Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • March 23: As the coronavirus crisis escalates, the UK is placed into lockdown with strict limitations on travel. The Government guidelines state: “You should not be visiting family members who do not live in your home.” The prime minister tells the UK public they "must stay at home". People are warned not to meet friends or family members they do not live with. Those with symptoms had already been told to self-isolate     Friday 27 March: Downing Street On the day Cummings ran out of No 10, his wife, Mary Wakefield, appears to have been already ill, according to her Spectator article about the experience, in which she says: “My husband did rush home to look after me.”   Both Boris Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock test positive for coronavirus, while chief medical officer Chris Whitty says he has symptoms of the disease and is self-isolating.   Mr Cummings said: "I suddenly got a call from my wife who was looking after our four-year-old child. She told me she suddenly felt badly ill." He went home and after a couple of hours his wife felt better and he returned to work. "There were many critical things at work and she asked me to return [to work] in the afternoon and I did." He then "drove up to Durham that night arriving at roughly midnight" with his family.     In spectator articles on 24th and 25th April * Wakefield (wife) wrote in the spectator that Cummings said “I feel weird” and collapsed 24 hours after he came home to look after her * She went on to explain that for the next 10 days “Dom couldn’t get out of bed. Day in, day out for ten days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs.” * Cummings wrote that “at the end of March and for the first two weeks of April I was ill, so we were both shut in together.” * The following days, by Wakefield’s account, were a mixture of family idyll and health nightmare, as she made a “palace out of polystyrene packaging” with their son … even as Cummings’s breathing got so bad that she feared he should be in hospital. But 10 days after her husband first fell ill, she said, he began to feel better – just as Boris Johnson went into hospital. That would place the improvement in his condition around Sunday 5 April,     Sat March 28th Is apparently the day Cummings said “I feel weird” and collapsed 24 hours after he came home to look after her His wife went on to explain that for the next 10 days “Dom couldn’t get out of bed. Day in, day out for ten days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs.” Cummings wrote that “at the end of March and for the first two weeks of April I was ill, so we were both shut in together.” 10 days from March 28th – would take us to the 7th April.   Mon March 30: Downing Street confirms Mr Cummings is suffering from coronavirus symptoms and is self-isolating.   Tuesday 31 March/1st April: Durham The police have said that on 31 March they were “made aware of reports” of Cummings’s presence in the area and had then contacted the family to “reiterate the appropriate advice around essential travel”.   2 April: During the night, Mr Cummings' four-year-old son "threw up and had a bad fever". Following medical advice, an ambulance took the child to hospital. He was accompanied by Mr Cummings' wife   3 April: Mr Cummings' son spent the night in hospital and woke up the next day having "recovered". He was tested for coronavirus and his mother, who was with him at the hospital, was told "they should return home". According to Mr Cummings, there were no taxis so he "drove to the hospital, picked him up and returned home". He said he "did not leave the car or have any contact with anybody on this short trip".   Sunday 5 April: The ‘Abba’ sighting (despite claims of ten days where he couldn’t get up with a high fever) Cummings alledgedly seen in Garden with AbbA blaring But 10 days after her husband first fell ill, she said, he began to feel better – just as Boris Johnson went into hospital. Which would place the improvement in his condition around Sunday 5 April, … Although the claimed 10 days after the 28th – the earliest point at which Cummings was said to have been symptomatic – would be the 7 April. The Guardian approaches Downing Street about the story, only to be told by a spokesman: “It will be a no comment on that one.” Mr Cummings said "after I started to recover, one day in the second week, I tried to walk outside the house". He confirmed he, his wife and his son went for a walk into woods owned by his father and it was at this point he was seen by passers-by but his family "had no interaction with them". The exact date is not clear but his second week isolating in Durham would have between 4-11th   6 April: At some point in the week leading up to this date, Mr Cummings discussed his decision to travel to Durham with the prime minister. "When we were both sick and in bed," he said, "I mentioned to him what I had done. Unsurprisingly given the condition we were in, neither of us remember the conversation in any detail."   Fri April 10: Number 10 is again contacted for comment regarding Mr Cumming’s trip by the Guardian. Instead of defending the journey, officials declined to comment.   Fri 10th/Sat 11th April: The 14-day period of Cummings’s isolation would have expired on 10/11th April, assuming it is counted from when Wakefield appears to have first fallen ill on 27 March or when Cummings fell ill 24 hours later.   