Credit Ref Agency reply to DPA s.12 request-help please

[Lizzy]

 

Night night.

 

Pete

 

Fantastic............amazing the things you keep

Night

[Tinkerbelle]

LOL.. night Pete!

[Lizzy]

Must add this on sorry. I didnt click with the avatar I thought it was BRUM (with Toya Wilcox)

[Tinkerbelle]

Just a parting thought...

 

I haven't checked but does this thread get the "Longest Thread on the Forum" Award?

 

Pete

 

No.

 

This one does

[dayglo]

aw come on... that one can't count can it?

[ppauls150]

Well this was a very good interesting thread at its time and i thought that this was long but this thread has now taken over that.

Click Here

[david.m]

The lenders all rely on each other's data to be fair, accruate and up to date because they all use it to make important decisions. That is why the rules governing data sharing are agreed by a body that represents all the participating lenders. Credit account information is not being published or put on public records. It is just made available to lenders participating in the sharing scheme. The Information Commissioners Office issues guidance notes on defaults to set certain standards and ensure consistency.

 

hello james, welcome back.

interesting, regarding the seriousness of defaults, your claim is that lenders are using your stored personal data under these non legally defined 'guidence notes' ,and that makes them valid

and safe in some form or other for the end user?.

 

let me give you just one generic example of a serious Default that is held on CRA systems that does and has for many years caused serious illness and distress for many people.

 

it can be any company but for instance take NTL:tw the uk's one and only cable internet/TV/Phone provider covering over 50% of the uk.

 

NTL:tw and these other companys have a policy of generic Credit Reference'ing any and all users wishing to take their services even though the users are paying in advance of service,should you be lucky enough to pass that check then you the user then get your service, all well and good (ignoring the fact its wrong that you should have to pass a credit check on a pre payed service).

 

now NTL:tw (though it happens in many more companys too)

are well known for having very bad accounting and automated systems and employees that over charge/wrongly bill for services that the user didnt sign up to or even receave etc, and the end result is

that if you raise a dispute with them as regards the wrong payment then even after you think its been cleared up,their automatic processing of your incurrect personal data will find its way into the CRA's (such as yours) database with no zero cost option to remove this invalid personal data default.

 

do you take my point that in this generic case, that a mear service provider (NTL in this case)is in fact setting up the end user for the next 6 years with a clear and invalid Default that will and does dramaticly effect the users ability to even buy a new fridge on credit to store his essential food (assuming the bank hasnt taken his food money in charges LOL) never mind getting or haveing more obvious stuff.

 

in no way do these so called 'guidence notes' you refer too have any baring on the average user getting a serious Default on their CF and you seem wiling to also take (in this case NTL) their word that the default placed on your CRA system is valid, when its clearly not......

 

coments please, for instance what can you james do to make these service providers stop acting in such an unlawful way while your taking their money in payment for your services to them?, how are you protecting me the user/reader from such actions as your such a good company with those awards you mentioned above?.

[david.m]

 

Lenders are breaking the law if they don't read NOCs - who did you work for?

 

james, do you currently beleave the fact that the instruction to ignore the NOC was made, to be the exeption or the rule ?.

 

if the former, what would convince you it was in fact the later, or are you happy to let it sit as its nothing to do with you and your org? and these people are adults and able to justify their actions to themselves and it cant/doesnt effect you as an upstanding member of your org with a good CR (am i to assume you do have, and always had a good credit file while you work for the CRA).

[david.m]

Lenders cannot register defaults for 63p and even if they did I don't think you would lose your job over it.

 

interesting, so you are are implying that Post by un1boy has in some way read his CF wrong and infact this default did not happen to him as a consequence of that initial 63P error on the part of the service provider?.

 

is it that you are, infact, assuming it cant esculate to that point, on perhaps the basis that you have never personally witnessed such an act so far?, can i ask (and get your answer)if you have infact looked at any cases outlined here and elsewere to actually see if there is infact a basis for the these statements generally ( as i understand you wouldnt want to comment on single cases etc) and if indeed you have looked what is your intentions as to stopping such actions in the future if anything?.

[david.m]

My advice remains the same. If the information on your credit report is wrong it should be changed.

 

i think we can all agree on that point james, now the sticky point is this assumption of guilt until proven inocent as relates to the person.

 

assumption:

party A: = me

party B: = service provider

party C: = your CRA

 

B: = payed for your services on a monthly garanteed quota

A: = payed you £2 for a copy of their CF

C: = has access to B and uses that access to query facts

C: = has access to A and does not contact A to query facts

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

 

if A: contacts C: to give notice of 'fact 1' being wrong then C: would i assume ? contact B: and ask if 'fact 1' is infact right ,would a simple email/SMS 'yes its right' be good enough for C: ?.

