ICO find Hillesden in breach of DPA

[Pinky69]

The ICO have upheld a complaint I made against Hillesden for searching my credit reports 2 years after the alleged account went into dispute. In the course of the investigation, the ICO asked Hillesden what they had done to check my details before searching my reports. The ICO ordered that the search be removed immediately. Don't let them away with random searches - complain, complain, complain.

[DonkeyB]

Well done pinky.

 

The sad thing is there will be no penalty, in all probability.

 

That's why they keep on doing it. It's about time they received a £10k fine for every instance.

[Deb T]

I wasn't aware of the search issue, I have an account that Robinson Way have been collecting but which went into dispute last year, after a time they sent me a T&C of an account but it was generic, no signatures of course and not signed by me or anyone for that matter....I put the account into dispute, they continue to write to me but I notied that they had searched my credit file earlier this year ...

 

Is one to assume that they were not entitled to search my credit record? If this is the case I'll gladly make a complaint against them..

[DonkeyB]

I think this is where they fall down regarding collection activity on a disputed debt. If a DCA searching your credit file is not an act of collection activity, then I'd like to know what it is!

 

From the OFT Guidelines:

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.

[Deb T]

I think this is where they fall down regarding collection activity on a disputed debt. If a DCA searching your credit file is not an act of collection activity, then I'd like to know what it is!

 

From the OFT Guidelines:

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.

 

 

What if they offered the argument that they had sent a copy of the terms and condtions of the original agreement? (they haven't, they've sent one that is applicable to later accounts but not mine they'll quote the Mcguffick case as that by them sending me the t&c they have complied with my request...?

[DonkeyB]

Have they ever threatened court action? If so, a CPR 31 request would mean that they cannot rely on McGuffick, as a reconstructed agreement is no good for enforcement, only for s 78 fulfilment.

 

So, if they have ever threatened legal action, hit 'em with a CPR request. That'll shut them up. For a while, anyway.

[Pinky69]

Searches can only be made if the DCA/creditor has 1) a legitimate business reason to make the search or 2) has your permission to make the search. The alleged account had been in dispute for 2 years and the ICO's finding was that after that time in dispute, Hillesden had no legitimate reason to search my credit records. Hillesden tried to argue that they were only checking my address because they had phoned my home and someone else had answered. The ICO ruled that they could have tried other sources to check my address without searching my credit records and were in breach of the DPA. The reason for any search of credit records was "diminished" after an account had been in dispute for 2 years.

[harrassed senior]

Congratulations, given your great result I am going after Lowells and others.

[Deb T]

Ok, thank you for that, 2 years is not how long my account has been in disupte with them for, less than a year all told from the date of dispute to the time they searched.

 

Was any formal action taken against Hillsden such as a formal reprimand?

[Pinky69]

Thanks HS,

 

No formal reprimand. As the ICO ordered that the search be removed immediately and as Hillesden complied with that, the ICO regarded the matter as closed. I have reported the finding to the OFT - Hillesden's licence is up for renewal this year. A heavy fine would have been nice all the same.

[RoyalIrish]

Nice one!

 

I would love to see those maggots get hit very hard!

[Deb T]

 

A heavy fine would have been nice all the same.

 

Indeed it would but at least you followed your complaint through and persevered, the end result of your 'search' being removed on the say

so of the ICO is a step in the right direction.

[angry cat]

The ICO have upheld a complaint I made against Hillesden for searching my credit reports 2 years after the alleged account went into dispute. In the course of the investigation, the ICO asked Hillesden what they had done to check my details before searching my reports. The ICO ordered that the search be removed immediately. Don't let them away with random searches - complain, complain, complain.

 

Excellent Pinky

 

These firms ride roughshod over the over the DPA...

 

:

Don't let them away with random searches - complain, complain, complain."

[NailPost]

You could always write to Hillesden and ask them, in view of the ICO's decision, for an apology and their proposals for righting the wrong.

[Pinky69]

That would be a triumph of optimism over reality and the less anyone has to do with Hillesden the better. They are now long gone and I wanted to give them an official kick uo their corporate ar*e as a parting shot. Mission accomplished!

[RoyalIrish]

Corporate?

 

I think you are being too kind Pinky!

 

These vermin have more in common with The Kray's than a legit company!

[Helios]

Congratz Pinky, I'm about to start on DLC whom are handling my HSBC cc which is disputed cos the bank admitted there was no agreement except just a application form. Since then its being with moorcroft and now DLC.

 

HSBC gotta stop passing around this dead horse

[Ellbubb]

Nice 1 fella , Having problems with Hillsden myself atm. They be some seriously underhanded a**holes