Banks, CRA and DPA!!!!!

[Allyxia]

Here a statement issued (in wirting) from my bank which poses a few questions to which Im throwing open to the floor.

 

 

We Lawfully disclosed the default data to them (CRA) and they are processing it in accordance with our agreemnt with them. They are data controllers in their own right and you would be advised to continue your Discusions with them seperatly.

 

Ok....

 

1. So CRA are processing my info due to the contract the have with my bank?

 

Where is my contract with the CRA, now correct me if Im wrong, that although I mite have signed up for the bank to disclose my info, I did not once give the CRA permission to publically display this information.

 

I have no contract with the CRA.

 

2. If the CRA are Data Controllers in their own right, then they must be bound by the DPA.

 

Again, I ask, where did I enter a contract with CRA, for them to process my info!!

 

I was not made aware when I signed up with my bank that I would be entering any other contract by proxy!

 

I could go onto the various clauses in the DPA act that the CRA would be breaching but I think you all know where Im going with this.

 

3. So if the bank DC advises me to pursue the CRA directly, it is because the bank have passed my info "lawfully" and I hyphen this due to the fact I dont beleive they have, and therefore are not going to budge, but are aware that the CRA have no grounds to display!

 

Just a though.

 

Comments peeps?

[nathal]

I received a letter covering basically same thing.

 

I informed the bank of the meaning of processing according to the dpa

[Allyxia]

Weill Ive written to the CRA for what its worth with drawing my permission

[Allyxia]

Had letter back off Experian saying they dont need my permission (half expected Nah Nah Nah Na!! In there), and bunch of other stuff which to be honest sounds very dubious. It apprx 6 pages long, and basically,

 

It starts off by telling me that they have been to the Information Commissioners Office and they state "they can hold my info" for six years." I havent got a problem with them holding it, I asked them not to show all and sundry thats what I have asked them!!

 

It says, as long as they take reasonable steps to ensure the information they hold is accurate, they can display it!

 

In other words, me as a little ****** person, or Natwets - the big almighty company that pays them (in my case), let see....experian dont care that I am taking NatWest to court regarding this default they are choosing to beleive their word over mine!!!

 

It goes on to say that lenders have to supply accurate information - yes like they have to act lawfully when applying charges you mean?

 

It states that they have a responsibility to ensure lenders make informed lending choices. Wow and theres me thinking they are impartical!!!

 

And they cannot remove my data because I "claim" it is inaccurate!! However they are choosing to display my data because the banks claim its accurate!! Anyone see the problem here!!!

 

They will only remove it following advice from the data provider, court order or other regulatory body!!!!

However we need none of these to put it there in the first place!!!

 

They go on to say in applying for credit consent to CRA cannot be freely given (or Im assuming as they are implying in my case "freely taken away"), as if you do not give your permission for consent then you will not get credit.

 

Important It goes on to say that the info is held for the duration of the contract AND then for a further six years beyond!!!

 

They have also claimed that as a private body - the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, does not affect them or the work they do!!! Hmmmmmmm?

 

And too end this nonsence they state against my arguement of breaching of the Section 10 Data Protection Act Notice, is a criminal offence, they state that not to do disclose my information when requested to over rides any non-disclosure provisions!!!

 

Ok surely it can be one or the other, it is eaither criminal to carry on disclosing my information or its criminal not to disclose my information. And if what they are stating is true then why on earth would it even bother to state the "breaching the notice is a criminal offence" when it can be over ruled!!

 

So in a nut shell it doesnt matter what legislation I quote from which ever piece of law covering this -

 

THEY ARE GODS AND THEY HAVE ULTIMATE POWER OVER ALL LAWS AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES!!!

 

Unless anyone can point me in the direction of otherwise?

[rosierose]

Hi Allyxia

 

I'm no expert but, as far as I can tell, the CRA's have no statutory duty to hold and process information. They are commercial, for profit corporations. However, the banks do have statutory rights and duties to hold and process our data (, the money laundering reg's etc).

 

The relationship between the CRA's and banks is a commercial one without any statutory underpinning, yet the data held must be in accordance with the DPA.

 

The banks' only possible argument for passing (non-public) data to a CRA is that you signed a contract with them which allowed them to do so. But the terms of the contract do not state that you give them the right to process your data indefinately. The six year rule (for information that is not public) has no basis in statute. This much has been admitted by a high up at Experian.

