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

[SurlyBonds]

S12 of the Data Protection Act doesn't refer to how credit reference agencies produce your credit report, it relates to how lenders use this and other information when deciding whether or not to lend. If a particular lender bases their lending decisions solely on credit scoring then you have the right under S12 to have your application reviewed manually - that is all. In fact, most lenders voluntarily did this before this right was added to our data protection legislation in 1998. So I think you are all barking up the wrong tree. If you're in any doubt I suggest you seek advice from the Office of the Information Commissioner.

 

Of course, if information should be removed from a credit report we will happily check with the provider and remove it.

 

James Jones

Experian

 

Seems like the CRAs are starting to crap themselves and have stared putting totally ridiculous statements on here to try and scare people off. It seems too damn obvious that with the number of letters going in now, the CRAs have suddenly woken up to the fact that people have realised that the CRAs don't actually have any legal statute, they are merely relying on the tidy little get together that they have engineered with the credit industry.

 

I will be presenting a test case, as a "recommendation" document from the Information Commissioners Office about data retnetion does not equate with "legal right".

 

I am far more interested in what the Court thinks is a correct interpretation of the Data Protection Act, and not what the Commissioner, or the industry thinks the DPA says.

 

I've had a very stupid letter from Experian trying to wriggle out of the "legal right" arguement, although they do now admit in the letter that there is "no legal right". At least I can show that to a judge who has to interpret what the Law says, and not what Experain and the other parastitic Muppets 'think' they're allowed to impose due to some cosy arrangement where each of them fills each others pockets with the proceeds of our data.

 

James' intervention on this forum is a typical sign of panic, otherwise he would have STFU and waited for the cases to come in.

 

The letter from Experian included the bl**dy ridiculous statement of:

"However, the information is a historic reflection of how the account was conducted when consent did apply. As you consented to information being passed to a credit reference agency when signing the original agreement, you were consenting to that information being held and used in accordance with credit industry standards."

 

Oh no I did NOT, Mr Experian!!! My contract said nothing about "industry standards", and I will ask a judge to read the same clauses and tell me if he can see the wording that allowed processing "in perpetuity".

 

What's more, they know this because the letter goes on to then contradict their own argument with statements such as:

"The consent wording you would have agreed to will have been with regards to allowing us to start processing your information and payment history concerning the account. I am not aware of any consent wording that states this will only be for the duration of the account. However, I am unable to comment on the exact wording of the agreement you signed without seeing a copy of that agreement itself."

 

????? - Erm...therefore because it doesn't specifically state "duration of the account", Experian think they can ignore the basis of the contractual arrangement with my provider and have invoked a separate contract (with me)that runs for six years, without my consent!??!?!? WTF are they on about? They run themselves around in rings with their own babble.

 

And finally, the next-to-best bit:

"It was agreed throughout the credit industry, in conjunction with the OFT and the Information Commissioners Office, that six years is a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained...".

 

So, no legal statute then... just an industry "agreement" that I didn't sign, and are therefore not party to.

 

And then the best bit, in reply to my request for a copy of this so-called industry agreement:

"I am not able to supply you with a copy of the agreement itself and if you wish to pursue this matter further I suggest you take it up with the Information Commissioners Office"

 

Oh, and the usual 'go away little man, because we have far more money than you, nah, nah, and we want to frighten you against taking us to Court'

"Before undertaking potentially expensive legal action, I would stongly recommend that you contact the Information Commissioner..."

 

I am going to take these idiots all the way... they have REALLY pi**ed me off now with their whining "no far you caught us out, but we still won't answer your questions honestly" approach.

[SurlyBonds]

1. I've already explained that S12 of the Data Protection Act does not affect what is held on your credit report as CRAs do not make lending decisions. I have nothing more to add to that point. We do process your data, with your permission. Lenders obtain this from you on when you apply to them. Simple as that.

 

2. On a general point, does there really have to be a specific law permitting something before you can do it legally - like throwing a ball maybe? Surely the legal framework we operate in the UK works the other way around - i.e. something is legal unless there is a law against it. As I said before though, I'm certainly no legal expert.

