dca searching credit file

[Gerald Gardner]

Im going to do my best to explain this, on the Equifax credit report under previous searches there are 2 tables, no1 for searches undertaken in connection with credit applications which other lenders will see when you apply for credit and table 2 for searches undertaken for purposes other than credit applications

 

I have a number of searches in table 1 from scumbags and the search is marked outstanding debt and according to equifax searches stay on your file One year for credit application searches and two years for debt collection searches.

 

Now my guess is that these searches relate to begging letters that were sent to me regarding some alleged debts that date back to 2001 which are statute barred.

 

I have not made any application for credit with any of these low lifes and i can not understand how they can leave a print on your file that any other potential lender can see when you apply for credit, in fact i would say this is almost as bad as a default on you file.

 

These searches are not applications for credit so they should not be showing in table 1, one of them is from jan 09 and is still there now.

 

Something is seriously wrong here because if they are searches for credit which as they are showing in table 1 would suggest then that one i have from jan 09 would have dropped off at the beginning of this year but as they are not credit applications they should be in table 2 where other lenders do not see them.

 

So is this a case of dca playing games and screwing up you credit rating by putting these searches on or is it a mistake from equifax?

 

Not sure where to go with this, all i no is that none of the dca that have searched my file have any authority to process my data and the footprints left must effect my ability to obtain credit.

 

Anyone got any ideas on how to go forward with this, thanks

[harrassed senior]

Complain to the ICO as well the the Equifax and any others who are showing these searches.

 

Complaints - Privacy & electronic communication - ICO

[mothsinmywallet]

This has happened to me recently and was told by Experian its not illegal as its down as an unrecorded entry which doesnt affect credit.

 

It appears many lenders now are clearing out their books to the debt purchasers. They are worse than your normal DCAs as they are harder to get rid of. They search the credit files unlike normal DCAs (if you can call them normal!!) to mainly see if you have a mortgage. If so they will pursue you for a charging order wheich means for eg the £5000 debt they purchased for £100 they will end up getting the full amount back - not bad business for the robbing %^%^%^.

 

They will claim its not statute barred and put pressure on you. Best advice is go the your local CAB if this happens and they will send a stern letter to them which should make them go away.

 

The only good thing with debt purchasers is that once you kill them off the debt should be killed off too. Good luck

[Gerald Gardner]

This has happened to me recently and was told by Experian its not illegal as its down as an unrecorded entry which doesnt affect credit.

 

It appears many lenders now are clearing out their books to the debt purchasers. They are worse than your normal DCAs as they are harder to get rid of. They search the credit files unlike normal DCAs (if you can call them normal!!) to mainly see if you have a mortgage. If so they will pursue you for a charging order wheich means for eg the £5000 debt they purchased for £100 they will end up getting the full amount back - not bad business for the robbing %^%^%^.

 

They will claim its not statute barred and put pressure on you. Best advice is go the your local CAB if this happens and they will send a stern letter to them which should make them go away.

 

The only good thing with debt purchasers is that once you kill them off the debt should be killed off too. Good luck

 

Yeah but my point was that they are recorded entries ie hard searches that other lenders will see thats why they are in table 1, check you report again.

Table 2 are soft searches ie id check etc etc these are not seen by other lenders.

[Pinky69]

I recently had a Cabot Type 1 search on my Equifax removed after 4 months. The reason for the removal was that I had a previous ruling from the ICO that the reason for a search was diminished after the account had been in dispute for 2 years and the account with Cabot had also been in dispute for 2 years. The first entry had been removed. I quoted this to Equifax, they contacted Cabot with the information I had given Equifax and their entry was removed too. The reason they make these Type 1 searches is maliciousness, no other reason. They cannot get payment from you so they are going to bu**er up your credit even though they have no legitimate reason for an entry. This is one for your MP too.

[WelshMam2009]

Last time I checked my file I had a search on there too but it was such an obscure name that I couldn't fathom out which DCA it was.

[Pinky69]

You need to differentiate between Type 1 and Type 2 searches. No one sees Type 2 searches except you. Potential creditors see Type 1 searches and they should only be entered either if you have given your permission for the search or the searcher has a legitimate business reason to make the search.

[Gerald Gardner]

Your right pinky the only reason they are doing this is to screw you credit rating up because they have not got their own way.

 

I have to give some serious thought to what im going to do about this because i believe this could be a new tactic being used in much the same way crapquest are doing with statutory demands.

 

Im sure they do not have the legal right to leave footprints on your file like this.

[Gerald Gardner]

Your right pinky the only reason they are doing this is to screw you credit rating up because they have not got their own way.

