Outstanding Debt Search - help please!

[Bossman81]

Please keep us updated on this one

 

I will do!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good luck Bossman!!

[Bossman81]

Good luck Bossman!!

 

Ok guys only one reply so far:

Equifax

 

Thank you for getting in touch.

 

'Outstanding Debt' searches displayed in the Table 1 section of a credit report will have been carried out as part of a debtor tracing procedures by the creditor or their appointed agent. These searches aren't visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt.

 

This information remains on your credit report for two years from the search date.

 

For more information on the search you should contact the company that carried out this search.

 

Still waiting on Akitiv Kapital and Mackenzie Hall

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Equifax used to show 2 tables table one for credit apps table 2 for opther searches.

 

During the week I'll pull out the letters from the ICO and OFT regarding these

searches as they say Table 1 searches should be seen and are seen by potential lenders,

[Bossman81]

Thanks!

[davidscreditfile]

Hello.

 

I also have the same problem. This is the case.

 

I applied for my online credit report 2 weeks ago. There is nothing on it whatsoever except 2 searches made by Apex Credit Management

Limited in 2010 and again in January 2011.

 

I asked Equifax to dispute these and this is the response I got back online ;

 

"Dear Mr ,

 

Thank you for your recent response regaring an entry on your credit file.

 

Apex Credit Management works on behalf of a number of high street banks and creditors for the purpose of debt collection and trace. At times we will use the Credit Reference Agencies to determine a consumer’s address status; often upon a client's requests or after unsuccessful contact attempts.

 

Outstanding Debt searches (TR) displayed in Table 1 of a consumer's Personal Solutions Credit Report will have been performed as part of a debtor tracing procedure by the creditor or their appointed agent. These search footprints are not visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or to any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt and we will therefore not be removing this entry.

 

If you have any further queries, please contact me via email, providing any supporting documentation quoting reference XXXXXX.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Complaince"

 

 

Now, I was advised that Table 1 searches are not visible to any lender nor any other organisation, however it stipulates that Table 1 searches are visible.

 

As far as I am concerned, these searches relate to another "same named individual", but different date of birth from mine, as I have had this problem previously and

had to file a Notice of Disassociation"

 

I have asked Equifax to ask for Evidence from their client Apex, but they have came back stating, they can not remove this without Apex's permission.

 

Is anyone able to assist? I have never had any letters from Apex at all and these searches are in Table 1, which does state on line these searches ARE visable to lenders,

but both Equifax and Apex state via correspondence that they are not. Although Table 2 states these are for non visable searches..

 

Can anyone assist in this?

 

1. If the debt relates to another individual and they have conducted a credit search on myself via the voters rolll - what do I do

2. How do I have it removed?

3. Table 1 & Table 2, using my equifax online - can anyone give any clarification?

 

Thank you in advance

 

Div

[cerberusalert]

Complain to the ICO http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx both the CRAs and Apex should be processing correct data.

[cerberusalert]

You could also send the CRAs and Apex a s.10 notice but you must be prepared to follow it through; you can edit this to suit http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?582-S.10-Data-Protection-Act-notice-if-you-have-been-defaulted-for-unlawful-penalties.

 

If they are processing incorrect data it amounts to libel and you can sue them. The going rate is around £1k per incorrect entry but if it has damaged your ability to obtain credit it could amount to much more.

[davidscreditfile]

Very interesting!!

 

I am new to this and amazed at the support in this forum - I am very appreciative.

 

Please can you advise me if I would be able to send these formal letters via email, or does one have to ensure that it is by letter/mail form?

 

Thanks,

 

Div

[davidscreditfile]

Thanks for this. Unsure what steps to take, complain or send the CCA letter or both!?!?

 

Why do these companies just leave marks on individuals files without being accurate or have any though of the consequences. Equifax are not much help either, so , I do appreciate your help.

 

Div

[cerberusalert]

Please can you advise me if I would be able to send these formal letters via email, or does one have to ensure that it is by letter/mail form?

Yes, the legal profession & courts do it so why shouldn't anyone else.

 

Thanks for this. Unsure what steps to take, complain or send the CCA letter or both!?!?

If it's not your debt send the s.10 letter & complain.

 

Why do these companies just leave marks on individuals files without being accurate or have any though of the consequences.

