Experian will not remove incorrect vodafone data

[haggis1984]

There is often a clause about sharing information, but is there anything to say that once the agreement is terminated all trace will be removed?

 

Does it show that the debt has been satisfied?

 

Cant disagree with any of that caro - your position is supported by common sense - im trying to support mine with abstractism(?) so bear with me

 

Could their sharing info with 3rd parties term be an UTCCR?:

 

 

A term is unfair if:

contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf

 

Page 3:

 

Paraphrased: 'Stops consumers making certain legal claims against the business.'

 

Page 4 - Terms that may be unfair:

 

'Consumers being tied into the contract unfairly;

'The business not having to perform it's obligations' (ie. s.77-78 requests)

 

It seems that creditors routinely use their right to process info with CRAs in an attempt to prevent consumers excercising their s.77-78 CCA rights - issuing defaults, marking missed payments when they have failed to satisfy a CCA request.

 

Another argument for the UTCCR angle is the subsantial benefit to organisations not party to the original agreement (future creditors, employers, utilities etc etc). In the event of payment being witheld by the debtor following an unsatisfied CCA request and the creditor marking missed payments with CRAs this 3rd party benefit is detrimental to the debtor.

 

There has been plenty of discussion on other threads suggesting that creditors dont have the right to share info with CRA's after the agreement expires/ is terminated. If this were to be true then again there is a benefit to 3rd parties from the initial agreement between A and B - even after the agreement ceases. Possibly strengthing the case for this being an unfair term.

 

So what im trying to get at is:

 

The sharing info term may contravene the UTCCRs as creditors seem to be using it to avoid their obligations under the CCA.

 

The substantial 3rd party benefits may have other ramifications. Searching for more info on this.

 

Contract rights of 3rd parties act 1999:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1999/ukpga_19990031_en_1

 

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

1(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name

 

When writing to a CRA pointing out a creditors failure to satsify a s77-78 request the CRA writes back, saying 'blah blah blah you agreed info sharing with 3rd parties.' They are in this way enforcing a contractual term.

 

This legislation indicates that in order to enforce this term the CRA must be specifically named in the initial agreement.

Edited October 4, 2009 by haggis1984

[davefirewalker]

Cant disagree with any of that caro - your position is supported by common sense - im trying to support mine with abstractism(?) so bear with me

 

Could their sharing info with 3rd parties term be an UTCCR?:

 

 

A term is unfair if:

contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf

 

Page 3:

 

Paraphrased: 'Stops consumers making certain legal claims against the business.'

 

Page 4 - Terms that may be unfair:

 

'Consumers being tied into the contract unfairly;

'The business not having to perform it's obligations' (ie. s.77-78 requests)

 

It seems that creditors routinely use their right to process info with CRAs in an attempt to prevent consumers excercising their s.77-78 CCA rights - issuing defaults, marking missed payments when they have failed to satisfy a CCA request.

 

Another argument for the UTCCR angle is the subsantial benefit to organisations not party to the original agreement (future creditors, employers, utilities etc etc). In the event of payment being witheld by the debtor following an unsatisfied CCA request and the creditor marking missed payments with CRAs this 3rd party benefit is detrimental to the debtor.

 

There has been plenty of discussion on other threads suggesting that creditors dont have the right to share info with CRA's after the agreement expires/ is terminated. If this were to be true then again there is a benefit to 3rd parties from the initial agreement between A and B - even after the agreement ceases. Possibly strengthing the case for this being an unfair term.

 

So what im trying to get at is:

 

The sharing info term may contravene the UTCCRs as creditors seem to be using it to avoid their obligations under the CCA.

 

The substantial 3rd party benefits may have other ramifications. Searching for more info on this.

 

Contract rights of 3rd parties act 1999:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c. 31)

 

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

1(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name

 

When writing to a CRA pointing out a creditors failure to satsify a s77-78 request the CRA writes back, saying 'blah blah blah you agreed info sharing with 3rd parties.' They are in this way enforcing a contractual term.

 

This legislation indicates that in order to enforce this term the CRA must be specifically named in the initial agreement.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I'll bet that there is a get-out.....

 

if you were to quote from the whole of the text........>

 

 

 

 

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

 

(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or

 

(b) subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.

 

(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.

 

(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

 

(4) This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract.

 

(5) For the purpose of exercising his right to enforce a term of the contract, there shall be available to the third party any remedy that would have been available to him in an action for breach of contract if he had been a party to the contract (and the rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief shall apply accordingly).

 

(6) Where a term of a contract excludes or limits liability in relation to any matter references in this Act to the third party enforcing the term shall be construed as references to his availing himself of the exclusion or limitation.

 

(7) In this Act, in relation to a term of a contract which is enforceable by a third party—

 

*

 

“the promisor” means the party to the contract against whom the term is enforceable by the third party, and

*

 

“the promisee” means the party to the contract by whom the term is enforceable against the promisor.

 

 

 

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

 

It seems as though they "might" be able to use the term debt collection agency ..or such like.

 

we need to be very carefull when selectively quoting...people might not research it too fully and go off half cock.

 

but it does give a new angle to be investigated and is certainly worth a look at

 

rgds

 

Dave

[haggis1984]

Think my excitement got the better of me - wasnt intending to selective quote.