 

3. Experian adheres strictly to the laws that affect its business. And as I've mentioned before, we do more than we have to in many areas as we are a responsible business. For example, see ThisIs portals - news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars

 

James

 

This is one the most insincere and grovelling posts that I've read on this forum (let alone the Internet) in some considerable time.

 

In reply to your comments:

1. Section 12 IS very relevant, as Experian produces a credit score which is in turn provided to the lenders, who then apply that score to their own lending criteria. You are talking absolute bulls**t when you say that it is not an automated process to produce such a score, as I can log onto Experian websites and pay about a fiver to 'get' my score. Bearing in mind that your website is an automated system, which in turn reads data from your back-end mainframes, how is it possible to produce this 'credit score' without computing the data automatically?? Or do you have loads of staff with calculators processing each request for a score manually as they are submitted to your website??

 

It doesn't matter one iota whther the 'score' you produce is then passed to the lender who in turn decides to lend or not - at the end of the day, you are using our data in an automatic process to determine a 'credit score'. According to the DPA, we can choose to opt out of that process, so that Experian and all the other parasite CRAs would then have to process each request in some form of manual process. Your earlier post that we are all barking up the wrong tree as merely a smoke-screen to try and deflect this simple fact.

 

Will you have the balls to admit that the CRAs produce their 'score' by running an algorithm through the data files? And do you do this manually or automatically? Also, each CRA produces different credit scores on the same data, and the CRAs don't always hold the same credit data anyway - I've examined all my three files, and the data entries, history and scores are all different.

 

Your argument that is is not the CRAs that make the final decision is irrelevant - you all produce a 'score' by fair means or foul which is used in a decision to [quoting from S.12 of the Act] "...no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, ..., his creditworthiness".

 

That 'score' is very much a 'decision' as it enumerates your opinion of my credit history into a numerical figure (a result) i.e. your computers have looked at my data and decided to produce a 'decision' marker (be it numerical or otherwise) that places me in certain categories of risk with the lenders or service providers.

 

2. To make an analogy between throwing a ball and the legalities of screwing up someones financial status, then you really are 'barking up the wrong tree' - this is a very silly analogy.

 

There is no actual law in this country against murder - it is the Common Law only - but that doesn't mean it's legal.

 

As to something being legal until there's a law against it, well news for you - there is. It's called the DPA, and it allows data subjects to opt out of auto-processing and if Experian fails to do so, then it is a criminal offence. That law also insists that you process data correctly and not try hiding behind the "we'll wait until the lenders tell us to change it" bulls**t excuse. As a data controller, you have an equal responsibility to store the data correctly, let alone what the banks do with it - they are a separate data controller and are also subject to the Act.

 

The problem with the CRAs and the lenders is that they try pi**ing off the consumer by trying to run circles around us with:

Bank: "It is the responsibility of the CRA to look after the date we provide to them."

CRAs: "It is the responsibility of the lenders to ensure that they send us accurate data"

 

Well, no it isn't... each has a legal obligation to store data correctly, no matter where it was sourced from. "He told me to do it" is NOT a defence in Law.

 

Your earlier comments about "If we were breaking the Law then we'd have been closed down" is also nonsense As you well know, nothing happens via the CPS or the civil courts until someone makes a complaint.

 

The banks have been acting unlawfully for many years over bank charges, but they didn't have their banking licences confiscated as it's a civil matter. And unless the injured party actually makes a complaint, then the other party to the contract (the bank) has no obligation to put the matter right or defend it in court. Banks aren't going to volunteer the fact that they are acting unlawfully, and neither do the CRAs until someone notices it, and starts to take action.

 

3. I don't believe that Experian does "strictly adhere" to the law, as it quite obvious (indeed, it is their own admission - finally!!) that they do not, in fact, use the DPA (the Law) but rely on a cosy little arrangement that has been published as some sort of 'recommendation' - although, saying that, I am STILL awaiting a copy - Experian's last letter to me stated:

"I am not able to supply you with a copy of the agreement itself and if you wish to pursue this matter further I suggest you take it up with the ICO."

