Squirming Equifax

[Seminole]

A few months ago I completed a survey commissioned by the ICO on the performance of credit reference agencies. I'm not sure how I got asked to participate but I guess I'm on an ICO mailing list.

 

As part of the response I was asked whether, if I had had an unsatisfactory response to a CRA complaint, I would be prepared for the ICO to share this information with the CRA. Given that I had just had a massive run-in with Equifax, I ticked yes.

 

Over the last couple of days I've had an exchange of messages with Equifax through their online system. The first of these is set out in this post. The second post gives the background to the issue and the basis of my complaints and the third is their response. I've asked for specific opinions in the the third post.

 

Anyway, here is their first message to me:

 

Dear Mr Seminole

 

We've been contacted following a survey you carried out with the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

I understand you've had some issues with your Equifax Credit Report which I'd like to discuss further with you and work to resolve.

 

To do this, please contact me or a member of my team on 0800 917 3035 or by updating this enquiry with any outstanding issues you have and we'll be happy to look into this for you.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Mandy Russell

Customer Relations

[Seminole]

Here is my reply to them:

 

Thank you for your message.

 

Just over 12 months ago I discovered that First Credit (FC) had searched my credit file. I had not given that company permission to do so. The searches were listed under Table 1 with the narrative description "Outstanding Debt".

 

As I didn't know what this search related to, I contacted your company and you should have a record of the correspondence in this system. I asked why FC had been allowed to search my credit file without my permission. The reply I received stated that you would temporarily remove the search and contact FC. Having done so you then told me that FC had said that the search was valid, you were reinstating it to my credit file and that I should contact FC on a given number.

 

As this was happening FC wrote to me giving me details of the alleged debt. Having checked my records I discovered that it was both a disputed small debt and potentially subject to the Limitation Act. Having invited FC to commence legal proceedings to recover this debt, they withdrew their demand for payment. I then entered into a protracted email correspondence with them to get them to remove the searches from my credit file.

 

I have several complaints against Equifax:

 

1) You allowed these searches to remain on my file when I clearly told you that they should not be there. You took the word of a debt collector and reinstated the searches for a debt that was in serious dispute. I regard your actions as libelous and potentially actionable.

 

2) You denied all responsibility for the data being held on my file. According to the Information Commissioner's Office, credit reference agencies are as responsible for the information shown in credit files as the organisations that provide it. It may not suit you to admit this but it is my understanding of the legal position.

 

3) Leaving aside the issue of whether the searches should have been included in the file at all, you allowed these searches to be listed under table 1. This both affects credit score and is visible to other lenders. My understanding is that "outstanding debt" searches should be shown under table 2. I have not asked this before but I would like to know why FC's searches were shown under table 1. In my opinion, you allowed FC to use a table 1 search as a means of debt collection. In other words, FC registered a search that damaged my credit rating as a way of getting me to contact them. You facilicated this process by registering the search under table 1, refusing to remove it (or accept responsibility for it) and then telling me that I would need to telephone FC to resolve the matter.

 

My experience of this matter has confirmed my view that credit reference agencies have unacceptably close links with the debt collection industry and are in need of better regulation to protect the interests of the consumer.

[Seminole]

And here is the reply from them today. I would be interested in any views and, in particular about the use of Table 1 to record 'outstanding debt' searches@:

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Each Equifax client is required to sign a contract prior to gaining access to our system. This contract stipulates that the client in question must seek consent, from the individual concerned, prior to completing a search. Equifax works closely with our clients to ensure that they fully understand this requirement which is specified under the current Data Protection Act.

 

It is the responsibility of the client in question to ensure that this consent is sought and that appropriate records are maintained to substantiate each search completed with Equifax.

 

The consent to undertake these searches is commonly included in the fair processing notices signed by an individual at the point of application for a credit agreement; however, in the cases of trace or outstanding debt searches such as the one you've mentioned, the consent is carried from the point of application for credit to include searches by the company or a debt collection agency who have purchased the debt to attempt to trace the debtor.

 

At the time the search was disputed it was not mentioned in your communication with Equifax that the search related to a debt that was possibly statute barred. Had this been highlighted at a later stage we would have of course re-raised the matter with the company requesting they investigate the updated information.