11 April: Believing he had recovered by this date, albeit "feeling weak and exhausted", Mr Cummings said he "sought expert medical advice". "I explained our family's symptoms and all the timings and asked if it was safe to return to work on Monday or Tuesday, seek childcare and so on. I was told that it was safe and I could return to work"   Sunday 12 April: Barnard Castle Wakefield’s birthday, according to Companies House records – they allegedly made a trip to Barnard Castle, a charming town 30 miles from the Cummings’s family property, described on the English Heritage website as having “fantastic views” and “plenty to do for families on a day out”. That detail emerged in an interview with Robin Lees, a retired chemistry teacher who lives in the town. Lees, who says he has a photographic memory, told the Guardian he was “a bit gobsmacked” to see Cummings, and then was so incensed that he made a note of the family car’s numberplate and checked it online when he got home. Cummings acknowledges he drove to Barnard Castle, 30 miles from his parents' home in Durham, with his wife and child. He explained this episode as needing to test his driving was fine before making the long drive back to London. He said he'd been having problems with his vision   Tuesday 14 April: London The Guardian asked Wakefield to confirm whether the family had been in London throughout the lockdown period, but received no reply. Cummings was photographed back in Downing Street on 14 April   Sunday 19 April: ‘bluebell’ woods - Cummings and Wakefield in Houghall woods? Could Cummings have then gone back to the north-east from London? Downing Street is emphatic that he did not. The denial came after another witness claimed to the Guardian and Sunday Mirror that they had seen Cummings and Wakefield on a country walk in Houghall Woods, a beauty spot near his parents’ property in Durham. According to this account, Cummings said: “Aren’t the bluebells lovely?” Cummings says he did not return to Durham   Monday 20 April Cummings seen in London again   May 23: Downing Street statement: “Owing to his wife being infected with suspected coronavirus and the high likelihood that he would himself become unwell, it was essential for Dominic Cummings to ensure his young child could be properly cared for.” The statement said: “At no stage was he or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported. “His actions were in line with coronavirus guidelines. Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally.” Speaking outside his home, Mr Cummings reiterated: “I behaved reasonably and legally”. When a reporter suggested to him that his actions did not look good, he replied: “Who cares about good looks? “It’s a question of doing the right thing. It’s not about what you guys think.” Later at the daily Downing Street briefing, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said Mr Cummings had the PM’s “full support” and that Mr Johnson “knew that he was unwell and that he was in lockdown”. Mr Shapps said it had always been permissible for families to travel to be closer to their relatives as long as they “go to that location and stay in that location”. Meanwhile, deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, said that travelling during lockdown was permissible if “there was an extreme risk to life”, with a “safeguarding clause” attached to all advice to prevent vulnerable people being stuck at home with no support.   Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak have tweeted their support for Mr Cummings.   Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said on Monday morning that Mr Cummings had "set out absolutely clearly and absolutely categorically he didn't break the rules and didn't break the law". The attorney general, Suella Braverman, tweet on Saturday in which she quoted the full text of the No 10 statement on Boris Johnson’s chief aide in which the prime minister said he had behaved “responsibly and legally”.   (Disgraceful) Boris Johnson said at the weekend Cummings acted “responsibly and legally and with integrity”   “The PM’s risible defence of Cummings is an insult to all those who have made such sacrifices to ensure the safety of others,” said Johne Inge, the bishop of Worcester, on Twitter.   “What planet are they on?” asked a front page headline in the Daily Mail, an influential right-wing paper usually supportive of Johnson.   https://descrier.co.uk/politics/dominic-cummings-and-wife-tried-to-cover-up-lockdown-breach-in-articles-for-the-spectator/   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/24/dominic-cummings-timeline-what-we-know-about-his-movements   https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/timeline-the-coronavirus-lockdown-and-dominic-cummings-trip-to-durham/   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52784290   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/25/attorney-general-faces-calls-to-resign-defends-dominic-cummings-suella-braverman   https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-cummings/what-planet-are-they-on-no-respite-for-johnson-and-aide-idUKKBN2310UE   https://cyprus-mail.com/2020/05/25/what-plant-are-they-on-press-slams-johnson-and-cummings/
    • simply tell them on the phone writing only sorry as I might want to escalate this to the fos or court. sorry but no speaky..speaky   you night find this interesting?   https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/jun/09/life-insurance-misselling-aviva-hamilton-life   dx
    • I've had a few missed calls and then text from RBS wanting to talk about the letter I sent, two posts up.    Am I best to wait for them to write? Didn't really want to get into a discussion with them about it ideally!
    • I haven’t even looked.  I doubt some PR bod would have been in the loop.
    • Gove will be rubbing his little hands together in glee. He been quite careful in his limited wording in 'supporting demonic. but he poo'd his own pot a bit with that priority preferential test   No confidence vote (in PM not party).
  • Our picks

