Table 1 searches equifax talking in riddles.

[Jasper1965]

I've a number of "outstanding debt" searches visible in table 1 of my equifax files. Now I'm not bothered particularly by such searches as I'm lucky not to have any outstanding debt of any kind that is not already recorded with the CRA's and that is now very little and fast approaching zero so there cannot be any nasty surprises waiting for me.

 

What bothers me is the systematic abuse of my CRA file by Equifax and their (paying) subscribers in recording outstanding debt searches under Table 1.

These are not credit applications but DCA traces and searches made without my knowledge or permission and so should be recorded under table 2 afaik.

 

I have complained vociferously to Equifax that these searches are recorded wrongly and are thus visible to potential lenders.

 

Here's the response from Equifax:

 

"'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. They show in Table 1 because these can in some cases be taken into account by lenders to assess your creditworthiness when using an automated scoring system."

 

So that's cleared it up then they can't be seen by lenders but can be used by lenders to make decisions.......

[247orbital]

If you do complain you often only get the standard response that they have contacted the company and they have instructed the CRA that its a justified inquiry. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the time its just an automated response. Anyone who has access to your data has to sign a set of rules imposed by the CRA and by doing this they self regulate themselves, which we all know does not work and leaves the system open to huge abuse by both DCA's and the CRA themselves. The whole system is not fit for purpose.

 

Over to you Brigadier!

[iaintw]

hi jasper

this is the standard produres that a cra do. its under data protection act and this means you have many searches in your credit file. wait for 6 months to improve your rating

the score system in equifax is truthly no need to be worried about it. when you apply for a credit card the search can LOWER your rating my advice is wait for six months to getting back together. thats why your score is getting lower because you made applications for a bank/buliding society and credit card companies.

[sillygirl1]

Nothing to worry about - sorry but that is rubbish, it IS something to worry about, a record has been put against your name when NO ACTION has followed this, ie no application for credit which is what the CRAs were originally for. You go on to state wait another six months before applying again, er, the person has NOT applied again but an unknown third party has made an application which knocks points off your score - this surely must constitute an unfair relationship?

[iaintw]

No its not unfairly that a customer who do a application for a credit card for example the this what some credit cards providers said to me

"when you apply for a credit card and refused the credit card application it leaves a search on your credit file. This means that a search is unrecorded and checking credit application. please wait for 3 or 6 months so they can reapply for a credit card"

All this information is true!

Edited November 21, 2011 by iaintw
add a 3 months

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have posted the ''explanations and answers'' to

this a number of times together with the comments

from the ICO and OFT, it is my opinion that the table 1

searches are seen by lenders but not in the format or

wording that the data subject sees.

[Dibsthefrenchie]

I managed to have three removed by complaining and then complaining some more, it's worth making a nuisance of yourself.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Tis the only way IMHO always complain

first to the organisation that has placed

the default entry with a copy to the CRA,

if there is not a positive response through

''normal'' channels get into the senior management

compliance managers and data controllers of

DCAs and CRAs.

Put all that is wrong clearly and concisly and

all that you want done to correct the matter

firml.

[sillygirl1]

If it has resulted in nothing being given then it is a Table 2 search, not a Table 1 search. I am not going to argue this any further.

[Jasper1965]

Equifax themselves confirm in their member centre info that these "outstanding debt" searches should appear in table two.

 

I have currently got 14 table one searches recorded against my name only one of which is in relation to an application made by myself. Of the rogue 13 searches made to date only one of the companies involved has written to me, the other 12 have just looked and gone away leaving grubby fingerprints on the file.

 

If I were to apply for credit the lender will see 14 applications with only one success and will surmise I have problems.

 

 

(My ex wife is still associated with me despite us divorcing in the 1990's.

I've waited a month without response on this issue).

 

As Orbital says "Not fit for purpose", I can feel a very large complaint coming on.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Make a calm, concise complaint to the ICO,

I for one would like to see if they come up

with the same comments as they gave me

earlier this years,ie that they consider these

searches should be seen by prospective lenders

so as to give a full picture of an applicants

ability topay.

 

Brig.

[Jasper1965]

Make a calm, concise complaint to the ICO,

I for one would like to see if they come up

with the same comments as they gave me

earlier this years,ie that they consider these

searches should be seen by prospective lenders

so as to give a full picture of an applicants

ability topay.

 

Brig.

 

Wow that is a rather inappropriate response to give. Equifax aren't doing themselves any favours by getting themselves muddled up and once the evidence pile is large enough I shall certainly be taking this further.

 

Of course if the ICO come back to me with that sort of twaddle I shall be requiring them to explain just how helpful to potential lenders these searches might be if 1) There is no "outstanding debt", not with anyone let alone over a dozen companies and 2) It is beginning to emerge that several of these searches relate to institutions that I have never held accounts with or had any form of relationship with eg I've been a Severn Trent customer for over 20 years no problems but for some reason Anglian Water have employed a third party agency to do an "OD" search on me. I've never had an Orange phone either, 121, BT Cellnet then O2 but never orange. Had the same telecomms provider for fixed services for 20 years too, why one of their competitors might be doing OD searches on me is beyond my comprehension.

 

Unless of course they're just fishing, looking for somebody with the same name.....

 

which makes that ICO reply you received look very poor indeed, very poor.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If you are going to make a complaint

stick, ranting and over the top reactions

will get your points ignored and disregarded.

Compile your points in a logical, clear order

so the the recipient understands what it is

you are complaining about AND what you want

them to do to rectify the problem.

I am still pursuing responses from the ICO

and the CRAs and will be submitting the results

to my MP it is an ongoing project often stalled by

other matters.

What I nam saying is if you are making a complaint

on a formal level and expecting a lucid reply to it make

sure it is not garbled and muddled. clarity is paramount

if you want want results.