 

So, I did as they advised, and this afternoon spoke to the credit services expert at the ICO, who agreed with me that they only have lawful right IF I have signed a contract. He also agreed that a contract expiry might bring into jeopardy their alledged right, as a secondary controller, to continue processing that data.

 

He also agreed that it might not be considered correct to maintain this data (unless I had specifically given permission) as it was not in the publc interest, and was also personal and confidential information.

 

He also agreed with me that the contents of Experian's letter did not satisfy my legitimate request for them to remove old account data, and that it appeared that I had reasonable grounds for a complaint that they had had not complied with a correctly-served Data Subject Request. After reviewing a copy of the letter, he concurred that it appeared to be a fob-off "go away little man" letter (my expression) and didn't answer my concerns or requests, despite running to several pages.

 

I have now downloaded the relevant forms and will be sending these in. I've also asked my solicitor to contract a barrister as I am quite happy to take further advice on this, and proceed with a test case.

 

This whole CRA industry is an immoral, unethical and parasitic bunch of cowboys and they should be shut down or merged under one correctly-policed authority which ONLY issues information already in the public domain.

 

By the arrogance and attitude of the CRAs in these last few weeks, it it more than obvious that they are starting to realise that this could be the end of their cosy little cartel.

 

Mr James is more than welcome to post here, but his comments do nothing to underpin the credibility of the CRAs, and as he freely admits "he is no legal expert". I would respectfully suggest an intense and thorough understanding of the DPA and the relevant sections before trying to defend organisations that are clearly not adhering to the data subjects' rights under the Act.

 

As they say, "information is power", and it seems that the CRAs are getting extremely anxious not to lose their invaluable databases, whether it is pertinent, relevant and accurate, or not.

[SurlyBonds]

Here are some T&C's I found:

 

 

 

I can't see there where it says that any tom, dick or harry can see / use my data?

 

I also reiterate my earlier argument that there are no such clauses in anybodys contracts, such as:

 

> I agree for you to continue processing my data for a minimum period of six years after the conclusion of the contract, whether by contractual expiration or earlier cessation by either party

> I also agree that you may divulge my personal financial information to any third party, in particular the credit reference agencies, who may arbitrarily decide what is a reasonable amount of time to store such data, or by any other arrangement that the credit industry sees fit.

> I also agree that whilst no law exists for third parties to process my data in perpetuity, I discharge all my legal rights under the Data Protection Act in relation to sections 10 and 12 of the said Act, in that this permission extends as the Bank sees fit.

> I also agree for the bank to produce sets of data each month that will be provided to the CRAs in perpetuity, so that the CRAs may process this data for any fee they choose the charge their clients, and that I discharge any rights under the DPA for the CRAs to financially gain from the supply and processing of my data.

 

That's why I need to take this to a Court to interpret my contract precisely, and NOT what the CRA/OFT/ICO have dreamed up as a "recommendation" over their tea and Garibaldis.

 

Unless the Dept. of Trade and Industry has produced this "recommendation" into a Statutory Instrument - and we can't find one anywhere - then the clauses contained within the actual contract and the relevant Statute take precedence.

[SurlyBonds]

I am very sincere in everything I say and my name is certainly genuine - try Googling 'james jones experian'. O ye of little faith. Experian is currently a subsidiary of GUS plc which is listed on the LSE.

 

James

 

I did indeed google James' details and read through several of his press statements. I must say that the thought that someone who is the "Consumer Relations Manager" for such an organisation, who has such little legal knowledge of the Data Protection Act, makes me shudder.

 

However, if anyone would like to contcat Mr Jones personally to discuss the arguments (as he so willingly invites us to do so on his press releases), his details (as referenced from the public domain) are:

 

JAMES JONES, Consumer Relations Executive,

Experian

Tel: 0115 976 8525. Mobile: 07967 567267.