If I said why I thought they did it I'd have to moderate myself.

[davidscreditfile]

Spot on.

 

I will let you If I receive a reply or the searches removed,

 

your helps really appreciated. If I was a millionaire, I know where my next cheque would be going.

 

Div

[cashins]

subbing, similar prob.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi had a look at my letters from ICO and OFT on outstanding

debt searches the answer to my queries on OSD searches

is that should be seen my prospective lenders as a guide

to previous financial dealings the CRA here is contradicting

it's self because if an OSD search is on table1 '' for credit applications''

we all know that these are visible to others.

[davidscreditfile]

Hi had a look at my letters from ICO and OFT on outstanding

debt searches the answer to my queries on OSD searches

is that should be seen my prospective lenders as a guide

to previous financial dealings the CRA here is contradicting

it's self because if an OSD search is on table1 '' for credit applications''

we all know that these are visible to others.

 

Do you have the actual wordings from the ICO and OFT, as I doubt very much Equifax and their clients can stipulate that these are not seen by lenders when they are, it seems the statements they are making are misleading - as statements are either true of false, there are no half truths (Lord Denning), so if these are visible by lenders and will affect credit applications, what course of actions should one peruse on this issue?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I'll dig those letters out it's all in paper archive so

a weekend job.

[davidscreditfile]

I'll dig those letters out it's all in paper archive so

a weekend job.

 

Infact, it is OK, the fact that they have said this, I should just be able to quote them saying that - ? , agree? I don't want you having to spend time on this when I'm sure

it can be better spent elsewhere.. I was going to use it when contacting Equifax,

 

Div

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I need to look into this as the statements being

made by both Experian and Equifax are conflicting

with two and a half years of research on CRA's , Table 1 Equifax

seen by all, Table 2 seen only by the data subject.

[davidscreditfile]

I need to look into this as the statements being

made by both Experian and Equifax are conflicting

with two and a half years of research on CRA's , Table 1 Equifax

seen by all, Table 2 seen only by the data subject.

 

Regarding Table 1 and Table 2, The online Equifax Credit Report states, within "Previous Searches" they state the following;

 

'Previous searches appearing on your Credit Report show lenders that you have made applications for credit. Searches for lending purposes would not normally be viewed as adverse information. If however there were an unusually large number of Credit Searches in a relatively short period of time, this may be interpreted by a lender as being indicative of over-commitment or maybe even fraud. These types of searches are displayed in Table 1 below.

 

Not all searches are performed for lending purposes. Table 2 below may show some of these other types of search. Any requests you have previously made to access your own Credit Report will also show here but are not seen by any lender or other organisation reviewing your Report'

 

So, online it states that Table 2 are for 'non-visible' searches and yet, when asking Equifax about these and quering it with their clients, this is the online response replies;

 

This is the reply from Equifax -

 

'Dear David

 

Thank you for getting in touch.

 

Mackenzie Hall - Kilmarnock (Bat) and Apex

 

'Outstanding debt' searches displayed in the 'Table 1' section of a Credit Report will have been carried out as part of a debtor tracing procedure by the creditor or their appointed agent. These searches aren't visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or to any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt.

 

This information remains on your credit report for 2 years from the search date.

 

For further information on the search you should contact the company that carried out this search.

 

Mackenzie Hall - Kilmarnock---------0871 244 4106

Apex----------------------------------------------0475 164 7513'

 

**Also Equifax state here that these searches remain on the credit file for 2 years and yet online they state ,

 

'Searches remain on your Credit File for 1 year from the record date'

 

Reply from McKenzie Hall

 

'Please be advised that any search carried out by Mackenzie Hall is with regard to an unfulfilled contractual obligation held by our client. Authorisation for said search has been given under the terms and conditions of the original agreement.

 

Although Mackenzie Hall do not deal with 'credit', and a merely a debt recovery agency, I can confirm that the placement of searches on Table 1 of your credit file is entirely permissible. Furthermore said searches are NOT visible to lenders.

 

Nonetheless as Mackenzie Hall no longer 'hold' your account on file, please remove search in question.

 

Regards,

 

Compliance Officer"

 

This is the reply from Apex Credit Management

 

'Dear David,

 

Thank you for your recent response regaring an entry on your credit file.

