Search For Outstanding Debts By Lowell Financia Ltd

[Dissiargent]

Dear all,

 

I desperatly need some help. I am new in this country - i move in the UK 3 years ago from France and so far have had few problems with my credit file where companies have put in wrong information. Thankfully, I have succesfully managed to fight because of the advice and help i had from this marvelous site. I can't thank the site enough and its users and i encourage anyone who is able to donate money to keep the site running.

 

The latest problem i have is by a company called Lowell Financial Ltd who did a search on my Equifax credit file for an 'outsanding debt'. I have naturally followed the steps i took with the other issues i had and disputed the information on-line with Equifax and by sending Lowell Financial a letter of dispute also via special delivery asking them why a search was carried out as i dont owe them any money and do not know them.

 

I am now really worried as to what my next steps are ... Judging by what i have read so far about this company, they seemed to be very bad and extremelly ruthless. I have worked so hard to save and to have a good credit file in order to purchase a home for my family and i am scared to see it all go down.

 

I do not have any outstanding debt with any company and do not understand why a search was carried out with my name.

 

Can anyone help me please?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Dissiargent

[ODC]

Its quite possible that the leeds Losers were looking for someone with a similar name to yours.

 

If they do not give you a satisfactory answer to your request then make a formal complaint against them with Trading Standards ant the OFT. The Leeds losers are sailing close to the wind and are under scrutiny from the OFT at the minute

[Dissiargent]

Hi ODC,

 

Many thanks for your prompt reply - much appreciated.

 

Do you happen to have some complaints letters templates that i could use with Trading Standards ant the OFT? I have a feeling i might have to do that after all based on Lowell's reputation.

 

Thanks again.

[ODC]

There is no specific complaint template as such. Basically your complaint is that the Leeds Losers searched your credit file without your permission

[Dissiargent]

Hi ODC,

 

Good news:). I just checked my email and equifax informed me that Lowells have asked them to delete the search - they must have realised i was the wrong person:).

 

Many thanks for all your help - really much appreciated.

 

Fatima

[Allwood]

Surely you should get an apology for the street that they have caused you. It was the Equifax mistake in letting this DCA into you data without any authority whatsoever. I

 

This is why it is so important that CRA should have sight of the orginal agreement between the lender and the borrow before letting DCA's into search anyones personal data.

[Dissiargent]

I am in complete agreement with you Allwood - CRAs should definetly be in sight of agreements between lenders and borrowers before allowing DCAs to use our information.

[spark1]

I am in complete agreement with you Allwood - CRAs should definetly be in sight of agreements between lenders and borrowers before allowing DCAs to use our information.

 

The thing is, under the first principle of the DPA if the DCA is carrying out a trace search for an outstanding debt. They could claim it was in their legitimate interest to take steps to recover the debt. Therefore not a breach of the act.

 

Spark1

[ODC]

The thing is, under the first principle of the DPA if the DCA is carrying out a trace search for an outstanding debt. They could claim it was in their legitimate interest to take steps to recover the debt. Therefore not a breach of the act.

 

Spark1

 

That MIGHT be true if the Leeds Losers were chasing someone who ACTUALLY owed a debt AND they had the legal paperwork allowing them to chase the person. As it stands they had NOT the permission of the OP to be processing THEIR data. The OP should report the Leeds Losers for all their stupidity

[Allwood]

What about if there is no Agreement and also if a debt is statute barred...DCA's should not be allowed into people personal data unless there is a valued Agreement and the debt is NOT statute barred.

[spark1]

That MIGHT be true if the Leeds Losers were chasing someone who ACTUALLY owed a debt AND they had the legal paperwork allowing them to chase the person. As it stands they had NOT the permission of the OP to be processing THEIR data. The OP should report the Leeds Losers for all their stupidity

 

A DCA does not need permission to process data, if they are taking steps to try and trace a debtor. If you can prove they unfairly/unlawfully processed your data then you have a case.

 

Im not sticking up for any DCA, but under the first principle, consent is only one condition for processing data. Anyway Im no expert, but I look at things from both angles.

 

Ive had 5 out of 6 complaints upheld by the ICO, but the search one was not up held, because of the legitimate interest condition under the first principle.

[ODC]

The DO need permission to process data. This is usually given when you apply for credit. In this case however the OP was not the debtor and therefore had not given their permission for this shower to process the data.

