credit reports regularly and to tell us if they have any concerns about the information we hold. If any mistakes are brought to our attention, we will contact the company that provides the information immediately to correct any mistakes as soon as possible.

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you require any further assistance concerning this matter.

------------

So emailed them back with this question/statement

-------------

Dear Ms credit controller

 

Thank you for your swift response to my query, I understand about the consumer agreement etc, my main concern is that Experian and the other CRA's tend to believe everything told to them by the very agencies who use your services without question, and that when a customer queries these errant entries it is very difficult to get them changed.

Also;

I believe that the entries you are talking about should only be made if an agreement that is VALID is signed by both parties, yet when it is proved that the agreement is not valid the entry remains on a persons credit file for the full 6 years, why is this?

Regards

PGH

[lickthewallfatboy]

all you'll get back is prevarication and more crap

 

this needs a proper full scale assault to bring this particular rotten edifice crashing down

[lexis200]

Any ideas on how to do that ltwf?

 

I'm in if there's a way!

[vint1954]

Where does it state in law that your data has to be held on a credit file for 6 years? I can hat would be correct for CCJ's etc but can't see anything for defaults or any other data. Maybe we are all being duped here?

There is no law. They quote industry standards. The UK Government should eventually come into line with EU legislation, which is 3 years.

[lexis200]

Is the 3 years law regarding DN's though (as opposed to CCJ's etc), or are we still talking about it just being industry standard regardless of what happens with the 6 year/3 year rule?

[summer30]

subscribing and reading with interest

[lickthewallfatboy]

Any ideas on how to do that ltwf?

 

I'm in if there's a way!

 

 

it's very much in the exploratory stages as yet lexis

 

but I have a feeling if there's a way to do this,the doorway is going to be pretty crowded with disgruntled people trying to get in!!

[vint1954]

Is the 3 years law regarding DN's though (as opposed to CCJ's etc), or are we still talking about it just being industry standard regardless of what happens with the 6 year/3 year rule?

No, The 6 years referred to being current CRA industry standard.

 

The 3 years is hopefully future legislation that will refer to credit reporting, so yes DN, CCJ's and so on.

 

CCC's often refer to only having to keep records going back 6 years. This is wrong and misleading. They have to keep records for 6 years after closure of the account for money laundering purposes.

[vint1954]

it's very much in the exploratory stages as yet lexis

 

but I have a feeling if there's a way to do this,the doorway is going to be pretty crowded with disgruntled people trying to get in!!

There is already a long queue