Credit Reference Agencies Formal request to stop processing Data - Refused!!

[247orbital]

Also the issue of disputes on your file should stay for the length of the listing and not just removed after 28 days.

[nicklea]

The whole problem with CRA's is that they take the DCA's word for anything they process, even if you supply them with evidence that the DCA has made an error they will still not remove the information from your credit file. The DCA must give them permission to alter or remove any information they give to Experian/Equifax etc.

Any queries are simply referred back to who ever owns the debt etc. I'm going to tackle an error on my CF by sending letters containing all the information to both the CRA and DCA and go from there. If they refuse to remove the listing I will after the 28 days give them another 7 days then just go straight to the LBA and take both to court.

 

This is why section 10 DPA exists and, I would suggest, that the use of section 10 is the best approach to dealing with this.

 

 

I agree with you that the whole notion of a CRA having a Data Dontroller of its own as they are without doubt processing and publishing your data seems to have got lost somewhere along the line.

 

Tingy,

 

I'm sorry but I do actually disagree with you on this point. Firstly, I really would hesitate to say that they are 'publishing' your data. You certainly can't just go along and buy somebodies personal data - well legally at least.

 

I would suggest that they are processing and sharing your personal data on behalf of the creditor. The creditor has decided to share your data with other creditors that agree to share their data - they are allowed to do this because it is in your agreement.

 

The means by which they share their data is that they give it to the CRA and tell the CRA to pass on your data as they - the creditor - wish them to.

 

The CRAs have strict rules about what sort of customers can access what sort of data about you. It's done on the basis of what they call reciprocity - which is just a fancy term for 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours'.

[Surfer01]

If it is not in the public domain and your contract with the lender is completed, surely the CRA cannot process your data any longer?

[dadofholly]

So when CRA's alert loan companies and DCA's to the fact you have searched your credit file, in the same way they alert you if your file is amended on the paid version, with whose permission are they processing that data?

[247orbital]

probably yours if you read the small print, the worse thing is these CRA's know they are above the law and can literally do what they like.

[dadofholly]

probably yours if you read the small print, the worse thing is these CRA's know they are above the law and can literally do what they like.

 

What small print? - I have no agreement with a CRA.

 

But you are correct 247. It is now becoming common practice for employers to do credit checks, (a service sold by CRA's as a solution to fraud risk), prior to employing people. So poor record = no job.

 

Thats for jobs with no cash hanling etc invloved. the implication being if you have a poor CRA record your dishonest.

 

The whole thing stinks.

[royalscot]

subbing please

[247orbital]

wouldn't you have to give any future employer your permission to search your CF?

[dadofholly]

wouldn't you have to give any future employer your permission to search your CF?

 

Yes - but they wont employ you withouit permission.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

is there any exception made in the various Data protection acts about what PERSONAL data can be given out to 3rd parties (I.e Banks etc).

 

I believe the Police etc can (and even they have to follow the rules) get details about individuals but they also have to go to Court to get a Court order to access someone's Bank account details.

 

Now a Sharkley Card / other credit card is also a financial account. If I were to find out say a fellow CAG member's credit card balance and say their last 50 transactions and pass it out to any 3rd party I would absolutely be breaking the law.

How can these companies like Experian, Equifax etc do EXACTLY the same thing and it sems LEGAL in their case.

 

Surely this is HUGELY inconsistent or the Data Protection acts are worth less than the paper they are published on.

 

It's time also these "Tittle Tattle" companies whose sole existence is in behaving like the provincial "Squealer" or "Tell tale" are put out of business if we can't do that then at least severely clip their wings.

 

In any case if a BANK is making a credit decision surely the BANK should do it ITSELF. A Bank passing details to 3rd party agencies might also be another attack.

 

It may well be that the CCA says in default we can pass detatils to a credit agency but this might itself be illegal.

 

After all agreeing to this on the CCA doesn't mean that the Bank can break the law whatever you've signed and the provision that you have agreed to an action doesn't mean that the action can be followed if itself is illegal.

 

Now wouldn't it be great if THIS were found to be true as it would invalidate almost every CCA written going back to about 1980 -- and presumably any moneytherefore paid back to ANYBODY under these CCA's could be recovered -- Goodbye 100% of DCA's.