 

So, when we ask them to stop processing our data we are in effect asking them to break the law. What we should be asking is for them to stop sending our data to the CRA's. But, and this is a "big but" I think we can only do this were an agreement is no longer current, i.e., when it is settled. Because If the agreement is still in force then the clause whereby you gave your permission to process your data is still current too.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Rosie

[Allyxia]

Yes

 

My problem is that I have three claims with banks whereby the amount I have been defaulted for is around 300% less than the amount I am claiming against!!

 

What agrevies me is, the CRA will continue to show the default whilst I am claiming the information is in dispute.

 

In one case they contacted the bank in question who despite offering me full money settlement which has been rejected because no mention of default removal, the bank have told the CRA that the default is not in dispute. So despite sending teh CRA copies of my court papers they are in fact refusing to even put a notices of correction (a temporary one for me) on my file because despite the fact I can provide evidence for my notice the very "word" of the bank, claiming it is not in dispute stops me from putting it up!!!

 

Now that is disgusting!!!

 

On the other note, the main arguement from other posts is, but the very nature of being in deafult means "you - the consumer" have breached your terms and conditions and therefore have by such a breach have broken your contract with your orginal creditors, and in such light, have terminated any persmission to allow information to be passed to the CRA.

 

I have been dealing withthis in depth for many weeks now, and as such have bot posted every part of my correspondence up on this page.

 

However, I can confirm that despite, quoting all relevant legilsation to the DPA and HRA, both the Banks and the CRA claim they are above the law, or simply manipulate the terms of the ICO report to suit themselves.

 

What I have learnt is you get so far down the line with these, and in the end they stop tryingto answer your specific queries as they know that they can not, and they just enclosed a copy of the ICO report (incidentally I now have 5 of these), which clearly they have not fully understood themselves!!!!

[rosierose]

If you get a moment, do you think you could post the actual paper trail? I'd be really interested to read it.

 

Rosie

[Allyxia]

Id love to but most of the 2ing and froing each letter is about 6 pages long. however, i have scanned most of them into my PC and if there anything I can send you via email let me know (do not post your email addy here thou), or if there anything specific I can cut and paste it here if that helps?

 

Or do you just want a brief chronology for each of my three complaints?

[Tinkerbelle]

Yes

 

My problem is that I have three claims with banks whereby the amount I have been defaulted for is around 300% less than the amount I am claiming against!!

 

What agrevies me is, the CRA will continue to show the default whilst I am claiming the information is in dispute.

 

In one case they contacted the bank in question who despite offering me full money settlement which has been rejected because no mention of default removal, the bank have told the CRA that the default is not in dispute. So despite sending teh CRA copies of my court papers they are in fact refusing to even put a notices of correction (a temporary one for me) on my file because despite the fact I can provide evidence for my notice the very "word" of the bank, claiming it is not in dispute stops me from putting it up!!!

 

Now that is disgusting!!!

 

On the other note, the main arguement from other posts is, but the very nature of being in deafult means "you - the consumer" have breached your terms and conditions and therefore have by such a breach have broken your contract with your orginal creditors, and in such light, have terminated any persmission to allow information to be passed to the CRA.

 

I have been dealing withthis in depth for many weeks now, and as such have bot posted every part of my correspondence up on this page.

 

However, I can confirm that despite, quoting all relevant legilsation to the Data Protection Act and HRA, both the Banks and the CRA claim they are above the law, or simply manipulate the terms of the Information Commissioners Office report to suit themselves.

 

What I have learnt is you get so far down the line with these, and in the end they stop tryingto answer your specific queries as they know that they can not, and they just enclosed a copy of the Information Commissioners Office report (incidentally I now have 5 of these), which clearly they have not fully understood themselves!!!!

 

Just to clarify - a Default Notice does not necessarily mean the end of an agreement.

 

From what I understand , it should be used by the creditor to tell the debtor what steps they must take in order to rectify a breach, and should detail the consequences if the notice is not complied with.

 

The consequences could be cancellation of the agreement, or any other course of action they decide to take.

 

Hope that helps

[Allyxia]

Under that OFT report a few things that pop up

 

None are direct quotes but snippets to save times

 

Sect 97 (1)

If follwoing a written reuqest from teh debtor the credit fails to explain how that debt arose, if the defauts remains for more than a month then the creditor comits a criminal offence!!

 

So the fact that all my default have arose from charges, to which I have repeatedly ask for how they arose to subject my account to such penatlties and they have not once provided me with a breakdown....

 

You see where Im going?

[Allyxia]

Tinks - also in some cases the fact that account have been sold onto DCA? that also has been cited on here as a termination of an agrement with orginal lender?

 

I await your responce!!