 

by your reasoning if the Leeds losers had a debt for a John Smith then they could process data belonging to all the John Smiths in the UK. I think that they must be sure of their facts before they process anyones data

[spark1]

by your reasoning if the Leeds losers had a debt for a John Smith then they could process data belonging to all the John Smiths in the UK. I think that they must be sure of their facts before they process anyones data

 

Well in my wifes case, there were 2 people with her name and same date of birth, so the DCA searching could of claimed a legitimate interest because they were trying to trace for a gone away debtor.

 

Ive argued on similar lines to you, but to prove unlawfullness is not easy. What is unlawfull about tracing someone, when their name and address could be freely available on public registers?

 

By the way, theres an outsanding debt search showing on the wifes file and the company who put it there are saying Equifax won't allow them to remove it.

 

Equifax are refusing to remove it, they are saying it must stay on record for 6 years, so Ive had to file another complaint with the ICO, for breach of the the fith principle of the DPA.

[ODC]

Equifax will never remove adverse data unless you take legal action against them.

 

They are bound by law to ensure the data held is accurate. However for some strange reason they always believe the DCA over the public.

[spark1]

ODC

 

They then state, the outsanding debt search can not be seen been by anyone searching your file, so therefore as no adverse effects, again hard to prove them wrong, unless you can prove damage and with evidence which suggests the outsanding debt search caused it.

 

I argued the search was in incorrect/inaccurate, they say its been recorded correctly and accurately, so its not a breach of the fourth principle.

 

You can go round in circles, because they know the DPA favours them and is not there for our interests

[Dissiargent]

Wow - this is all very interesting. Was the outstanding data on table 1 or 2? If its table 2 then, no one else can view it except you or your wife.

 

Other European countries dont have the same way of processing data - i dont knwo why DCRs are allowed to keep our data the same way.

 

Well - i have left it now as they have removed the search.

[spark1]

Exquifax reply to my request to remove the search was:

 

An "Outstanding Debt" search indicates that an organisation has undertaken a search in an attempt to reconnect with a customer who has gone away leaving an unpaid debt.

 

This "Outstanding Debt" search appearing in your credit Report will only be visible to yourself, and will not be visible to any lenders who subsequently access your credit Report.

 

"Outstanding Debt" searches will remain on your credit Report for 6 years from their recorded date.

[spark1]

So I got on their case again and got this reply:

 

We wish to advise you that these searches are investigative Outstanding Debt searches. These searches are undertaken for purposes other than credit application. They are not viewable by lenders and have no impact on a credit decision. These searches inform you that these companies have viewed your Credit Report and are not disputed

[Allwood]

The same thing happened to me there were 2 searches on my credit report, I was told by Equifax that they would stay for six years. I did a SAR to the OC for one of the searches on my report and no Agreement showed up. With the second search, I wrote to Equifax and copy ICO into all my correspondence and asked what authority they relied on to allowed the 2 organizations into my personal data.

 

In the beginning Equifax said that the searches would stay for six years and anyone could see them. However, about 9 months after the searches were removed I got a reply back from ICO, and they told me in writing that the searches would only stay for 2 years.

 

With one of the searches Equifax said that they would contact that particular organization for evidence. When they got no reply form them they wrote and told me that particular search was removed by them. Equifax had also put a dispute notice on my report and in the same letter they said that was removed also, which it turned out not to be the case and ICO is looking into that.

 

As for the other search on my report, due to a lengthy correspondence with the OC, I finally got a letter from them them stating that they held no Agreement for any alleged debt and nothing showed up in the bundle with SAR.. I therefore sent a copy of that letter to Equifax and they told me that they had removed that search also.

 

Before I wrote back to ICO informing them that the searches were removed a year earlier than they said, I applied for a credit report from Equifax, sent them £2 for it. When I got back the dispute was still on it. I then wrote to Equifax at the end of June regarding this and got no reply from them. I had to send them a chase letter with a copy of my report and the letter from them stating that the dispute had been removed. I also copied everything to the ICO.

 

After sending the chase letter to Equifax and ICO I got a letters back from both them arriving on the same day. Equifax enclosed a copy of a new report showing that the dispute had been removed. ICO said that they would be contacting Equifax regarding them not removed the dispute as stated earlier in their letter to me.

 

However there were still other issues on the report such as the saying that i was not on the electoral registered and now I am going to bring up the issue about the £10 that I sent them for a SAR and also the length of time it took for them to send it out to me, well out of the time limit as well. Hopefully I will be soon clear of all this hassle that Equifax has created for me.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Allwood