Equifax, Table 1 Searches, Mackenzie Hall

[DBY]

Notu sure about this, need some assistance with some table 1 searches carried out by Mackenzie Hall on my CRF. Are these legit? Do they impact my Credit Rating? I have never had anything to do with this company - cannot seem to find a number to get hold of anyone at Equifax to dispute - tried their online system - what a load of rubbish???

 

Thanks

[inkslinger]

Table 1 searches can be seen by any potential lender. There seems to lots of this happening at the moment with DCA's using Table1 searches as a tool to put pressure on people. Id begin by opening an online dispute with equifax, also write to Muck Hall and demand they remove it. Id also be asking for compensation if they have made one of their famous "admin errors"

[silverfox1961]

Please contact East Ayrshire Trading Standards. Muck Hall have been on their radar for many a year and the more people that complain means yet another nail in their coffin.

[DBY]

Hokey dokey - not going to waste any time getting a couple of letters out - compensation sounds quite nice for the hardship this has created - will send off today!

[DBY]

I also note both of the searches were 364 days apart - one on the 17th Jan 2011, the other on the 16th Jan 2012. Is it me or are they being craft and malicious with my personal data?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

MH have not actually done anything wrong yet, lets

get away from the idea of ''compensation'' a DCA

will check regularly on the status of a debtor to

assess the viability of actually starting collection

activity, 2 searches a year apart are not unfair or

unlawful.

The CRA cannot remove or amend the entry without

the permission of the company that placed the information.

 

I speak as someone who has fought on behalf of others

on searches by DCAs some with up to 15-20 searches

in 3 months, in your case there is no breach of the ICO

8 principles.

 

I suggest that you write to Mr. Rob Sands Compliance Director

at MH if you want to find out why they have made the searches,

my guess is that they have bought an account and as said are

looking at the viability of pursuing the debt.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Just to add the ICO and FOS say that these searches should be available to prospective lenders so that an appropriate

decision can be made on lending.

[inkslinger]

Just to add the ICO and FOS say that these searches should be available to prospective lenders so that an appropriate

decision can be made on lending.

 

While I bow to your superior knowledge on this front Brig IMO Muck Hall are bottom feeders and are notorious for chasing debts that they have no right to chase, SB'd for instance. Id therefore think that if they a) decide they cannot chase it or its simply not worth it to them, or that they are informed its SB'd or they have no paperwork to make a valid claim, then surely these searches should be removed?

 

And even if they do remove them whats to stop them doing it all over again in two months time? It worries me an awful lot that its become a tool where if they think they continue to do it, you will simply pay them to get you to leave you alone. Surely this was not what the searches fields were intended for. Again just my opinion.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

While I bow to your superior knowledge on this front Brig IMO Muck Hall are bottom feeders and are notorious for chasing debts that they have no right to chase, SB'd for instance. Id therefore think that if they a) decide they cannot chase it or its simply not worth it to them, or that they are informed its SB'd or they have no paperwork to make a valid claim, then surely these searches should be removed?

 

And even if they do remove them whats to stop them doing it all over again in two months time? It worries me an awful lot that its become a tool where if they think they continue to do it, you will simply pay them to get you to leave you alone. Surely this was not what the searches fields were intended for. Again just my opinion.

 

These are some more of the ''urban myths'' of debt collection, the DPA etc.,

 

A DCA has every right other than court action to chase an SB debt, until informed in writting by the debtor that the debt is SB and they will not be paying.. but even this is only ''Guidance'' .

 

Also the lack of ''paperwork'' or'' faulty'' paperwork does not remove the underlying fact that a debt exists, recons etc., have changed that scenario.

As said two searches is neither unfair or unreasonable.

 

Like it or not they do have the right to search at some point someone signed or ticked the online box

agreeing to the sharing of data to 3rd parties.

[inkslinger]

These are some more of the ''urban myths'' of debt collection, the DPA etc.,

 

A DCA has every right other than court action to chase an SB debt, until informed in writting by the debtor that the debt is SB and they will not be paying.. but even this is only ''Guidance'' .

 

 

Also the lack of ''paperwork'' or'' faulty'' paperwork does not remove the underlying fact that a debt exists, recons etc., have changed that scenario.

As said two searches is neither unfair or unreasonable.

 

Like it or not they do have the right to search at some point someone signed or ticked the online box

agreeing to the sharing of data to 3rd parties.

 

Again you are far better informed than myself Brig. At what point does it constitute being unacceptable? they search again every two years for 15 years? Essentially denying you credit for that period? If one search every two years is acceptable then is there anything to stop them continuing to do this for as long as they like? Hope you dont see this as argument, I'm mearly trying to pick your brains as to where the lines are drawn.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

When seraches are frequent and or numerous as in the

example I gave earlier MH have been taken to task over

unusually large numdber of searches and have made

''gestures of good will ''when challenged.