 

This wouldn't happen of course as there would immediately be emergency legislation -- but surely we need to have a MUCH TIGHTER REIN on what data BANKS or others can

 

a) pass on to 3rd parties

 

b) obtain from 3rd parties.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited March 5, 2011 by jimbo45

[247orbital]

I think its simple, if there is no proof of contract ie signed original CCA they should not have the permission to to process your data full stop. I've also suggested before that before any adverse information is registered on your CF you should be notified and given 28 days to contest the information. With people now loosing employment due to credit checks its time new legislation was taken in order to tighten up this shoddy industry.

The CRA will no doubt complain that they do not have the resources to check every entry, if that is the case they are then not fit for purpose and should be closed.

[Bazooka Boo]

Maybe everyone should start lobbying their local MP's about this? CRA's are DCA's in disguise....for that they need to answer why it is that they allow some random outfit to place incorrect adverse data on someone credit file, yet even when it is questioned, they can't remove it because the DCA says it is correct! Nothing at all to do with them being paid by the DCA's at all is it??

[Buncrana]

Subbing This...

 

My "Credit Rating" went from 990 this time last year to 88 following a marital split.

 

My solicitor advised me to stop paying mortgage as it, in effect, meant my ex was living rent free. I contacted experian to get them to add the reasons for mortgage not being paid, even though every other bill is, but they refused to do so.

 

I've just found this site, so I'd be curious to see where this goes.

 

Best of luck

 

Buncrana

[247orbital]

Spoke to someone in the UK who said something about a program called "Heir Hunters" on early mornings.

 

Apparently one of the researchers clearly mentioned using Equifax or Experian to trace relatives of the deceased. I was under the impression people could only use the CRA for decisions on financial matters or do they offer tracing services now, not so different from 192.com

[dadofholly]

Spoke to someone in the UK who said something about a program called "Heir Hunters" on early mornings.

 

Apparently one of the researchers clearly mentioned using Equifax or Experian to trace relatives of the deceased. I was under the impression people could only use the CRA for decisions on financial matters or do they offer tracing services now, not so different from 192.com

 

Just proves what everyone knows - our private information is recorded, sold, and accessed by commercial companies without our permission.

 

If you look at your CRA file you will note that thier is actually a type of search they can do called "trace"

[Tingy]

I've watched Heir Hunters quite a few times, it's an entertaining programme. Basically it's about companies that look at lists of wills published each week by the government that are soon to go to the crown. They latch onto the bigger ones and try to track any known living relatives. As there are several of these companies, the programme shows the race between them as they no doubt charge a commission.

 

It would make sense for them to use CRF's as a possible starting point for this, and I for one would not be upset at them being allowed to do this to a distant relative who I never knew who'd left me a couple of million. It's easy to criticise, and I think taken out of context this looks bad, but in context you're talking about people who have no known family, have often led solitary lives and in the process amassed a fortune which they've passed on to other family members who don't even know the person existed. Certainly better thanit going to the crown!

[dadofholly]

Tingy I take your point.

 

There is always a valid reason given for the infringment of your right to privacey. But do you also think a prospective employer should be able to check your credit file to see if you have any debts before they employ you? Do you think people who have debts should be discriminated against in the job market?

 

The problem with agreeing to "good reasons" is they are used against you to validate the bad reasons.

 

CRA's where set up to enable lenders to make sensible lending decisions, nothing more - hence the name CREDIT reference Agency. But in their corporate greed they now sell your info to anyone who (they) believe should have access.

 

Did you know that experian actually states YOU are a risk to future employers because of your debts?

[tigercub]

nicklea - Thank you for your input - the CRA issues that I am pursuing at the moment come 2nd to actually fighting the OC's - Please find below a link to a thread which I have been working on and up until now has been very successful and looks as though the outcome will be that the case will be either struck out of court or the claim will be stayed. I should know by the end of the week how this is going to go....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?249770-MBNA-–-Experto-Credit-–-Invalid-Default-Notice-notice-of-termination-SCOTTISH-LAW-APPLIES&p=3272544&highlight=#post3272544

[tigercub]

nicklea - Again thanks for your input - the information in the original letter which you have commented on came directly from other CAG members on this site - I however do agree that a Section 10 Notice needs to be served in order for anything to probably be done. As with my experience in the last few months with the CRA's they are a law to themselves and do what they want when they want - Appreciate your comments and critiscisms.................