Email: [email protected]

 

Source: http://www.gusplc.com/gus/news/experianarchive/experian2001/2001-09-10/

 

P.S. Oh yes, and we're all so frightfully impressed that Experian is part of the mighty GUS - a point I made serveral weeks ago - and is even quoted on the LSE. Obviously this add-on is intended to impress us, or scare us away from potential legal action with the sort of "we can afford bigger lawyers than you, little man" mentality that' we've all come to expect ... just like the ones the banks threatened us with.

[SurlyBonds]

I find it very interesting that Experion is described thus on the GUS website

 

 

".....helps organisations to develop and manage profitable customer relationships by providing information, analysis and decision management solutions." The highlighting is mine.

 

If you look up the term "parasitic corporation", I think you'll probably find the same description. ;-)

 

Making money from OUR personal and confidential data... how very ethical:rolleyes:

[SurlyBonds]

Automatic processing ....

 

Of course the CRAs wouldn't DARE use automatic system processes to determine our credit scroe result... even Mr Jones of Experian says so earlier in the thread...

 

But, hang on, here's what Equifax says:

"What is a Credit Score?

A credit score is a tool used by a lender to help determine whether you qualify for a particular credit card, loan, or service. Based on information in your credit file, the credit reference agency analyses your information using a complex mathematical model to yield your credit score.

Most credit scores estimate the risk a company incurs by lending you money or providing you with a service -- specifically, the likelihood that you'll fail to make payments in the next two to three years. The higher the score, the less risk you represent. Your score is calculated by a mathematical equation that evaluates many types of information found in the credit file."

 

[My bolding and underlining]

 

Oh, and just in case they try changing their web pages and then denying it, I've had the whole lot captured - from each of the CRA websites - and date/time stamped into PDF files, all ready for a suitable supporting role at a County Court near you soon!!;-)

[SurlyBonds]

Have just got off the phone with the I.C.O. after a 45 minute phone call examining all the details in Experian's letter to me.

 

They have likewise totally admitted that there is not legal statute in place that allows any CRA to hold data on your credit file except with:

1) An order of the Court (e.g. CCJ, etc), or an exemption from the Secretary of State

2) Your express written permission - they also agreed that you can rescind permission to any Data Controller (other than the Official bodies listed in the Act) - and opt in and out as many times as you so wish.

 

The complaint adviser also agreed that the CRAs only do this because it is "standard industry practice" and is the operations model that they have developed over the years... albeit no one has questioned it thus far.

 

He was also "not aware" of any recommendation document issued by the I.C.O.'s office either "in conjunction with the OFT" or otherwise, as claimed by Mr Experian on this forum.

 

When I stated that I might instigate a Freedom of Information request for the said document, he doubted that anything would turn up...not that it matters anyway as I.C.O. "advice" does not correlate with legal right.

 

I've also spoken to the OFT and they are very "curious" as to what this supposed "recommendation report" is :? They stated that they wouldn't even issue directives along those lines as they don't even deal with issues relating to data control?????!!!!!!!

 

They also concur that they have not pressed for the Secretary of State to issue any such recommendation in a Statutory Instrument, and they wouldn't as it's an IC matter, not an OFT matter. They will confrim this in writing if I write to them requesting a letter to that effect.... which I will do to show any judge what a bunch of lying a**eholes Experian actually are.

 

So, it would seem that my suspicions are entirely correct, and both the I.C.O. and OFT are now agreeing that "recommendation" does not equate with Law.

 

In the words of Maximus..."On my command, unleash hell"

[SurlyBonds]

Another series of tremendous posts SurlyBonds. As I understand it then, the I.C.O. confirms that the CRAs have no legal right whatsoever to refuse individuals the right to rescind their permission for the automated processing of personal data?

 

Absolutely correct, if it causes you distress in any way, shape or form, and it is not up to the CRAs as to decide whether you feel distressed. The very fact that you consider it unnecessary and a cause of strress is worrying enough, and any doctor these days will happily sign a sick note with "stressed" on it, due to financial pressures or worry.