 

what (near)zero cost options does A have from your company?, if anything in your view and agreement above?.

[david.m]

I can't go into specific cases on here but your son's situation does seem unfair based on what you say. Has he disputed the entry through our Consumer Help Service?

 

james it would be useful if you could see your way to include direct links and email addresses to these services your company provide (for the new readers that dont know they exist etc), please do include them in your next reply.

[david.m]

well said!

 

not sure about the `great unwashed' though lol

 

LOL you dont have a water meter and no credit then!.

[david.m]

D[/color]]

 

On an Experian credit report that payment history would be a perfect one. We don't accept what lenders say - they are sharing their own data with each other - we simply provide the facility. But we do make practical QC checks and we do encourage consumers to check their reports from time time and resolve any disputes.

 

so your confirming that you simply hold the data and as a consequence your view that that Experian credit report is a perfect one, is null and void as you do not influence any outcome by providing said data to these companys that do decide that 00000000000D data is in fact a bad investment.

 

your also confirming when you say "we do encourage consumers to check their reports from time time and resolve any disputes"

that infact your company does not (other than the stated internal limited QC checks) make any effort to expend your business practice to help the consumers find and resolve their findings without a payment to your company that uses their data to make your profits.

[debt_mountain]

hmmmm, the jury is out on that one.

 

consider the evidence.

 

1) JamesJ arrived at the time Surly presented his case to Experian

2) at the point at which Experian conceded Surly's point (see letter in sticky) JamesJ disappears, according to Surly "he was advised not to post here by his employers"

3) remarkably, at the same time that we learn of serious concern within CRAs that their case is unlikely to be upheld in a court and a weak verdict from the Information Commissioners Office JamesJ returns

4) JamesJ returns avoiding answering legal questions and sticks to the party line "motherhood and apple pie" comments - I mean just read some of his 'helpful' stuff from this afternoon

5) I allege that JamesJ is here as part of a planned attempt to put people off taking action and to entice people into 'abusing' his posts so that we get deflected from the issues in hand - consider last weeks 'banning/exile' of SB for example.

 

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

 

I don't dispute any of your "evidence", but this is an open forum and hopefully we will gleen some more useful information and JamesJ is still a human being just doing his job (we may not like his job or the impact it has on our lifes but he is still human). Thought to myself, wonder what information is on jamesj's credit file?

 

I detest the way CRA conduct thrier business and the hassle it has caused me through the years and can't wait to see what all my ex-lenders have to say about me removing their right to share my information.

 

I think we still need to be polite to him as we would any member of the forum while not feeding the troll.

 

I think, although many questions have not been answered fully he is still engaging with the forum and not rising to much of the bait being thrown at him.

 

As I said before it is just a shame the banks aint brave enough to come on board for a discussion.

[debt_mountain]

Just had another thought,

 

Can anyone setup a CRA by applying for a licence? if yes then why don't the CAG setone up. A fair one that is transarent and completly honest taking all the learnings of this site and cases fought?

 

Is this something that could be offered as a future use for donations?

 

Just an idea.

[dayglo]

I don't dispute any of your "evidence", good but this is an open forum and hopefully we will gleen some more useful information we haven't learned anything helpful from JamesJ that we didn't already know so far and JamesJ is still a human being just doing his job (we may not like his job or the impact it has on our lifes but he is still human). Thought to myself, wonder what information is on jamesj's credit file? none of our business - but as an insider i bet he knew the consequences of a poor credit file sooner and in more detail than most of the public affected.

 

I detest the way CRA conduct thrier business and the hassle it has caused me through the years and can't wait to see what all my ex-lenders have to say about me removing their right to share my information. ok - don't get your hopes up though just yet, as things stand at the moment, there aren't many companies that have rolled over, court cases are pending though.

 

I think we still need to be polite to him as we would any member of the forum agreed. I have always been courteous and polite to JamesJ while not feeding the troll.

 

I think, although many questions have not been answered fully he is still engaging with the forum I don't think he is engaging in a helpful way though and not rising to much of the bait being thrown at him.

 

As I said before it is just a shame the banks aint brave enough to come on board for a discussion. It is my personal view that JamesJ isn't being brave at all and is merley attempting to prevent people taking on CRAs through the courts

 

Just my thoughts

[andrew1]

Just my thoughts

 

 

.... and about 71,000 others too

[sarahpp]

Debt Mountain - banks and their staff are not permitted to enter the site without prior permission from an administrator according to the forum rules.