The mutiple searches often occur when a company

has aquired a number of accounts for one individual

and mapy be handled by more than one person.

Two searches cannot be be considered untoward.

[inkslinger]

When seraches are frequent and or numerous as in the

example I gave earlier MH have been taken to task over

unusually large numdber of searches and have made

''gestures of good will ''when challenged.

The mutiple searches often occur when a company

has aquired a number of accounts for one individual

and mapy be handled by more than one person.

Two searches cannot be be considered untoward.

 

Thank you Brig, an informative and swift answer. My apologies to the OP for thread jacking. I hope he found it helpful too.

 

Regards

 

Mr Ink.

[DBY]

Brig, Im under the impression that table 1 searches are carried out by lenders to whom you have applied credit too? Is this right?

What if a debt is SB'd, can they still carry out a table 1 search? It seems to me they can.

Furthermore it appears then that they have the right to carry out table 1 searches whenever they feel like it, even every year for 20 years down the line if they so choose, which ultimately impacts ones ability to obtain credit. That to me who wholly unjust, unfair and downright malicious.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Loosely yes but as an application for credit has been made

at some point then T1 searches are permitted, as said the

regulators have no problem with this.

[DBY]

Hi Brig,

 

Excuse me but thats a very loose answer. The search done this year would have been carried out on a SB'd debt. So the question, can they continue to search in spite of the fact the debt is SB'd and does this impact me?

[inkslinger]

Loosely yes but as an application for credit has been made

at some point then T1 searches are permitted, as said the

regulators have no problem with this.

 

I think this procedure is no longer fit for purpose. It seems weighted very much in the DCA's favour and IMO is open to abuse. Id like to open a thread on it I think and gets some views and discussion on it.

[inkslinger]

Hi Brig,

 

Excuse me but thats a very loose answer. The search done this year would have been carried out on a SB'd debt. So the question, can they continue to search in spite of the fact the debt is SB'd and does this impact me?

 

It would appear the answer is yes. If you informed them it was SB'd and then they made a search it may be a different case, but reading between the lines even if its SB'd they still have a right to try to recover it - including outstanding debt searches, until told otherwise. Is this the crux of it Brig?

 

Id like to know once they have been informed its SB'd, if they have a duty to remove the search or can leave it on file for two years? The rules do seem a wee bit blurry to me Im afraid.

[DBY]

Thinking about it a little more - if the debt is SB'd and doesnt appear on your credit file then I can see no legitimate reason why a DCA should be putting a wholly negative marker on your credit file - especially when they can do nothing legally to enforce the debt AND if the account has been removed from your credit file AND youve told them is SB'd. The only reason they would do so after all three of those points have been met would be of a malicious or vexatious nature - there would or couldnt be any other reaons why.

 

So in my case the search from 2011 might stand, but the one for this year has no legitimacy at all when i tell them its SB'd.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Just because a debt is SB it does does not

automatically remove it from CRA files, if there

is a default that has time to run then it will still

show, the default date and SB date can be

months apart.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

One other point missed here is the simple fact that in

the vast majority of debts are sold with the absolute

minimum of information which means that the debt

purchaser/DCA has no idead that the debt is stat barred.

It falls to the debtor to inform the debt owner of the

status of the debt, even so as said earlier the default

will remain until the 6 years is up, and a the search was

done prior to the creditor being informed of the status of

the debt it also remains.

[DBY]

One other point missed here is the simple fact that in

the vast majority of debts are sold with the absolute

minimum of information which means that the debt

purchaser/DCA has no idead that the debt is stat barred.

It falls to the debtor to inform the debt owner of the

status of the debt, even so as said earlier the default

will remain until the 6 years is up, and a the search was

done prior to the creditor being informed of the status of

the debt it also remains.

 

Hi Brig

 

I would query that.

 

If a DCA has never written to you and they carry out a Table 1 search on a SB'd debt that does not appear on your credit file then they should remove the search once you inform them its SB'd. Whether they knew the stauts or not is irrelevant surely.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The DCA may if asked agree to remove a search if they are informed

in writting that the debt is SB, also it must be remembered that the debt

is not extinguished as in Scotland and remains payable.

Also if the SB debts default still has time to run the default entry

stays on file for the balance of the 6 years.

[DBY]

Found out today that the search in January this year was in relation to an old debt that had a CCJ. Subsequently the CCJ was removed from my file a couple of months back.

Are they still entitled to search my credit file?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Basically yes the debt still exists, but if they wished to restart the

claim they would need leave of the court to do so very, very rarely

granted.

 

I f they do search again you can challenge them to provide strict

proof that they hold an account signed by you that gives them

the right to carry out the search and which of the ICOs 8 principle

they believe warrant a search.

[DBY]

Thanks Brig, as always your help is always appreciated. One question i do have is whether or not MH would have any claim as they were not the original creditor? Secondly, are CCJ's covered under section 24 of the limitation act 1980?