 

Under the terminology of the Data Protection Act (Section 1(1)) of the Act, "processing" also means "disclosing":

 

"processing", in relation to information or data, means obtaining, recording or holding the information or data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data, including-

 

(a) organisation, adaptation or alteration of the information or data,

 

(b) retrieval, consultation or use of the information or data,

 

© disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, or

 

(d) alignment, combination, blocking, erasure or destruction of the information or data;

 

When any bank or supplier uses an electronic automated transaction to read your data, it is a fully-automated process - whether it's a simple disclosure or a both-barrels mathematical algorithm that takes four hours of processing time... it is still a process under the terms of the Act.

 

During a call with Experian today, we basically laid the law down and told them to add to following in relation to our friend's file:

"THE DATA SUBJECT HAS EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 AND HAS CHOSEN TO OPT OUT OF AUTOMATED PROCESSING AS OF 05 SEPT 2006. CREDIT STATUS ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE VIA A MANUAL PROCESS."

 

and to remove ALL data from automated searches and destroy all entires relating to historic accounts.

 

You might want to include this sort of wording in your own case(s).

All three of us have been in the office today nailing these bl**dy CRAs down, and we've finally had Experian crumble after my colleagues telephone call... I might even get around to transcribing the call, and posting it, although that would take about six years!!! (ha ha...no pun intended). We had it on conference call and were pi**ing ourselves laughing at the ineptitude of these people...you've never heard so much bulls**t from the other end in your life.

 

Calls to both the OFT and I.C.O. both confirmed that that the CRAs have absolutely squat "legal right" to hold any default, settled or historic data, unless it is specifically in the terms of the contract, or is public information. But, anyway, you can withdraw your permission at any time to non-public data.

 

This is a right under the basic rights of the First principle of the Act:

See schedule 2 of the Act:

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

5. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the administration of justice,

(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment,

© for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or

(d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person.

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

 

We also now know that 'actually' there is NO recommendation report advising the CRAs to hold historic account data for six years (other than some spoken agreement in the 1980s that has since been superceded by the Data Protection Act 199 we have moved a few steps forward into getting these parasitic a**eholes to start respecting the Law.

 

We had a particular laugh when the chap from their "Director's Office" went very silent when he was told that the I.C.O. would be happy to receive a complaint based on the "inaccuracies" contained within his letter.

 

It also surprised me no end to hear a so-called senior exec of Experian try arguing that the data beloings to them and their clients..... and that only they had the right to alter or remove it!!!

 

Ermmmmmmm....ho hum.... not according to the Act it doesn't!

 

Personal data belongs to you and you only...you only grant permission as to where it can be stored and used, and no one can tell you otherwise unless it's an official Govt. body, the Secretray of State, or a judge.

 

It is shocking that these people are running these companies without the slightest clue as to what the great unwashed's rights are... it is an utter disgrace that they even hold a Data Protection Act licence.

 

The typical arrogant bully-boy attitude of "we're right, you're wrong...now sod off"... up until now, when someone has managed to pick holes in their argument and stand up to them.

 

Still, it took about three rounds of letters before they STFU and did what they were asked to do, but as I've said earlier...it's a case of holding out for your rights and not blinking in the game of stare-out.

 

They know they haven't got a case... a bit like the banks really, with all this prior bulls**t about penalty charges.

[SurlyBonds]

Surlybonds. The gentleman from the Directors Office of Experian that you spoke with; it wasn't Paul Lever was it?

 

No, it was some other equally pompous and devoid-of-DPA-knowledge t*at.

[SurlyBonds]

Perhaps we should lodge a search on the G.A.I.N. (gone away information network) on Experians Site:razz:

 

or should it be a CIFAS marker for Mr Jones...????

 

Cocky Individual Flees Argument Suddenly...

 

I especially liked the bits from his later posts... now what were some of those illuminating insights into the mind of such a mature and respected character...let me see...

"We also go beyond the letter of the law as we are a responsible and reputable business"... ROFLMAO...Yeah, that's why about 99% of the population thinks the CRAs suck

"In fact, we are currently UK business of the year"...now come on... buying the judges a few rounds of golf does not a silk purse make.