 

Bubble burst

 

However:

 

Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.

 

Now most people when entering into a credit agreement certainly didnt intend the CRA to have the unbridled abillity to publish disputed information.

 

What was your opinion on the UTCCR angle dave?

Edited October 5, 2009 by haggis1984

[JonCris]

Experian like all CRA's think they are Pontuis Pilot "we provide the info what is done with it is none of our concern" Fraid not Experian publishing a libel is still defamation ................ask Justice Eady

[emanevs]

can anyone guide me with a reply letter??

[Mark_Blackpool]

I recently had cause to take a look at my Experian and Equifax records.

 

Experian is mostly correct. Equifax has many errors, largely debts which were settled but either marked still active with a balance owing, or defaulted in a couple of cases.

 

I see that "D" on the report means "Defaulted". In this case, it was not defaulted - it was disputed. There does not appear to be a "Disputed" status, even if it were reasonable to report such instances where the CRA has no idea who is right and who is wrong.

 

The response that the CRA is not taking decisions based on the information they are supplying makes me think of libel law - for instance assume that a newspaper published a story about someone which ruined their life and it was completely false. As an example lets say they accuse a trader of being a con artist and that trader loses their customer base.

 

Can that newspaper then deny all responsibility, because they made no decisions on the basis of the information they supplied to their readers? It was their readers who, acting on the information, took their custom elsewhere; the newspaper might accept the story was wrong, but the libel laws seek reparation for damages and the CRA appear to be claiming that this does not and cannot apply. I don't see how they can claim this.

 

On a more general note, I do not understand why, if you request that a CRA - who does not actually appear to be accountable to anybody - remove information about you whether that data is right or wrong - and they refuse - you cannot simply sue them to force it to be removed.

 

We're looking to emigrate so I asked Equifax by phone if their records are searchable in the Netherlands to determine whether it was worth correcting them. After going away and checking, the answer was "maybe"!

 

They then went on to say that if I wanted to correct them I needed to contact them/the creditors who put the faulty data there, and I need to do that before my membership expires. This must, surely, under UK law, all be completely wrong. All I need to do is tell Equifax what the right data is, and if they decide to side with the inaccurate creditor information then surely I have right of reperation under UK law... or is the Big Brother database state really so advanced that those rights are removed?

[caro]

The letter in this link could be useful.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/149449-put-your-credit-reference.html

[Surfer01]

Whe we used Experian to credit check a new customer all we did was imput the person's name along with their address. We then got back a report showing the person's credit worthiness and a score along with it. Experian would advise whether you were high risk, medium or low risk. This was obviously all automated as we recived the info instantly regarding the decision about your credit worthiness.

I am sure that is the part that you can get removed from their systems and if every one requested it, it would cost them a fortune to send out credit details however then they would not be able to make an automated decision. That would be up to the company from whom you want credit. I am sick of these CRAs controlling our lives!

[emanevs]

does anyone know specifically, where they use automated systems.

 

They have reiterated on three occassions in writing that they dont use automated systems.

 

I DONT BELIEVE THEM, AND I CANNOT GET THEM TO CONCEED THAT THEY DO USE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS?????

[caledfwlch]

I thought the DPA covered anyone storing personal data - whether they make "decisions" based on it or not

 

When I worked for a printers for example, we stored data of private and personal customers, names, addresses, phone number, order history, payments - no decisions were made from that data, but I am pretty sure we were liable under the DPA for it.

 

Since the CRA's have been clarified by the information commissioner to be data controllers under the acts, surely there is a plan of attack by demanding that THEY prove the accuracy and legitimacy of the data by providing us with signed agreement copys.

[caledfwlch]

does anyone know specifically, where they use automated systems.

 

They have reiterated on three occassions in writing that they dont use automated systems.

 

I DONT BELIEVE THEM, AND I CANNOT GET THEM TO CONCEED THAT THEY DO USE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS?????

 

Erm, how does checking your credit file online work then? I would classify holding data on a server accessible by people and companies to be automated - unless they have 20 million people sitting at desks waiting for you to access your file and then manually uploading that data to you and creditors.

 

Anything stored on computer, and accessible through computer will by default be automated surely - if only stretching "technically" a little.

[emanevs]

they have said in black and white that they DO NOT USE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND AS SUCH THEY DO NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH MY REQUEST????

 

They have also said that "THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HAS INFORMED US THAT WE DO NOT REQUIRE YOUR CONSENT TO PROCESS ACCOUNT INFORMATION ABOUT YOU"

 

?????

[caro]

I would suggest that you check that out with the ICO. The Data Protection Act does not just cover automated systems.

[emanevs]

ta!

[IS IT ME?]

You should also ask for a FULL credit report and just see what turns up, it will make your hair curl.

[emanevs]

Full Credit Report????

[emanevs]

Can anyone help with particulars of claim??

 

I want to take the Credit reference agencies to court for reporting incorrect information.

[davefirewalker]

I suggest that you take a look at this thread, or indeed ANY thread by the original poster/ thread starter.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24013-defaults-proposed-method-removal.html

 

or

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/29074-victory-last-against-cras.html

 

rgds

 

Dave

 

As advised before I strongly suggest that you read the above links........he seems to know what he is doing.

 

Dave

[emanevs]

particulars of claim?