[Tinkerbelle]

Tinks - also in some cases the fact that account have been sold onto DCA? that also has been cited on here as a termination of an agrement with orginal lender?

 

I await your responce!!

 

Well I guess people are assuming that is the case, and it's a risky assumption to make, especially seeing as so many Companies have their own inhouse DCA - so in effect haven't really "sold" it on. I know a few folk has actually phoned up and found out who owns what, so they know who to pursue

[POCA]

Please stop quoting the Human Rights Act at private companies. It doesn't apply to them as it only applies to public bodies, see s. 6 HRA 1998.

 

Has anybody actually gone to court and obtained an order to have their data removed from a CRA?

[Allyxia]

POCA - yes but as Im not an expert in this field one can only learn by mistakes and as they are my mistakes I fully prepared to except the consequences of them!!!

 

Tinks back to the point as you are aware, neither of those, queries have been used in either of my cases to get the removal of the Default, it just getting confusing as Im trying to obtain as much info as posible and am getting different info from different people.

 

Which maybe even more misleading for other people who, may want to use those as basis for terminating an agreement and as such withdrawing permission!!!!

 

I supose well see what happens as a result of the next letter drafing!!!!

[Tinkerbelle]

If you have not received any Default Notices, then they are in breach of the CCA

 

That we know for a fact.

[Allyxia]

Aye that we do hun that we do!!!!

 

Did you see my bit above re the OFT report you posted on Rosies post?

 

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here regarding that?

[Tinkerbelle]

Under that OFT report a few things that pop up

 

None are direct quotes but snippets to save times

 

Sect 97 (1)

If follwoing a written reuqest from teh debtor the credit fails to explain how that debt arose, if the defauts remains for more than a month then the creditor comits a criminal offence!!

 

So the fact that all my default have arose from charges, to which I have repeatedly ask for how they arose to subject my account to such penatlties and they have not once provided me with a breakdown....

 

You see where Im going?

 

Yes I see where you are going

More fuel to add to the fire

[Allyxia]

Thats ok then!!!

 

Been doing a bit of reading you see today, I'll carry on tomoro and cobble somethign more coherant together by the end of the week!!!

 

If you got anymore Legs you want me to look at stick the links here and I'll get unpicking them tomoro!!!

 

Im sure there was somethign else I needed to look at on another post - gettign late now head hurts - only popped on to log off and see where this has got me!!!

[qprouk]

Yes

 

My problem is that I have three claims with banks whereby the amount I have been defaulted for is around 300% less than the amount I am claiming against!!

 

What agrevies me is, the CRA will continue to show the default whilst I am claiming the information is in dispute.

 

In one case they contacted the bank in question who despite offering me full money settlement which has been rejected because no mention of default removal, the bank have told the CRA that the default is not in dispute. So despite sending teh CRA copies of my court papers they are in fact refusing to even put a notices of correction (a temporary one for me) on my file because despite the fact I can provide evidence for my notice the very "word" of the bank, claiming it is not in dispute stops me from putting it up!!!

 

Now that is disgusting!!!

 

On the other note, the main arguement from other posts is, but the very nature of being in deafult means "you - the consumer" have breached your terms and conditions and therefore have by such a breach have broken your contract with your orginal creditors, and in such light, have terminated any persmission to allow information to be passed to the CRA.

 

I have been dealing withthis in depth for many weeks now, and as such have bot posted every part of my correspondence up on this page.

 

However, I can confirm that despite, quoting all relevant legilsation to the Data Protection Act and HRA, both the Banks and the CRA claim they are above the law, or simply manipulate the terms of the Information Commissioners Office report to suit themselves.

 

What I have learnt is you get so far down the line with these, and in the end they stop tryingto answer your specific queries as they know that they can not, and they just enclosed a copy of the Information Commissioners Office report (incidentally I now have 5 of these), which clearly they have not fully understood themselves!!!!

after reading all the threads on this subject i can only find one answer and that is it is a criminal offence to give false or mis leading information.and the banks rely on this peice of data being entered in all their pre contract data ,so being fobbed of with all the excuses sounds like they are giving false and mis leading information in order to escape from the true facts that you have been libeled in writing by passing false and mis leading information (this is just a thought (but hope that it sets up another avenue whith which you can force them into compliance with the rule of law,bringing into question their ability to trade lawfully attacking their consumer credit licence)i may be on the wrong track but hope this might help as it is you got my head spinning 360 degrees phew good luck

[Allyxia]

I pointed out to the CRA directly about liable - and their respond was that as long as we have taken steps to ensure its truthfullness from the suppliers we can process the info.

