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

[vint1954]

I think the poster meant the ICO...

Who are you calling a poster:D:D:D

[vint1954]

Ok,

 

I've been back and corrected my mistake. Hair shirt now on and Mrs vint is readying the Birch twigs.

[spark1]

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.

 

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

 

 

These are just some of the terms and conditions their clients sign up to, in others words any action taken against Experian will be passed down the line

 

1. You will protect us, and keep us fully protected, against any claims or actions made or brought against us as a result of:
   
2. you making the Information inaccurate or incomplete (whether by something you do or something you don't do); or
   

• you using the Services.
  

1. This protection will include all losses, damages, costs and other expenses (including any payments we make to settle any claims or actions on the advice of our lawyers) that we have to pay, and you promise to pay us for any loss, damage, cost or other expense. The protection will not apply if we are at fault.
   

[vint1954]

These are just some of the terms and conditions their clients sign up to, in others words any action taken against Experian will be passed down the line

 

1. You will protect us, and keep us fully protected, against any claims or actions made or brought against us as a result of:
   
2. you making the Information inaccurate or incomplete (whether by something you do or something you don't do); or
   

• you using the Services.
  

1. This protection will include all losses, damages, costs and other expenses (including any payments we make to settle any claims or actions on the advice of our lawyers) that we have to pay, and you promise to pay us for any loss, damage, cost or other expense. The protection will not apply if we are at fault.
   

That may protect them financially from thier clients mistakes, but not legally. They are responsible.

 

Vint

[joemay]

I have a question for you knowledgable guys.

 

If a bank account was opened in 1981 and there was never any recording of this on any CRFs. Then in 2009, ran into financial difficulty the bank never responded to any correspondence, phone calls nilch, until finally I recd letter from in house DCA, negotiated settlement. Never had a default notice (waiting for SAR to double check if it was issued). Checked my CRF and low and behold, they have now entered the account but stating incorrect opening date of account and placed a default - but get this default date entered was actually after the account had been settled and closed:eek: Can they do this?? Who should be challenged??

 

I am so angry about this as the account was run brilliantly, and I'm bitter because at no point did I benefit over the 28yrs that I had the account - showing a positive credit file/score, but now have problems because they have chosen to punish me and only showing bad record. Surely this can't be right can it?

[vint1954]

I have a question for you knowledgable guys.

 

If a bank account was opened in 1981 and there was never any recording of this on any CRFs. Then in 2009, ran into financial difficulty the bank never responded to any correspondence, phone calls nilch, until finally I recd letter from in house DCA, negotiated settlement. Never had a default notice (waiting for SAR to double check if it was issued). Checked my CRF and low and behold, they have now entered the account but stating incorrect opening date of account and placed a default - but get this default date entered was actually after the account had been settled and closed:eek: Can they do this?? Who should be challenged??

 

I am so angry about this as the account was run brilliantly, and I'm bitter because at no point did I benefit over the 28yrs that I had the account - showing a positive credit file/score, but now have problems because they have chosen to punish me and only showing bad record. Surely this can't be right can it?

Does the ref on your credit file relate to a bank account. Not sure why they would put a mafker on a closed account?

[Beck1968]

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

 

the olympic logs spells...............ZION

[joemay]

Does the ref on your credit file relate to a bank account. Not sure why they would put a mafker on a closed account?

 

Sorry Vint, is it not clear - Had account for over 28 years which had never been recorded on CRFs. Settled (not full amount) account in april still no record on CRF (of the account), then in July they entered the account details, with incorrect opening account date, plus stated default occurred in May which could not have happened as the account was settled and closed in April.

[citizenB]

Joemay, I wonder if when you first opened the account, did you sign anthing to give them permission to share your account details. In negotiating a settlement did you sign any thing you hadnt read, which might have given them that permission?

 

I would still think that if they have recorded data incorrectly then you should make a complaint to the ICO.

[joemay]

Hi CitiB,

 

I can't recall as far back as 1981 (can't even recall yesterday TBH!), but surely the SAR will show that up.