"I said that we go beyond the letter of the law in they way we run our business..."... Erm, and that would be how....exactly?? some examples? Hmm? Pretty please? Ever heard of the 'spirit of the Law' too?

 

"CCJs are kept on the public record (and therefore on a credit report) for six years and I think that became the accepted industry standard (with regulator approval) for retaining other financial records too."...erm, Nononononononononononooooooooooooooo, he didn't actually say that, and still doesn't... and anyway, regulator 'approval' doesn't equal diddly in a Court.

 

"O ye of little faith."...well James, with people like you working for Experian that never actually answer the punters' questions, do you really expect us to have any faith in your agency?

 

Still, if you walk into the sheep pen, dressed as a wolf, you should expect more than just a little bleating back at you.

[SurlyBonds]

SB

 

Some great posts here, I have only just caught up with this thread and not had chance to read everything so apologies if this has already been covered, but

 

 

Does this mean that we could in effect write to the CRA's and tell them to remove all data that is not part of a Court Order or an exemption from the Sec of State?

 

So in other words clean up our credit files just by writng to them, as what they record they do because it is only 'Standard Industry Practice' or is that just too simplistic? and am I reading this all wrong.

 

Thanks

Chris

 

Yes, perhaps a little too simplistic...

 

My advice is, and always has been, this...

1) If you do actually owe the money under a default, then pay it off, or keep to an arrangement. However, if any of it is through penalty charges (or the default notice was due to penalty charges and interest), get that back and make it a condition of the claim that they remove the default notice forever.

2) My tact with the people I've helped, and my own file, is to remove all historic data and settled accounts. I am leaving my own 'running' accounts on there - as I did give permission in my contract.

 

Essentially, if a particular 'settled' default is causing you aggro, challenge the CRA and lender on the grounds that you have never given them permission in your contract to process your date after the cessation of the contract. The 'rule' they keep bleating about six years is a load of nonsense, and there is no statute in place.

 

After lengthy phone calls to the OFT, I.C.O. and the CRAs, they have finally admitted that this is just the way they've done it because it's what they call "standard industry practice". My argument is that I.C.O. "recommendations", "industry practice" does not equate to "legal right", and I doubt that a judge would see it that way either.

 

I have only got my way on settled defaults only, I haven't tried it on any outstanding ones, as I don't personally have any. But, the people I have helped out have had success with the lenders with the "missing default notice" strategy - under the CCA, if they can't find a copy of the notice, then it is deemed not to have happened. In that case, under the DPA, the data that the CRAs is storing is inaccurate, and you can demand that it is to be removed.

 

But seriously, make THEM work for it... you don't have to do the proving, they do.... you are the one taking action (be it via correspondence or legal) against THEM. It is NOT the other way around.

 

If they come back with ANY bulls**t whatsoever, about terms and conditions, default notices, etc., issue a demand under the CCA to get them to send you copies and ask them to highlight in those copies the exact terms that allowed them to process your data for six years after the end of the contract.

 

Also, under the terminology of the DPA, disclosure of data is deemed a "process", so any lender that is allowed to automatically log in to your credit data to perform a search is transacting a process.

 

Finally, don't accept any bull from these Muppets about who owns the data - it ain't them... it is you and only you alone who decides who stores and processes it (except Govt. agencies), either by signing a contract or writing to them.

 

So next time someone shoves a contract under your nose to sign, read the Data Protection bit and edit it to YOUR satisfaction. I simply add the words "for the duration of the contract" under the entire clause and initial it (and make sure it's gone through the carbon!!)

 

Interestingly, since I kicked up merry hell with Orange, they have since changed their standard Terms and Conditions to read:

14.3Orange or its Group companies will use your information which you provide to us together with other information for administration, marketing, credit scoring, customer services, tracking your Device and web use preferences, and profiling your purchasing preferences. We will disclose your information to our service providers and agents to help us with these purposes. We will keep your information for a reasonable period after your Contract with us has finished in case you decide to use our Services again and may contact you about our Services during this time.

 

Note that they have used the word "reasonable" to synch with the same word in the DPA.

 

Hmmmmmm... so be very careful about what you sign.