[un1boy]

Anyone thought of composing a letter to campaign to teh MP's to create ONE, government/FSA run CRA with examples of the things they have done and how they have ruined people's lives?

[Glenn UK]

Yes but there's a subtle difference. Lenders do not share credit account data to penalise people. The factual information is shared so that, when you apply for credit, participating lenders can consult a CRA and check your borrowing behaviour over the past six years, including how much you currently owe on credit. Most of the account info we hold is completely up to date and helps people get credit quickly and easily when they want it and can afford it.

 

James

 

Is disagree in principle and fact.

 

You assert most of the information is correct and up to date. The truth is that 99.9% of subjects have no idea what data you hold or how to get it. Im prepared to accept my value may be out, 99.1 or 99.9% maybe?

 

in turn you have no way of knowing if the data is correct since you are rarely challenged on the matter. According to a report submitted to the Treasury into low cost banking there are only 2-3million adults without bank accounts in the uk. Im not quite sure how many adults there actually are but CRAs will hold data on nearly every adult, for arguments sake 40 million people.

 

I suspect that in percentage terms you normally get less than 0.5% of that number of persons a year enquire as to the status of their credit file. If you can put some real numbers on this it would be interesting.

 

The average subject applies for credit and gets it, they have no idea what decisions are made about them by the lender only the deal they get at the end of the process.

 

The CRAs in turn have no way of validating the information beyond reliance of the goodwill of the banks.

 

There is no effective means for an individual to challenge the data held on their credit file since the CRAs accept,without exception as far as i can tell, the supplying lenders submissions.

 

So you assertion is made in good faith no doubt, but the reality is the CRAs has no interest in changing the status quo.

 

The effect of entering defaults on an individual is in effect to punish an individual for 6 years and irrespective of the value of the default or whether its just or not, the individuals ability to obtain credit at good rates is affected.

 

In the end, the CRAs have a business to run and it is effectivley unregulated at the moment with the balance of power tending towards the lenders and the CRAs themselves.

 

The Data Protection Act on the other hand is supposed to support the interests of the subject and the 'establishment' refuses to accept that, actually they are riding roughshod over the rights of the subject in search of the extra dollar.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

Edit found a couple more, it always takes me ages to see the damn typos

[un1boy]

Well, people who have defaults registered can only obtain credit at higher rates - convenient for the banks (your clients), don't you think? I wonder if Experian etc make more money for each person who has defaults etc?!

[Tinkerbelle]

James

 

Is disagree in principle and fact.

 

You assert most of the information is correct and up to date. The truth is that 99.9% of subjects have no idea what data you hold or how to get it. Im prepared to accept my value may be out, 99.1 or 99.9% maybe?

 

in turn you have no way of knwoing if the data is correct since you are rareley challenged on the matter. Accoridng to a report submitted to the Treasury into low cost banking there are only 2-3million adults without bank accounts in the uk. Im not quite sure how many adults there actually are but CRAs will hold data on nearly every adutl, for arugments sake 40 million people.

 

I suspect that in percentage terms you normally get less than 0.5% of that number of persons a year enquire as to the status of their credit file. If you can put som real numbers on this it would be interesting.

 

Th average subject applies for credit and gets it, they have no idea what decisions are made about them by the lender only the deal they get at the end of the process.

 

The CRAs in turn have no way of vlaidating the information beyond reliance of the goodwill of the banks.

 

There is no effective means for an individual to challenge the data held on their credit file since the CRAs accept,without exception as far as i can tell,to the supplying lenders submissions.

 

So you assertion is made in good faith no doubtm, but the reality is the CRAs has no interest in chaning the status quo.

 

The effect of entering defaults on an individual is in effect to punish and individual for 6 years and irrespective of the value of the default or whether its just or not the indioviduals ability to obtain credit at good rates is affected.

 

In the end, the CRAs have a business to run and it is effectivley unregulated at the oment with the balance of power tening towards the lenders and the CRAs themselves.

 

The Data Protection Act on the other hand is supposed to support the interests of the subject and the 'establishment' refuses to accept that actually they are riding roughshod over the rights of the subject in search of the extra dolar.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

I'm sure there are some valid points in here but I can't tell. All the spelling errors make this extremely difficult to read.

[dayglo]

I'm sure there are some valid points in here but I can't tell. All the spelling errors make this extremely difficult to read.

 

ouch!

[Glenn UK]

Tinkerbelle

 

thanks for that, i think ive found most of them.

 

glenn

[andrew1]

I'm sure there are some valid points in here but I can't tell. All the spelling errors make this extremely difficult to read.

 

 

I think the whole forum could do with a spell 'cheque' ! the spelling generally is terrible :o