 

Regarding settlement this was negotiated with Triton as Natwest didn't make any contact with me, they are right barstewards. I suppose I'll have to see what the SAR shows up. I'm angry as yesterday tried to open an account with another bank but was refused:mad:

[Jules55]

I have a friend who is trying to get data including a default removed from his Credit File, it relates to a Lloyds TSB credit card account he opened in 1984, surely they have recorded incorrect data as it was prior to 1994, before then you needed to provide your consent to the lender in order for them to share your data with the CRA's, therefore it should be removed?

 

Any views suggestions as to how to tackle Lloyds Bank on this? What are the chances of getting this data removed, the amount outstanding totals in excess of £12,000

 

I doubt they could even produce a true signed copy of the original CCA anyway(He has made a SAR and is waiting for a reply) and I suspect this agreement would be flawed due to its outdated wording etc?

[SURFBOY]

Have you informed the CRAs that the information is incorrect?

I think you should inform them first, wait for their reply , then , if reply is unsatisfactory, complain to information commisioners!

[Dipply75]

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

 

I had pretty much the same response when I started digging at them. The next stage (to really annoy them ) is to ask - if your client signing up to strict T&C's satisfies the ICO's needs then please confirm what action you take against a client who breaches these strict T&C's, are sanctions imposed and if so how many breaches are required before this happens".

 

Ask along those lines, as they are using "strict T&C's" as a cover but we have mountains of proof, there have been endless complaints and they KNOW their clients are commiting these breaches - so what do they do about it? (Nothing....as they won't dump a PAYING client lol, but cannot say that outloud)

 

I just got the 'commercial sensitivity' crap thrown at me.

 

Can we not start mass complaining to the ICO that the CRA is allowing clients to continually breach these 'strict T&C's'

[Dipply75]

different angle but can we also cause them some grief this way? When the CRA's take all the data they hold on me and process it, chop it up and package it and sell it as mailing lists, direct marketing tool, use it for reports, analysis etc all for a fee..........where did they get my permission for that?

 

Surely without my permission for such activities they should not be using or selling my data for profit? So the CRA uses an assumed right to your data from the creditors - then assumes another right to profit in anyway they like from the data they hold for their CRA activities, but when did they ask me if they could do that?

 

SO!.........

 

The Information Commissioner put out a leaflet about our details on the electoral register being sold for marketing etc for a fee and how this was unfair as we pretty much don't have a choice to be on the register - it listed a high court ruling, 'The Robertson Case', in support of this.

 

From this ruling we are now allowed to 'opt out' of the direct marketing side of the electoral register so why can't we use the same logic with the CRA's and stop a major source of their revenue?

 

We don't have much of a choice about being in their files, but can we follow the electoral register lead and force them to provide an 'opt out' of letting them package up our info and sell it too?

The Information Commissioners Office leaflet reads:

 

The ‘Robertson Case’ A ruling by the High Court in November 2001 (following a case brought by a member of the public, Mr Robertson) changed the law governing the use of personal information on the electoral register. The High Court ruling confirmed that it was unlawful to sell copies of the electoral register to private businesses without giving people a choice not to have their information used in this way. The Commissioner’s view The Commissioner believed that because individuals are required by law to supply personal information for the electoral register, and they commit a criminal offence if they do not, any non-electoral uses of the information should be kept to a minimum. The previous arrangements allowed the sale of the entire register to anyone prepared to pay a fee, and the Commissioner thought this was inconsistent with the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly the requirement to treat people’s information fairly.

 

The High Court ruled that, by not allowing people to opt out of being included in the register that was for sale, the previous arrangements were in breach of UK human rights legislation.

 

Will be looking up this Robertson Case but any comments? - good or bad :p

[vint1954]

different angle but can we also cause them some grief this way? When the CRA's take all the data they hold on me and process it, chop it up and package it and sell it as mailing lists, direct marketing tool, use it for reports, analysis etc all for a fee..........where did they get my permission for that?

 

Most boxes that you sign, detail that the information share is for bad debts, money laundering and fraud, not Marketing. So they should not sell your data, unless it is in the general public domain anyway.