[SurlyBonds]

Any comments on my post #153?

 

Comments and advice: County Court

[SurlyBonds]

Who is finally going to bring these Idiots down a peg or two once and for all ? SB?

 

See my latest thread "Victory at last" [firkin big smirk on me face]

[SurlyBonds]

Incidentally, I have a letter from Equifax stating that their clients (the banks) have unrestricted computerised access to all their customers' credit files, and that they can alter them at will!

 

Unfortunately, this is about right...

 

Most banks supply an update tape each month, which writes or edits entries into the CRA databases, via their subscription gateway, the transactions are written to the interface standards that the CRAs publish to their subscribers.

 

But there again, they can only have you (as a few bleeps and whistles) on that tape in the first place because you signed a contract...

 

When they do a search, they login through a subscription gateway with your details to start doing a name and address match, and once matched up, they pull the data from your file down into their machines and run their scoring process through it and then spit out a "no firkin way" or "yes, please...we'd love to have you as yet another mug" screen flash. This is a fully automated process, unless there is a notice marker on the file.

[SurlyBonds]

about 1 year ago my credit file was immaculate and i was always getting letters from credit card companys etc. without ever having any dealings with them in the past saying i have been selected (great) 3 a week sometimes of these, now my credit file is well below standard i get none of these. So obviously these company's are scanning the credit files for potential good customers.

 

Absolutely they are... and they are allowed to, because you gave permisison in your contract, usually along the lines of:

"you grant us permission to disclose your data to a credit reference agency, and for other lenders to access that data and make informed decisions as to your management of the account, and for other lawful purposes under the provisions of the Data Protection Act".

 

Basically, once you signed a contract that had something like that in it, unless you ticked the two little boxes at the bottom:

"xyz plc will notify you of other group offers, promotions, etc... if you wish them not to do so, then please tick here"

and

"xyz plc will notify you of other offers, promotions, from carefully selected trading partners etc... if you wish them not to do so, then please tick here"

 

...you stuffed yourself!

 

However, you can issue a StatNote to the CRAs under Section 11 requring them to remove all access to your data for any marketing or general enquiry purposes:

 

Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing.

 

11. - (1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject.

 

(2) If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1), that the data controller has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice as the court thinks fit.

(3) In this section "direct marketing" means the communication (by whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals.

 

It then becomes a criminal offence if they carry on doing so.

[SurlyBonds]

LOL...Now let me see.....Umm....Ok....Ummm....

 

I'll start with Blah Blah Blah Then add A bit of this'n'that law ending it with a Yours Truly....How does that sound???

 

Can we get a mod to sticky it for everyone to use!!!!! May I just say NO PROBLEM AT ALL in advance for my helpful template

 

On a serious note....& As Im not the greatest on the Law etc...But would it be a good idea or any use for someone who knows what their doing to make a standard template on this????

 

Just an Idea.....

 

Okay... I'll post one I've used earlier.

[SurlyBonds]

please forgive me if this point has been raised before.

But as I understand it the cra's say that ther only store data that is in the public domain and they do not add anything themselves. On my credit report there are entries of every other seatch done by other companies.I do not think this information is in the public domain nor do i recall giving the cra permision to record it.

peter

 

I am not prepared to have my advice and comments edited abritrarily by someone with a personal anti-SB issue, so I have removed my original response in full. Either my advice is left intact, or I will remove it completely.

Thank you for your understanding.

SurlyBonds

[SurlyBonds]

Eh...???

 

Can we not have infighting on here please. It's hard enough trying to fight the banks and CRA's without us trying to shoot each other down.

 

I have no idea what this tiff is about but please take it elsewhere, not on my thread. Thank you.

 

4x4... I totally agree... I likewise thought that we were supposed to be fighting the common denominator. Maybe there's just not enough to do around here. I dunno... doesn't make sense... well it does, if you know the full background story.

 

Anyway, how's your case with the Muppet CRAs coming along? Any replies from them yet?

