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

[JamesJ]

Many CABx stock our free advice guides and we are regularly in the press, on TV and radio. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

[jo5ephedward5]

James can you clear something up for me?

 

Each month a lender puts a 'mark' on peoples credit file, good bad, etc etc - when the contract is ended albeit, settled and closed, expires or is defaulted...

 

what happens then...do the lenders still send you an update each month or do you hold the information for 6 years?

 

i.e. if its not updated by the lender its 'stored' on your system for 6 years from the last update...or do lenders keep updating with the same info every month for 6 years? (i find this hard to believe)

 

J

[Number6]

Many CABx stock our free advice guides and we are regularly in the press, on TV and radio. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Obfuscation!

 

On a general point, does there really have to be a specific law permitting something before you can do it legally

 

Yes, where it relates to Data Protection. The law is very specific under both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 both of which state that permission of the data subject must be given before data can be stored or processed and that that permission can be withdrawn at any time.

 

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

 

It's completely irrelevant whether or not a CRA makes kending decisions. They process data and they process it automatically. It's not a "dumb" storage repository. They process the data to give a credit "score" to a lender

We do process your data

. Therefor as they process data they are "enabling" decisions to be made via an automated process and therefore S12(1) DOES apply to them!!

 

We do process your data, with your permission. Lenders obtain this from you on when you apply to them

 

I maintain that lenders do NOT obtain this permission. Lenders obtain permission to store your data and to pass it on to a CRA, nothing more. James, I'm willing to be proven wrong on this point but you have offered no proof. Please indulge us by giving us an actual example on here of where, in a lenders T&C's we sign something that gives Experian explicit permission to a) store our data, b) process our data and c) pass that data on to third parties. I don't want another bland statement I want to see some proof, e.g. an actual lenders terms with the relevant paragraphs highlighted. If you can show us that it would settle the argument so I don't think that's too much to ask is it?

[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.

[Number6]

Here are some T&C's I found:

 

* I confirm that I have read the information sheet "Uses of Data" and agree that the information I have provided in this application, and any other information relating to my account(s), may be processed and disclosed in the ways described.

* I agree that my personal data may be shared with any company from time to time forming part of the same Group as Bank of Scotland together with the Introducer and any associated Companies (if applicable) and Insurers (if applicable) who may also use it in the ways described in the Uses of Data section below.

* I agree that information on the performance of my account(s) may be shared with Credit Reference Agencies.

* I agree that any sensitive information obtained will only be processed in order to provide the service requested.

* I am entitled to disclose information about any co-applicant or guarantor and/or anyone else referred to by me, and to authorise you to search and/or record information at Credit Reference Agencies about each of us. I understand that an "association" will be created at the Credit Reference Agencies, which will link our financial records.

 

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

[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.

[david.m]

james, perhaps it was an oversight on your part?, you did not give an answer to my inquiry about your price list as related to the lenders or weather you are (or as implyed, about to be)listed on any stock market?, why is that.

 

while not conclusive, it would appear that your company is about to become active on at least one market?.

 

Share Dealing, FTSE, Stock Market reports, Nasdaq, Hang Seng, Nikkei, Dax, CAC markets. Investing & Saving guides | This is Money

"

GUS was originally a mail order business started in 1900, and listed on the stock exchange in 1931. The group comprises a range of business including the catalogue retailer Argos, which generates the majority of its revenue, and DIY chain Homebase. It also owns information services company Experian. GUS sold its remaining stake in luxury fashion retailer Burberry in December 2005. The group is to be split in October, with the demerged Argos Retail Group and Experian starting to trade on 11 October. Dealing in GUS shares will cease on 6 October."

 

perhaps people might like to buy a share in this offering 8) , perhaps it might even be an option for the ordinary end users of the consumeractiongroup to contribute (with some of the returned unlawful charges from the banks)and setup a co-operative (or other legal entity?)consumeractiongroup group that can collectively buy up a portion of these shares and get a board seat or 2?.

[sarahpp]

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.

[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:

[david.m]

apparently its a lot bigger than just OUR personal data in the UK,

perhaps we might start seeing global visits to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/

somtime soon.

 

Interfax: Experian-Interfax issues its first credit history report

 

"Press Releases

 

March 28, 2006

Experian-Interfax issues its first credit history report

 

The Experian-Interfax credit bureau filled its first request from an individual for a personal credit history on Tuesday.

"This means that Experian-Interfax has become the first credit bureau to declare its fulfillment of the law that every Russian citizen has the right to be provided with their credit history once a year free of charge," said Experian-Interfax General Director Nikolai Dimchenko.

"This is a serious event for our bureau, which has begun to do direct business with individuals who make use of the services of banks," he said.

"

[snip]

"

Experian-Interfax obtained its license as a credit bureau about a month ago by being included in the Russian register of credit bureaus.

Its technical center passed all tests for compliance with Russian and international security standards.

More than 150 banks that signed agreements with the bureau have started providing Experian-Interfax with information on borrowers with the latter's consent.

 

 

Experian-Interfax was founded in October 2004. Its owners are Interfax Information Services Group, a major provider of information and services for financial markets, and the Experian company, a world leader in the provision of information and analysis for consumers, businesses and the public sector and founder of credit history bureaus in 12 countries, including the United States and Britain.

Interfax Group and Experian own equal shares in Experian-Interfax, whose task is to provide information on borrowers in order to reduce credit risks."

 

i wonder how the Russian common law differs from our UK law, with the latter's consent ?

ntlworld.com Google results stock market Experian

[david.m]

i would really like to see those confirmed price lists for the lenders, they must be good if this in anything to go on.

 

based in Costa Mesa? some off shore tax haven perhaps?.

 

Money - Nasdaq grants Meade Instruments more time to file earnings

Friday, September 1, 2006

"Experian to be spun off into its own company

Experian, the credit rating agency based in Costa Mesa, and Argos Retail Group will be spun off from GUS plc as part of a breakup of the British-owned company.

As part of the breakup, GUS shareholders will receive one share each of Experian and ARG for each share of GUS they hold. Experian is expected to immediately raise $1.5 billion in an additional share offering.

GUS shares will stop trading Oct. 6, and Experian and ARG are expected to begin trading on the London Stock Exchange on Oct. 11."

[sarahpp]

If anyone is thinking of buying a small (or large!) amount of shares after the demerger of Experion from GUS it is worth remembering (in my humble opinion) that it is much easier to receive literature & attend/vote at shareholders meetings if the shares are bought in your own name (with a share certificate)and not in the name of a nominee company (without a certificate) as most shares are these days.

[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"

[sarahpp]

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?

[Tinkerbelle]

Wow!! :o What can I say SB?

 

Another excellent post

[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.

[Number6]

JamesJ.... would you care to comment please?

[Number6]

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

[Lizzy]

Hey Surlybonds, I tried to click on your scales. It would'nt let me, it said I must spread some reputation around before I give you some more. Hee Hee.

 

I was just going to say thanks for the posts, and if mine is to go to court I would love it if you were standing beside me...........Scrub that... I mean in front of me................ha

[Number6]

I see that the ever-helpful JamesJ has apparantly gone away.

[Black Rat]

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

[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.

[Number6]

Thanks SB. Just being nosey as I'm on my third letter to Paul Lever who works out of the Directors office at Experian.