Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh well i wonder what new fake documents they have made up then...for them to try this.... just to check nothing funky like Link have filed an n244 to lift the stay and strike out her defence....she hasnt moved since last court comms has she?   is this an n24? bit unusual for a 13mts stay to just be lifted... has she not received anything from link/kearns in the last fw weeks like a docs bundle? bit like this thread... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466576-lc-assetlinkkearns-claim-form-2-mbna-cc/?do=findComment&comment=5256397  
    • if the agreement was taken out jan 23, then she has not reached the 1/3rd mark so the car has not become protected goods under the consumer credit act.  this puts her in a very very vulnerable position regarding ever keeping the car....whereby once they have issued a default notice they can legally send a guy with a flatbed (though they are NOT BAILIFFS and have ZERO legal powers) to collect the car.  if the car is kept on the public highway then they can simply take it away and she will legally owe the whole stated amount on the agreement AND lose the car. if it's on private property i'e like a driveway, ok they shouldn't take it without her agreeing, but if they do, it's not really on but its better than a court case and an inevitable loss with the granting a return of goods order. are these 'health reasons' likely to resolve themselves in the very short term (like a couple of months?) and can she immediately begin working again ? i'e has she got a job or would have to find one?  answer the above and we'll try and help. but she looks to be between rock and a hard place . whatever happens she will still have to pay the loan off...car or no car....unless you can appeal to the finance company's better nature using health reasons to back off for xxx months.
    • no need to use it. it doubles the size of the thread and makes it very diff to find replies on small screens too. just like @username it - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread already inc you ...gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.
    • Hello all,   I ordered a laptop online about 16 months ago. The laptop was faulty and I was supposed to send it back within guarantee but didn't for various reasons. I contacted the company a few months later and they said they will still fix it for me free of charge but I'd have to pay to send it to them and they will pay to send it back to me. The parcel arrived there fine. Company had fixed it and they sent it via dpd. I was working in the office so I asked my neighbours who would be in, as there's been a history of parcel thefts on our street. I had 2 neighbours who offered but when I went to update delivery instructions, their door number wasn't on the drop down despite sharing the same post code.  I then selected a neighbour who I thought would likely be in and also selected other in the safe place selection and put the number of the neighbour who I knew would definitely be in and they left my parcel outside and the parcel was stolen. DPD didn't want to deal with me and said I need to speak to the retailer. The retailer said DPD have special instructions from them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer. The retailer then said they could see my instructions said leave in a safe space but I have no porch. My front door just opens onto the road and the driver made no attempt to conceal it.  Anyway, I would like to know if I have rights here because the delivery wasn't for an item that I just bought. It was initially delivered but stopped working within the warranty period and they agreed to fix it for free.  Appreciate your help 🙏🏼   Thanks!
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

O2 refusing to remove incorrect data from credit report.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2119 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the reply mrabody, yes the forms were quite lengthy but i reluctantly filled them out in the hope i would get the information i had actually asked for quickly.

 

 

As of today i am still waiting for that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that Experian and the other credit reference are taking information which must be given up in order to obtain an SAR and adding it to their database – even though this would be unlawful because an SAR is a statutory right the Agencies have no right to take your data in this way and to use it once they have confirmed your identity and sense you the statutory disclosure. I'm quite convinced that the CRA's are acting unlawfully.

 

We have had reports on this forum of people asking for their credit files after having moved to a new address – and the next thing they know is that they start getting demands at that new address even though they haven't given it out to anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to fill out the forms, I'm going to just wait and see if they comply with the GDPR.

 

We would be very grateful if you would start your own thread about your problem because the one you are posting on now is one where we are trying to deal with a very difficult story and having additional unrelated posts on it will just cause problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

SAR received from Experian,

however most of the correspondence has not been sent with the SAR,

 

im assuming this could be because it was issued before most of the follow up emails have taken place, so i will fill you in with the information.