 

I understand your comments about the dispute process we use to investigate information; however the dispute process used by Equifax and the other Credit Reference Agencies is agreed in conjunction with the Information Commissioner's Office and is in line with current Data Protection legislation. Although Equifax run quality checks on information received, there is certain information which we are unable to independently validate before this is added to our records and in these cases the notice of dispute process is designed to investigate any possible errors. As part of the agreed dispute process the companies are not obligated to provide documentary evidence to support their response and as such Equifax are unable to act to amend or remove data unless the response from the company authorises this.

 

Outstanding Debt searches can show in either Table 1 or Table 2 on a report depending on the likelihood of a correct match to the individual being traced. Those that do show in Table 1 on your credit report do so because although they are not viewable to potential lenders, some of our clients use this data to calculate an automated credit score so in some instances it can have a minor impact on your credit worthiness. The searches in table 2 have no impact on you.

 

I'm sorry that the communication you had with Equifax previously didn't resolve your enquiry and am pleased to learn that the searches have since been removed following your direct contact with the company. If you have any other questions relating to the regulation of the credit reference agencies and the suitability of the dispute process in use, I'm afraid I can only suggest that you direct your comments or queries to the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Mandy Russell

Customer Relations

[bigshoes...bigsocks]

what a load of bollocks. They really infuriate me when they dodge the issue of being information controllers.

[Seminole]

Don't worry. I haven't decided whether to go another round with them directly or take it back to the ICO.

[slyspy]

I'm about to launch formal proceedings against equifax over a similar matter and response

 

statute barred debt, breach of cca years previously, search done at linked address when DCA had been contacting me for years at current one

 

DCA response 'phone us to discuss this account'

[The Debt Star]

Those that do show in Table 1 on your credit report do so because although they are not viewable to potential lenders, some of our clients use this data to calculate an automated credit score so in some instances it can have a minor impact on your credit worthiness.

 

Does this sentence make any sense? Either table 1 searches are accessible to lenders or they are not.

[Bosund]

Hi,

 

Just Subbing, need info on Equifax as sent a Notice of Correction and received a reply say that after communicating with the desputed DCA they have removed the NoC.

 

Regards...

[hillards]

Ah - the same Equifax that allows companies like HFO to send copies of reports to people when they shouldn't even be looking at their credit files...? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?292196-HFO-have-sent-me-72-Hrs-notice-of-litigation is my own thread and I note the following:

Each Equifax client is required to sign a contract prior to gaining access to our system. This contract stipulates that the client in question must seek consent, from the individual concerned, prior to completing a search. Equifax works closely with our clients to ensure that they fully understand this requirement which is specified under the current Data Protection Act.

 

It is the responsibility of the client in question to ensure that this consent is sought and that appropriate records are maintained to substantiate each search completed with Equifax.

which tells me that HFO are clearly breaching this agreement and the DPA, even more so as the people looking are in India...

 

Equifax, and the other CRA's, seem to operate to their own version of the various rules and regulations and it's high time they were taken to task about how our data gets mis-used in so many ways, while they just smile and pocket the fees for accessing the database.

[The Debt Star]

they're not called Equitw4ts for nothing

[bigshoes...bigsocks]

which tells me that HFO are clearly breaching this agreement and the DPA, even more so as the people looking are in India...

 

Not technically true, please see blurb from ICO website on data protection:

 

You may transfer personal data to countries within the European Economic Area on the same basis as you may transfer it within the UK. However, you may only send it to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area if that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of individuals in relation to processing personal data.

 

Only an offense to transmit personal data outside EEA if it is not done securely.

[hillards]

Only an offense to transmit personal data outside EEA if it is not done securely.

I think someone already mentioned that India isn't on the list of secure countries? Apart from them not having the authority to be looking at my data anyway, but that's another point.

[bigshoes...bigsocks]

I've not found evidence that India is on a list of non-secure countires for data transmission (albeit a very brief internet search). With regards to not having authority - does this not stem back to lack of agreement/terms and conditions? I've long argued (and will continue to argue until I'm blue in the face) that no CCA means no proof I consented to original creditors sharing info with CRA/DCA's - however we all know that info will be passed around companies.