 

It basically a fob off, if you then go back tothe Banks they just deny its in dispute and so around and around and around you go. Im very dizzy with it all now!!

[qprouk]

I pointed out to the CRA directly about liable - and their respond was that as long as we have taken steps to ensure its truthfullness from the suppliers we can process the info.

 

It basically a fob off, if you then go back tothe Banks they just deny its in dispute and so around and around and around you go. Im very dizzy with it all now!!

i would issue an LBA and carry it through against both parties making them both liable to the same action its the only way to settle the dispute and proving their is a dispute i do not think the banks would like to go their it would also bring into question their ability to trade lawfully and their credit licence because they have knowingly given mis leading or false information

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Allyxia

 

First, on the Human Rights Act. No-one is exempt - the 'public authorities' section is there to confirm that public authorities are NOT exempt, except where the Act specifically says they are.

 

(Hope you're still with me, here!)

 

The Human Rights Act incorporated into UK Law the European Convention on Human Rights (which was initially written by the UK but that's by the by). Anyway, this is in it:

 

ARTICLE 6 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

First, the banks' delaying tactics could, possibly, be in breach of the 'reasonable time' or an attempt to make the Courts be in breach but that could cost a lot of time and money to prove!

Second, I believe - though I am not a lawyer - there are provisions in other legislation concerning matters which are 'sub judice', which means, under judgement, subject to legal action. If the bank registered the default AFTER you had submitted your claim then they may be on a sticky wicket - behaving in a prejudicial manner.

I certainly agree with qprouk. If they'd registered the default AFTER you'd made your claim, and quite possibly before, when they were on notice that you were going to, then registering 'false or misleading information' could be perceived to be seriously prejudicial. I don't think the Courts would like it. The CRA, having been told the matter is the subject of legal action, should be careful of being perceived as an involved party in a conspiracy to promote false and misleading information. Libel may be a civil matter but conspiracy is potentially criminal. Threaten them both with a complaint to the Data Protection Registrar and the FSA, for consumer finance, as neither is behaving like a 'fit and proper person' to hold a license.

 

But don't take this as gospel - I'm not a lawyer.

 

Best, Westy (I should be in the hotel business)

(Best Western, geddit? oh, never mind)

[Allyxia]

Ha HA Westy - no I dont get it but hey my head hurts and my fingers are killing me as Ive been typing letters non stop this week regarding this matter.

 

Full stories

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/35643-ok-what-now.html

 

and

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/woolwich/44485-allyxia-wooly-monster.html

 

Both are in the process of legal action which includes removal of deafult so as far as legal action is concerned I have to let that take its own course of action!!!

 

However in the meantime yes i have been go after to CRA esp experian!!

 

The lastest on this is both banks have been sent a letter informing them that I am going to the ICO and FSO. Letters to the FSO and ICO have been drafted and I am awaiting feedback on them.

 

Had waffly crap back off expeian two days ago and am in the middle of drafting a reply back to them, their biggests clutch was the HRA didnt apply to them and many others have confirmd this is the case which quite frankly I find unbelievable wow!!!

 

So If you want to see any of my letters or the rubbish they have sent me let me know as for the one to experian I prob wont finish that til monday so Ill be open to any more info or ammo in the meantime.

 

thanks guys!!

[lookinforinfo]

I pointed out to the CRA directly about liable - and their respond was that as long as we have taken steps to ensure its truthfullness from the suppliers we can process the info.

 

What the cra says is not strictly true. If their client supplies them with

inaccurate data, initially the CRA will not be looked upon as having processed that data inaccurately. The information itself may be wrong, but they

recorded it correctly. And in fact, there is a subsection in the DPA that

covers them in such an eventuality. But only up to the point at when the

error is brought to their attention. After that, I believe they are as guilty of

libel as their client if they do not remove the disputed data until it can be

resolved.

 

Tell me how you think your human rights are being breached as I believe

that their is a case to see CRAs being subject to the HRA-even though they

are not a public authority.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Alyx

 

Updated on the Human Rights Act from a barrister pal. (He started talking about it three days ago and has just about finished, now) Getting the CRA

under a Human Rights Act action MAY be possible, as it could be argued that, in some circumstances, it is acting with powers that could be...etc

It would take too long to establish their liability under that particular Act. It is aimed at public authorities and (increasingly, with case law) at bodies acting in a public capacity. I'm told.

Just do them for DPA non-compliance and financial defamation, now ye're so flush!

Westy