 

Apex Credit Management works on behalf of a number of high street banks and creditors for the purpose of debt collection and trace. At times we will use the Credit Reference Agencies to determine a consumer’s address status; often upon a client's requests or after unsuccessful contact attempts.

 

Outstanding Debt searches (TR) displayed in Table 1 of a consumer's Personal Solutions Credit Report will have been performed as part of a debtor tracing procedure by the creditor or their appointed agent. These search footprints are not visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or to any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt and we will therefore not be removing this entry.

 

If you have any further queries, please contact me via email xxxxxxxxxx, providing any supporting documentation quoting reference xxxxxx.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Compliance Advisor'

 

So, Equifax and 2 of their clients contradict what it states on Equifax Online Credit Report. Equifax also contradict the length of time taken to remove said searches.

 

However, McKenzie Hall have asked it to be removed, even although the debt never related to me in the first place!

Apex Credit Management Limited, have replied refusing to remove the search stating, "These search footprints are not visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or to any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt and we will therefore not be removing this entry."

 

It seems they are searching for someone who has a debt in the same name as me, as I do not have any debts at all, however I was advised to send them a CCA Letter - However, I do not have an account number to quote, so am a little unsure of how one would go about having the search by Apex removed...

 

I don't think a SAR or CCA letter falls within this category, or do they?

 

Div

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi David,

I have a quote here from Megan Webster, Adjudicator at FOS,

Re: Equifax Table 1 searches, date 31/12/2010.

''Equifax has clarified to me that a lender WILL be able to see these

types or searches and it may be something that has an impact on

a decision''

She goes on to state.

''A lender doing a credit search may wish to take into account''

 

So Equifax has told the FOS that these searches are seen and are telling

the public they are not.

any outstanding debts an applicant might have.I am not of the

opinion that such searches should be placed on table 2 as

a lender then does not have this information to take into account''

''I consider that this is information the lenders should be aware of''

[davidscreditfile]

Hi David,

I have a quote here from Megan Webster, Adjudicator at FOS,

Re: Equifax Table 1 searches, date 31/12/2010.

''Equifax has clarified to me that a lender WILL be able to see these

types or searches and it may be something that has an impact on

a decision''

She goes on to state.

''A lender doing a credit search may wish to take into account''

 

So Equifax has told the FOS that these searches are seen and are telling

the public they are not.

any outstanding debts an applicant might have.I am not of the

opinion that such searches should be placed on table 2 as

a lender then does not have this information to take into account''

''I consider that this is information the lenders should be aware of''

 

Interesting!, would this not be a false statement, under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 ? If they are telling the FOS that are seen and consumers they are not - surely there is something which we can do to have these searches moved to Table 2?

 

The FOS say that they should be seen by lenders, So, what is the situation really, are they seen or aren't they?

 

Also, in my case, it was ust an outstanding debt search, nothing more - but I do not have any debt - so want the search removed!

Edited August 26, 2011 by davidscreditfile

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, I am formulating a letter to the FOS and ICO and OFT in my mind

a the moment, I also found on file a letter from Equifax stating

that these searches are seen in a ''different format'' from what

appears on our reports, but may have an effect on credit status,

so far lies, misleading statements.misrepresentation,it all going in

the letters.

It seems a tacit approval of the practice from FOS.

Your way is to make the complaints to the Compliance Managers of

each CRA and the searching company.

 

Brig.

[cerberusalert]

Libel too if it's incorrect data.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I've been going through old paper archives,

found lots on table 1 searches from the early days

of my project on CRA's, there are quite a number

of variations on the explanation of the relevance

of these searches seen or not seen, seen but in a different

format, used by lenders not use by lenders etc,.

Time permitting I'll collate it all and post it up.

In one letter they claim such an entry cannot be defamatory

as it's not seen and in the next para say that is may impact

on credit decisions:madgrin:

[davidscreditfile]

Hi, I am formulating a letter to the FOS and ICO and OFT in my mind

a the moment, I also found on file a letter from Equifax stating

that these searches are seen in a ''different format'' from what

appears on our reports, but may have an effect on credit status,

so far lies, misleading statements.misrepresentation,it all going in

the letters.

It seems a tacit approval of the practice from FOS.

Your way is to make the complaints to the Compliance Managers of

each CRA and the searching company.

 

Brig.

 

Are there any such letters which I could compose around?