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

[car2403]

companies act - documentary evidence should be held for 6 years after the accounts are closed

[Bincrunched]

Hi everyone,

Signed and subbed!!

[zahrip12]

Signed and subbed

[gezwee]

What about launching a reverse CRA?

 

Standard & poor is the usual but hey, this is 2009 after all

 

Would certainly attract the media attention we all need, anybody with a judgement log on and load 'em up!

[PGH7447]

recieved an email reply today from a cra and this is an extract from it

 

All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract that require them to make sure that all the data they submit is accurate before providing it to us. Our regulator, the Information Commissioner, considers that this is having taken 'reasonable steps'. We do not therefore require a copy of the credit agreement from the companies that list accounts on our records.

 

We also have over 200 generic checks in place to check the overall consistency of the data that we receive and a specialist department dedicated to running these necessary checks before loading the data to our records. This is because it is not possible for us to individually check each item of the data. This would involve going back to the company and asking them to check information that, as far as we are concerned, they have already confirmed to be accurate by sending that data to us.

 

So they dont get to see a credit agreement they just accept the word of the creditor

 

and the checks are just generic!! it dosent say how many generic tests the info has to pass before being accepted as kosher though.

 

They also offered me a free report which I gracefully declined - due to the last time I got a report the DCA's came out of the woodwork:D

[FlyboyAgain]

 

They also offered me a free report which I gracefully declined - due to the last time I got a report the DCA's came out of the woodwork:D

 

CAn you expand on that, please, PGH?

[lenny100]

signed

[lickthewallfatboy]

CAn you expand on that, please, PGH?

 

some members have noticed the "coincidental" link between checking your credit files,and DCA's contacting you trying to obtain monies for alleged debts

 

no correlation there,then;)

[lickthewallfatboy]

recieved an email reply today from a cra and this is an extract from it

 

All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract that require them to make sure that all the data they submit is accurate before providing it to us. Our regulator, the Information Commissioner, considers that this is having taken 'reasonable steps'. We do not therefore require a copy of the credit agreement from the companies that list accounts on our records.

 

We also have over 200 generic checks in place to check the overall consistency of the data that we receive and a specialist department dedicated to running these necessary checks before loading the data to our records. This is because it is not possible for us to individually check each item of the data. This would involve going back to the company and asking them to check information that, as far as we are concerned, they have already confirmed to be accurate by sending that data to us.

 

 

 

that is pure crap and it needs to be properly challenged

 

it's a stupid argument-our info is correct because some spotty threat monkey says it is,and even if there is no agreement(no contract) just because our comrades in the licenced extortion industry say there is,that's good enough for us

[mr.ton]

DCA offices are linked up to their best buddies at the CRA offices.

As soon as someone checks their file - an alarm is activated in all DCA threat centres up & down the country.

[FlyboyAgain]

DCA offices are linked up to their best buddies at the CRA offices.

As soon as someone checks their file - an alarm is activated in all DCA threat centres up & down the country.

 

 

Seriously? Are you positive of this? I've never really thought about it but if this is correct then they are in cahoots with each other. How the F*** are they allowed to operate like this? It's predatory!

[mr.ton]

Its a well known fact that the DCA's & CRA's are best chums with each other.

[PGH7447]

I think MrTon as put it extremely well, you get your report and hey presto you either get a threat-o-gram or a phising letter

[the_shadow]

Its a well known fact that the DCA's & CRA's are best chums with each other.

 

Yep agree 100% having read countless threads on here where suddenly people get contacted after looking at their credit report, all busom buddies in the credit industry

 

S.

[vint1954]

recieved an email reply today from a cra and this is an extract from it

 

All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract that require them to make sure that all the data they submit is accurate before providing it to us. Our regulator, the Information Commissioner, considers that this is having taken 'reasonable steps'. We do not therefore require a copy of the credit agreement from the companies that list accounts on our records.

 

We know that this is what happens, our argument is that it shouldn't. They have a duty of care to make sure that the data they receive is correct. After all, data is thier stock in trade. I am sure if legally challenged, this would not hold up. You cannot say, well my client told me it was OK to steal that car, so I did. That would be no defence. The ICO probably have been convinced, not dificult, but they cannot hide under the OC umbrella.

 

We also have over 200 generic checks in place to check the overall consistency of the data that we receive and a specialist department dedicated to running these necessary checks before loading the data to our records. This is because it is not possible for us to individually check each item of the data. This would involve going back to the company and asking them to check information that, as far as we are concerned, they have already confirmed to be accurate by sending that data to us.

 

If one of those "generic checks" isn't to say to the OC, prove to me that you have permission to process this persons data, then the other 199 are useless. The fact remains, that thier permission to handle an individuals data, comes from the OC holding that permission. Regardless of any other activity, if the OC holds no signed permission, they cannot legally process. The fact is that the regulatory bodies won't take it up and no one can afford to take them to court.

Without the first check, thier department is useless.

It is thier responsibility to check each individual item of data. If they need to go back to the OC to check, then they must. They cannot say that because the OC has sent us the data, then it is accurate.

This is total Bull!

 

So they dont get to see a credit agreement they just accept the word of the creditor

 

and the checks are just generic!! it dosent say how many generic tests the info has to pass before being accepted as kosher though.

 

They also offered me a free report which I gracefully declined - due to the last time I got a report the DCA's came out of the woodwork:D

Comments in red.

[mr.ton]

Yep agree 100% having read countless threads on here where suddenly people get contacted after looking at their credit report, all busom buddies in the credit industry

 

S.

 

They managed to CONvince everyone for years that both were seperate & nothing to do with each other...

Industry myth number 34535385384954239543874392325 of 674956798674657456975469753956464564

[vint1954]

Like all discussions, I think we can get bogged down in detail.

 

The fact is that The CRA's trade is information, both positive and adverse.

 

They are allowed to carry on thier trade in personal information, by way of the DPA, that cannot be argued. If they processed without regard to this, they would fall foul of the law.

 

In order to obtain thier trading stock, information, they need the written, not implied, permission of those whose data they are processing, us. This permission comes by way of the OC having a signed document, detailing that we as borowers, have given consent for our data, both positive and adverse, to be processed.

 

Where the OC has no signed document, both they and the CRA's are in truth, screwed. There is no provision for implied permission. Simples.

 

It matters not that the IOC, think that they are doing a wonderful job, after a squiffy lunch with the industry, although I suspect that that comment is just spin by the CRA's

 

The CRA's will obviously continue with thier trade, legal or not. There are only 2 ways of stopping this.

 

1. The ICO or OFT acts to stop it. Unlikely.

 

2. A legal case is brought against thier practices. Who has the money?

 

Or the other option is a well crafted letter to our MP's asking for intervention. Who knows in an election Year?

 

Speaking of squiffy lunches, I am off for one now by the sea. I will keep my eyes out for CRA's and quango bodiies lunching.

Edited July 28, 2009 by vint1954
cos i'm an idiot

[ajs444]

Subbing

[Kraken1]

IOC?

 

International Olympic Committee?

[babybear39]

I think the poster meant the ICO...

[lickthewallfatboy]

IOC?

 

International Olympic Committee?

 

pedantry is alive and well and living on CAG:rolleyes:

[babybear39]

Yes

[Kraken1]

personally I think we should all write to lord coe...

[lickthewallfatboy]

he'd probably be as much use anyway

[vint1954]

IOC?

 

International Olympic Committee?

Hi Kraken,

 

No wonder I get no response from them. They are always out running.

 

If the IOC wont help, try ICO