[SurlyBonds]

Getting nowhere fast SB. See post 180 on previous page of this thread for latest reply from Experian. They completely "forgot" to comment on my withdrawl of my permission for them to hold my private data so I've asked them again

 

Pete

 

yes, these Muppet CRAs do tend to try avoiding the actual questions that you ask... a bit like some of their representatives, either by letter or other mediums... allegedly...

 

I'll go back and have a read... that's assuming I can still find it there?! I've seen more posting disappear tonight than "new chequebooks and credit cards delivery day" at Kings Cross Sorting Office (Source: Panorama, sometime last year)

Allegedly...;-)

 

Now that was post #180... so that will be between #179 and #181 then,... going back in time now.(cue TARDIS and Dr Who theme tune)

[SurlyBonds]

 

hi surlybonds i look forward to your responses great reads thankyou but my brain is racing here at the moment thinking there is a conspiracy to what ever you typed there before that nobody wants us to see (a bit like the who killed kennedy thing).

 

keep up the good work RESPECT!8-)

 

No, there is no grassy-knoll, and it was just a single man with a bolt-action in a book warehouse....allegedly...

 

I think my more recent posting about our 'friend' from E******n upset someone...allegedly... (although curiously, my earlier, equally scorning one, replied-to by the very dave himself, wasn't considered in a similar light and remains intact???)... and then it all kicked off, and some of the greenies are now doing more lock-downs on my posts than the warders during a full-out riot at Alcatraz...allegedly...

 

And, by the way, that second bullet DID go through 170 degrees before turning back in mid-air and then hitting Gov. Connelly after taking out JFK...and don't you let them tell you otherwise...just like the banks say that charges are fair, and all the Muppets in the CRAs keep trying to tell us that they have a "legal right"...

 

...allegedly...;-)

[SurlyBonds]

:lol:

 

 

 

whatever happened to that template letter anyway.

 

 

Whatever happened to what template letter??

[SurlyBonds]

I'm sure you'll hear from us shortly Pete.

 

James

 

Maybe we'll get some answers to some of the earlier questions now.... the ones carefully avoided. But, there again...

 

[SurlyBonds]

Maybe you could change your avatar!

 

Yeah right... that just about sums it up!

 

Troll s**t-stirring alert raised to DEFCON 4.

[SurlyBonds]

If we're holding public personal data for six years it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time.

 

Wrong!!!...politician's answer...

 

"it makes sense to" does not equal "it is legal to" or "we are legally entitled to".

 

When will you likewise admit on this forum that Experian and all the other CRAs have absolutely NO legal permission other than what was agreed in the contract between the two original parties... a contract that the CRAs were not a party to?

 

Is the question really THAt difficult to understand?

[SurlyBonds]

People's credit reports are only linked if they actually apply for joint credit, so your family is not directly affected by your credit behaviour. I do think there should be more credit education for young people, particularly at school. But by the age of 18 most are responsible enough live adult lives - to vote, drink and manage credit etc.

 

Wrong...politician's answers... blimey have you pre-written all these???...

 

Adverse credit data severaly affects lots of avenues in life, not just chances to secure credit. It affects people working in a whole variety of occupations, who are credit checked as part of the recruitment process. A friend of mine, whose ex-girlfriend managed to rack up two defaults on his property before leaving, got dismissed from a top banking job for having this sort of stupid data on his file.

 

Again, the 200 word notice and a review of his credit file did nothing to save his career. He is now trying to retrain in a career where credit checks are not required. That data is now over 4 years old.

 

There are hundreds of other examples.

 

It is baloney to even pretend that credit data only affects financial applications, because it doesn't... and what's more you d**n well know it, so don't pretend otherwise, it's not very becoming of a so-called spokesperson. however, I suppose that i should really expect anything else, as my experience of official mouthpieces is that they can never answer a single question straight, and will deflect any real quesry or difficult question into the path of somehting they want to answer.

 

My previous post about what adverse data does to people's lives sums it up.

 

Try reading it ... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/28604-experian-use-potentially-misleading.html#post223084

 

P.S. If Experian's big priority at the moment is my getting all blubby because of my avatar, then someone needs to go see someone, urgently.