[Tingy]

Tingy I take your point.

 

There is always a valid reason given for the infringment of your right to privacey. But do you also think a prospective employer should be able to check your credit file to see if you have any debts before they employ you? Do you think people who have debts should be discriminated against in the job market?

The problem with agreeing to "good reasons" is they are used against you to validate the bad reasons.

CRA's where set up to enable lenders to make sensible lending decisions, nothing more - hence the name CREDIT reference Agency. But in their corporate greed they now sell your info to anyone who (they) believe should have access.

Did you know that experian actually states YOU are a risk to future employers because of your debts?

Do I think employers should have the right to check credit files? Yes, if the job involves handling money or goods that could easily be sold for money. No otherwise.

 

Should people with debts be discriminated against in the job market? It depends what job it is.

 

I'm not sticking up for CRA's - I think they have a very valid role to stop people like me getting credit. I also think they are not sufficiently accountable, usually because of their vicarious liability which is supposedly unavoidable, though again I don't agree with that!

 

I suspect the risk associated with being in debt for certain jobs is over-stated. When you employ someone, they have a right to appeal under Employment Law. You have to have a VERY good reason for giving person x the job over person y - being in debt for many many jobs would not count as a good reason.

 

If you're employing someone to work behind the counter in your shop and you have candidates of two similar abilities, one with debts and one without, in all honesty who would you employ if it was your business and your money?

 

I totally take your point, and I could argue very strongly against what I've just written as well - I like to play devil's advocate, but I don't think the issue is as clear cut as it is made to appear.

 

In any case, they cannot sell financial account details but the information can be used to take you off mailing lists (e.g. HSBC want to offer a loan and check a list of names for CCJs, defaults etc.)

[Tingy]

Nic, going back about a hundred posts:-), you're right to pick me up on my wording they are processing and sharing as you agree to on application forms. My miswording. However, as long as you agree they are processing your data the argument still holds water. The very first part of the DPA defines processing and holds the data controller entirely responsible for anyone who processes data on their behalf.

[dadofholly]

Do I think employers should have the right to check credit files? Yes, if the job involves handling money or goods that could easily be sold for money. No otherwise.

 

Why?

What makes someone in dedt less honest than someone who is not?

What percentage of criminals have poor against those that have good CRF's?

 

From my experience the number one motive for theft or fraud is greed - not debt.

What if you are in debt because you lost your job through no fault of your own - and now can no longer earn honest wage because you have debts?

 

I know you are playing devils advocate - the thing is there is no evidence to back up the claim - where is the reasearch.

 

I have been in retail and loss prevention management on and of for over 20 years. Their claims are not backed up by my experience. I think it is so wrong.

 

They DO sell your financial records. They do not give your records free - they charge.

[nicklea]

nicklea - Again thanks for your input - the information in the original letter which you have commented on came directly from other CAG members on this site - I however do agree that a Section 10 Notice needs to be served in order for anything to probably be done. As with my experience in the last few months with the CRA's they are a law to themselves and do what they want when they want - Appreciate your comments and critiscisms.................

 

tigercub,

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being harsh in any way it's just that an awful lot of people read this forum but never post anything. So these people might just see that letter and think - great, I'll send that as well - without really understanding what they are doing or what it means.

 

As you say, the CRAs are largely a law unto themselves. But, that is due to the way that the DPA works. They are just a data processor and you can only get things changed by challenging the data controller - ie the creditor.

[tigercub]

Agreed - The letter was made up from comments and points received from other CAG members - On the other hand though the defence letter which I posted as a link was done with a lot more knowledge and thought and has worked. Again this is down to the hard work and effort from people like yourselves who do challenge what other people post - Devils advocate can be good and constructive in order to challenge what people are saying and also help in thinking about what we eventually send to the OC, CRA etc

[dadofholly]

Evidence if needed that CRA's are in bed with the DCA's. As i suspected - if you make a new credit application or search your own file - the CRA's inform all the DCA's and other agencies on your CRF. In much the same way as you can get alerts from the paid up service from them.

 

Also notice on the link the bottom right hand corner for credit expert.

 

Daughter has not heard anything for nearly two years on an old disputed debt. last week she made enquiries for a small car loan. Within a week she gets a letter stating the evidence on her credit file.

 

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu110/dadofholly/img127.jpg