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

[babybear39]

The CRAs think differently, probably because they've had it so easy for so long.

[wobbly]

Signed

[car2403]

Been reading this thread for the last couple of hours and find it very interesting. One point which seems to be as clear as daylight comes to light. CRA record data with consent which is given in a credit agreement. Many of us have letters from lenders terminating the said agreement. Surely this recinds any authority to share info with CRA's. If a contract is cancelled then it's cancelled, all of it including permision to pass info to CRA's.

 

I think you need to keep reading, though, as there is more to it than appears to the naked eye. This is the kind of thing Experian, et al, spout when they are challenged on the subject - you consented to this, that and the other when you signed the agreement. If you read the Surleybond's Default link in my signature, you'll see the arguments against them processing after the agreement comes to an end.

 

Of course, though, the CRA doesn't have your consent to process. With amendments to the DPA, they don't need it, though - so long as they have a legitimate reason to process said data, you can tell them to go and build a sand castle on Blackpool beach, rather than continue to process your data, but as they don't need your consent, withdrawing it don't work. Different story when you challenge the Data Controller, though.

 

I've signed, too.

[Chaoshome]

I am new to this site so please forgive the potential over simplification, I have briefly read ove rthe replies but am wondering what would happen if a huge number of us simply wrote and withdrew our permission to hold and use our information. As there was no original specified time scale for retaining it in the first place ( not to mention their use of implied consent to use our info)

 

Oh and i have just signed the petition too.

ChaosHome

[car2403]

Good point, Chaos. Sadly, even if everyone on CAG did that, it wouldn't be enough to make them sit up and pay attention. Millions of records won't be effected by a few thousand rebelling.

 

There's also the impact on you - if your credit checks return nil entries (as they are incapable of processing your data manually) that ultimately means a declined application for credit facilities, etc. You'd have to "opt back in" before doing it, which would take some time, then "opt back out" - plus you would have no history, per se, to show, so no credit history to go on.

 

'tis a funny one...

[adarling2006]

Signed the petition, subbing to the thread with interest. upto 35 folk on the petition now

Edited July 24, 2009 by adarling2006
forgot something

[suzby83]

signed up!!!

 

I've put a link on my facebook page so hopefully the link gets spread around.

Edited July 24, 2009 by suzby83

[SteveH2508]

Signed

[never-in-doubt]

There's also the impact on you - if your credit checks return nil entries (as they are incapable of processing your data manually) that ultimately means a declined application for credit facilities, etc. You'd have to "opt back in" before doing it, which would take some time, then "opt back out" - plus you would have no history, per se, to show, so no credit history to go on.

 

'tis a funny one...

 

Chris,

 

Did you get my PM - i'd read it cos it is important and personal to you mate!

 

Also, the lenders are not allowed to 'decline' upon a manual processing alert (i.e. whenever a NOC or s.10 is in force) - it must be processed manually..... I know in essence this means they will decline you but they shouldn't be doing this......

[suzby83]

lol.... i signed up with my CAG user name

[car2403]

Chris,

 

Did you get my PM - i'd read it cos it is important and personal to you mate!

 

Also, the lenders are not allowed to 'decline' upon a manual processing alert (i.e. whenever a NOC or s.10 is in force) - it must be processed manually..... I know in essence this means they will decline you but they shouldn't be doing this......

 

No PM received?

[never-in-doubt]

No PM received?

 

I'll resend it now mate! One of your posts contains personal info......

[never-in-doubt]

Sent - check again! lol.

 

I sent originally on 21st!

[citizenB]

The MOJ is already in discussions to bring the 3 year limit in line with the European ruling..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/203496-crudit-today-limitation-act.html

 

[lexis200]

signed petition - how many needed before it's likely to get even looked at, does anyone know?

[Kraken1]

I *think* that if you sign up with a fake or username your entry gets discounted...

[citizenB]

signed petition - how many needed before it's likely to get even looked at, does anyone know?

 

 

Please note that to keep the system manageable, and justify use of resources, we can usually only respond to serious petitions of 500 signatures or more.

 

Here you lexis, looks like 500 signatures are required.

[mr.ton]

Even 3 years is too long for me

[never-in-doubt]

Even 3 years is too long for me

 

Yea - i'd prefer them just to shut shop and go away into a dark cupboard never to be seen again!

 

Started an interesting Poll over on MSE - Are CRA's Dodgy? - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

Who is dogiest :eek:

[lickthewallfatboy]

currently 81 signatures

[babybear39]

Not bad but we can do better

[lickthewallfatboy]

a lot better!!

[lickthewallfatboy]

I've just had a thought occur to me

 

if CRA's are claiming law backs them up for keeping data for 6 years(I'm assuming they are trying to tie this up with statute barred legislation),then if you live in Scotland,you credit files should drop off after 5 years

 

any opinions?

[car2403]

I don't think they rely solely on the limitations act - there are other Acts that cover Scotland, regarding company records and more importantly, prevention of money laundering, etc.

[lickthewallfatboy]

do they stipulate 6 years or 5?