 

Surely without my permission for such activities they should not be using or selling my data for profit? So the CRA uses an assumed right to your data from the creditors - then assumes another right to profit in anyway they like from the data they hold for their CRA activities, but when did they ask me if they could do that?

 

SO!.........

 

The Information Commissioner put out a leaflet about our details on the electoral register being sold for marketing etc for a fee and how this was unfair as we pretty much don't have a choice to be on the register - it listed a high court ruling, 'The Robertson Case', in support of this.

 

From this ruling we are now allowed to 'opt out' of the direct marketing side of the electoral register so why can't we use the same logic with the CRA's and stop a major source of their revenue?

 

We don't have much of a choice about being in their files, but can we follow the electoral register lead and force them to provide an 'opt out' of letting them package up our info and sell it too?

The Information Commissioners Office leaflet reads:

 

The ‘Robertson Case’ A ruling by the High Court in November 2001 (following a case brought by a member of the public, Mr Robertson) changed the law governing the use of personal information on the electoral register. The High Court ruling confirmed that it was unlawful to sell copies of the electoral register to private businesses without giving people a choice not to have their information used in this way. The Commissioner’s view The Commissioner believed that because individuals are required by law to supply personal information for the electoral register, and they commit a criminal offence if they do not, any non-electoral uses of the information should be kept to a minimum. The previous arrangements allowed the sale of the entire register to anyone prepared to pay a fee, and the Commissioner thought this was inconsistent with the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly the requirement to treat people’s information fairly.

 

The High Court ruled that, by not allowing people to opt out of being included in the register that was for sale, the previous arrangements were in breach of UK human rights legislation.

 

Will be looking up this Robertson Case but any comments? - good or bad :p

Vint

[vint1954]

Sorry Vint, is it not clear - Had account for over 28 years which had never been recorded on CRFs. Settled (not full amount) account in april still no record on CRF (of the account), then in July they entered the account details, with incorrect opening account date, plus stated default occurred in May which could not have happened as the account was settled and closed in April.

Sorry Joemay, I am blonde

[joemay]

Sorry Joemay, I am blonde

 

Not as blonde as me:oops:

[joemay]

Thanks Jules55 & Surfboy, That it explains it acct opened in '81. I'll check when the SAR comes through just to make sure that I didn't signed anything to give them permission to share. I love this site:D

[Dipply75]

Most boxes that you sign, detail that the information share is for bad debts, money laundering and fraud, not Marketing. So they should not sell your data, unless it is in the general public domain anyway.

 

Exactly....but they do! They advertise this publicly as services they offer to any paying company, using info they got for free and info they have NEVER asked permission to use in this way.

 

They make a huge chunk of their revenue this way...if money is all they care about, lets hit them there

[vint1954]

Exactly....but they do! They advertise this publicly as services they offer to any paying company, using info they got for free and info they have NEVER asked permission to use in this way.

 

They make a huge chunk of their revenue this way...if money is all they care about, lets hit them there

Sounds like you need to start a discussion thread Dipply.

 

"Stop CRA's marketing our data"

 

Could turn out though that the info is in the public domain. Do you have examples of what they sell?

 

Vint

[Dipply75]

I will get the info and post it on my thread and let everyone judge for themselves if they are happy, gave permission or even knew their data was being sold like this.........and if they consider it to be in the public domain.

 

Think this needs more opinions and research but feel it could go somewhere

[lickthewallfatboy]

anyone used this,and is it sensible to avoid them?

 

I would love to find out how many defaults the DCA's have listed against unenforceable agreements,but don't want to send out any more **** alerts!!

 

am I right in thinking that if you take them to court for multiple defaults,the compensation for each is £1000?Maybe I've picked this up wrong

[cerberusalert]

I've used it for several years and not had a problem. The basic report is just that....very basic, but you can upgrade. If you sign up online they send you an activation code via snail-mail so you're looking at a least 3 days before you can access the site. They do not sell your details on.

[slyspy]

they also only use Call Credit as their source, so it's not a complete picture

 

still you get what you pay for with the free one ...

[lickthewallfatboy]

I take it you can spot defaults etc

 

there is no alert for DCA's like when you use the Experian check then?