 

  • 1/5/18 Email received stating accounts had been removed from my credit file by the lender. However the linked addresses were left on my report and Experian stated they would not remove them without the consent of the company, even though they know that the information is a mistake and could further damage my credit reputation.
  • 1/5/18 Complaint logged with ICO for inaccurate information being recorded on my credit file even though Experian know this information is incorrect.
  • 7/6/18 Email to Experian asking for the information between the CRA and the company reporting the wrong data.
  • 7/6/18 Email received from Experian stating they do not share information regarding 3rd parties, (even though this is about me so should be part of my SAR)

 

After a lot of dealings with Experian over the past 15 years regarding the same mistake being made 4 times and the same person being added to my credit report ruining my credit and every time Experian stating it is the responsibility of the company reporting the information to add/remove/edit, they have stated they can not under any circumstance remove this data without the companies consent.

 

  • 29/6/18 Email received from Experian stating that i had made a complaint to them on social media ( i have never made a complaint to them on social media) , email stated that they were now going to remove the incorrect address links without the companies consent.

So all this time and all of this needless worry, they remove the data themselves even though they have stated they can not remove it without the companies consent.

 

Case currently ongoing with the ICO, still awaiting response from Experian

 

My concerns about this situation now and for the future is:

 

  • As stated by Experians head of consumer affairs
    " We always check information before it is added to credit reports and we take our data accuracy responsibilities very seriously indeed.
    We work very closely with lenders to identify and minimise errors from occurring.
    For example, we carry out hundreds of extensive checks on all information before any detail is added to someone’s credit report. "

They have now failed 4 times in not carrying out checks concerning my credit file over 15 years, does not say much for there checking systems.

 

  • Because i have this other persons accounts/information on my credit file i can see all of his details, SO he can also see all of my details.

Data protection breach.

 

  • Stated numerous times that it is the company at fault for the incorrect information adding to my credit file and Experian can not remove this without there consent.

I have dealt with this for 15 years and each time costing me hours and hours writing emails/letters/phone calls.

It should be the responsibility of the company to prove to the CRAs that they have the right person and produce the evidence for this,

 

when i have disputed the data i have not once been asked to produce evidence of why this is not ME.

And told to sort it out myself

Is it the fact that the companies pay the CRAs and the consumer does not pay them that they take the companies side in these matters ?

 

  • Because the wrong information is being recorded on a credit report, it then opens the door for other companies searching there debtor to start hounding the wrong person.

I have started to receive collection letters and receiving phone calls.

 

  • On my credit report in April the source of the link is O2, In Junes report the source of the link is Experian, they have even added a further link dated April made by Experian

So who really is at fault here ?

O2 have added one link incorrectly and a further link has been made by Experian.

Are they both at fault ?

 

The information has now been erased but again the damage has been done, has all of the companies that have searched my report been informed that the information they have been looking at is incorrect ,

or will it be the case that in a few weeks or months to come i will have another default/CCJ or worse added to my credit report.

 

Whatever the outcome with the ICO i think it might be time to start court proceedings to get the answers i am looking for, let the judge decide who is at fault and try and find out the exact workings of a CRA.

 

Again whatever the outcome from a court room i hopefully will have the answers i want.

What do you all think ?

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could claim for damages and distress.

It doesn’t matter if o2 is at fault, the fact that you have raised the issue with Experian that the personal data held is incorrect means that they are obliged to rectify it and not just pass the buck to the company supplying the personal data.

 

They have GDPR obligations to ensure the personal data THEY hold is correct and if that means they need to investigate with the company that provided the data, then that is what THEY have to do.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have said they have contacted the company and the company stated the information is correct.

 

The information i have requested is what evidence have they supplied to Experian to prove they are correct , and if they have not supplied this information then why were Experian refusing to remove the information.

 

Experian have told me to contact the company O2 to sort the matter out myself, what should happen is say hold on , you have added this data incorrectly and the customer has disputed it, can you now provide us with the evidence that you think this is correct.

 

But NO , what Experian have done is made no checks whatsoever, told me to sort the mess out by telling me to contact the company, (no name or dept references to help) and then added there own entry on my credit file with the linked address.

 

Then whole system is a shambles and to say it only happens in a small amount of cases is absolute rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just send Experian a letter and tell them they must rectify the data under art 16 if the GDPR.

And tell them you are giving notice under your article 18 rights restricting the processing of your data until they rectify it.

 

Tell them if that does not happen within 14 days you will bring legal action against Experian for breaching the GDPR and will seek compensation for the damages and distress caused and you will also lodge a further complaint with the ICO for their breach of art 16 and 18

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...