 

I have to give some serious thought to what im going to do about this because i believe this could be a new tactic being used in much the same way capquest are doing with statutory demands.

 

Im sure they do not have the legal right to leave footprints on your file like this.

 

I have just been looking back at some of my old credit files from equifax and one that i got from march 2008 and guess what, this same **** that are leaving footprints now were doing the same back in 2008 but the difference back then is they were in table 2 and search reason was unclassifed.

 

That is proof enough that the searches they are now conducting are born out of malice and must be illegal.

[unclebulgaria67]

I just think that every time the relevant debt files comes out of their diary system, that the DCA staff check the credit files, using their online connection to the CRA's. Perhaps they are not trained or supervised well enough to realise that their searches leave a footprint.

 

Whatever the issue is, I think you will struggle to get anywhere with a complaint with the ICO as they are too slow. If the search has caused you quantifiable damage, then you could take them to court.

[Brigadier 1JCS]

If this was Mackenzie Hall searching it needs to be reported to Kilmarnock trading standards the OFT and Information commissioner as they are making a habit of doing searches in ''table 1'' which damage your credit score,when challenged they remove or downgrade to ''table 2'' but the damage is done!!

[Pinky69]

I have had 2 complaints upheld by the ICO fairly quickly. I wouldn't say you'll get nowhere with them - far from it.

[Gerald Gardner]

If this was Mackenzie Hall searching it needs to be reported to Kilmarnock trading standards the OFT and Information commissioner as they are making a habit of doing searches in ''table 1'' which damage your credit score,when challenged they remove or downgrade to ''table 2'' but the damage is done!!

 

Yes brig muck hall is one of them, how long has this outstanding debt search been going on with equifax?? i got this from the web site.

 

What's an outstanding debt search?

 

We keep a record of any organisations that have looked at your credit report, in line with the Data Protection Act.

An outstanding debt search means that a company has tried to find you if you've left without clearing your debt.

 

Depending on how confident the search is, it will show in either the Credit searches or Other searches section of your report. Any company who looks at your credit report will be able to see outstanding debt searches in the Credit searches section, but only you can see the ones in the Other searches section.

 

Outstanding debt searches stay on your credit report for two years.

[sillygirl1]

Whereas in other countries they stay for 3 months, why do they let them (there is NO legislation on this so I have been told other than INTERPRETATION of the CCA and Data Protection Act) get away with doing this damage - it isn't good for business and it gives Experian a very bad name.

[Seminole]

What is truly outrageous is that the person being searched is forced to deal with the DCA rather than the credit reference agency. Invariably when you complain to the CRA, it gets referred back to the DCA who say its legitimate. The CRA then tells you to contact the DCA.

 

CRAs should be required by law to take greater responsibility in this matter.

[Pinky69]

The CRAs are jointly responsible for entries on credit reports - they are joint data controllers with the banks/DCAs. If you have to take your complaint to the ICO then the complaint is against the bank/DCA AND the CRAs.

[Bazza66]

Apologies for bumping an old thread but this is the nearest I could find to what I am trying to achieve. Have looked all over the place and cannot seem to find a definiative answer to this.

 

I have recently just checked my credit file with Equifax and found 2 table 1 searches (ones that DO affect your credit scoring). 1 for Mackenzie last month and one for 1st Credit back in 2009. This was because I had just recieved a letter from MacKenzie about a debt they are pursuing on behalf of Intrum Justitia (who also wrote at the the same time but with different amounts of balance - are they the same company?).

 

I have raised an online dispute with Equifax about these since the companies have no permission from myself to perform a search.

 

Suppose my question is... where can I take this next? I am guessing Equifax will just say contact the DCA who in turn will try and fob my off.

 

Whats my best course of action (has anyone actually got the searches removed?) next?

 

From what I have read....

 

Next is to contact DCA (with what letter? - and is it a waste of time?)

And then onto ICO?

 

Is the letter to the DCA to say you are formally disputing the entry and so when you write to the ICO when you do not have a satisfactory answer from the DCA it gives you a better chance?

 

Thanks in advance.

Bazza

[Gerald Gardner]

Muck hall do love this little trick,some have got them removed and got compo, you also need to write to the trading standard, have a look at this fred there is lots of info on whats best to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263069-Vexatious-unauthorised-searches-by-Mackenzie-hall-amp-Lowell

[Bazza66]

Muck hall do love this little trick,some have got them removed and got compo, you also need to write to the trading standard, have a look at this fred there is lots of info on whats best to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263069-Vexatious-unauthoriseRtd-searches-by-Mackenzie-hall-amp-Lowell

 

Many thanks GG. A very good thread.

 

Regards

Bazza