    • View this quiz Employment status during COVID-19
      What do you do if you’ve been told not to come to work due to the current crisis.  Watch the video here or on the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page.

      Did you learn anything? Do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 0 replies
    • One Parking Solutions - Damning judgement. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421148-one-parking-solutions-damning-judgement/
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 63 replies
    • View this quiz Coping with extreme hardship
      Life can be tough when you're entering the world of work and in the present virus crisis, things are even more difficult.

      Watch the video below or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page . Afterwards, you can see if you've understood the points which are being made by taking the quiz.
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 8 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 1 reply
    • View this quiz: Pre-pay meters
      An explanation of how some gas and electric companies offer emergency quarantine support.

       
      Watch the video here – or go to the Youth Consumer Service Instagram page and watch it there. Then come back here and do the quiz
       
       
      Submitter BankFodder Type One Right Answer Time 5 minutes Total Questions 6 Category The Youth Consumer Service Submitted 15/05/20  
      • 1 reply
Movingon

Inaccurate Credit Reference data

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4814 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

OK I finally got around to it.

 

1) a HFC "Rolling Credit" account, always intended to be in debit, which I closed in 2002. In August I wrote to them reminding them of this and demanding that my credit reference file be updated. The assured me that it was done and that my credit reference data would be accurate within 2 months. It now shows as "Settled" in Sept 2006 (!!!) but is still receiving monthly status updates from HFC when it should show "Dormant".

 

2) an Argos Storecard account which I forcibly closed on 17th Sept 2006. I followed the procedure in their T&C precisely. The account is still receiving monthly status updates from Argos Card Services, it should show "Dormant".

 

"Dormant" means "Not in use, no balance is owed". "Settled" means that the account is still open but that no balance remains to be paid.

 

Credit Brokers and Credit Reference Agencies have a lawful duty under the Data Protection Act to maintain relevant and accurate data, and under the Consumer Credit Act (I think?) the data must not give an inaccurate impression of my creditworthiness. I have written them each a letter setting out the situation and their responsibilities, and requiring action by 15th January; if they fail to take such action I will notify the Information Commissioner. I may even take court action. Only an out-and-out amendment will do; "Notices of Correction" are rarely if ever read, except by the writer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I finally got around to it.

 

1) a HFC "Rolling Credit" account, always intended to be in debit, which I closed in 2002. In August I wrote to them reminding them of this and demanding that my credit reference file be updated. The assured me that it was done and that my credit reference data would be accurate within 2 months. It now shows as "Settled" in Sept 2006 (!!!) but is still receiving monthly status updates from HFC when it should show "Dormant".

 

2) an Argos Storecard account which I forcibly closed on 17th Sept 2006. I followed the procedure in their T&C precisely. The account is still receiving monthly status updates from Argos Card Services, it should show "Dormant".

 

"Dormant" means "Not in use, no balance is owed". "Settled" means that the account is still open but that no balance remains to be paid.

 

Credit Brokers and Credit Reference Agencies have a lawful duty under the Data Protection Act to maintain relevant and accurate data, and under the Consumer Credit Act (I think?) the data must not give an inaccurate impression of my creditworthiness. I have written them each a letter setting out the situation and their responsibilities, and requiring action by 15th January; if they fail to take such action I will notify the Information Commissioner. I may even take court action. Only an out-and-out amendment will do; "Notices of Correction" are rarely if ever read, except by the writer.

 

Well done, i've had that on my credit file. I never used to keep a watch on it but i do now. Nationwide have been showing that loan accounts i've had with them in the past that were paid off last year and are showing dormant are still getting monthly updates and also my current one still shows "gone away" i've told them about this and they have agreed they would remove it, that was 3months ago. They are fast to put all this stuff on there but its always negative and are very slow to correct it or put the good stuff on. hmmm


George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for it Tom. And stick them for the cost of your CRA fees in researching your data and seeking corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...stick them for the cost of your CRA fees in researching your data and seeking corrections.

 

Unfortunately I don't think this would wash; I've had online access to my CR for months for my own peace of mind and I think they'd probably spot that LOL. Anyway; when I submit my court claim I shall include various expenses I've incurred as a result of this; repeated attempts by 'phone to gain credit which mysteriously went through after they correct it etc etc etc.

 

They really don't want to mess with me, the mood my computer-using persona is in, I can tell you. The rest of me is enjoying life, by and large, although there are frustrations... but I cannot BEAR being harrassed by organisations at the moment and I just can't wait to get my teeth into people via letter, email, forum post... you name it! LMAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is you have to show you are being reasonable - the data they input must be accurate, if it isn't you are disadvantaged, and that is wrong. Since the CRAs charge a fee to access your own personal data, it is not unreasonable to ask these firms to pay this expense. The fact you pay (perhaps) an annual fee for constant access is your affair - the ongoing £6's (3 x £2) to ensure you are not being libelled by their system is a small price to pay - so if it came to court, no judge is likeley to reject the costs you seek as unreasonable to protect your interests, and that it what it is all about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooo - one thing I forgot to mention - and this really has my blood boiling now.

 

Experian are showing incorrect timings for my various house moves over the last six years, and actually show me as living at one address twice in succession!! So - last year I called them. After much humming and hawing, they asked me to submit in writing and email would be fine. I did so, and received no reply at all.

 

I finally remembered around the same time as I began the above, and dropped them another email telling them the situation and reiterating my corrected address details with timings, and asking that they have it completed by 15th Jan. They replied "Could I please 'phone for them to help me further". I got quite annoyed and replied saying that I'm not going to jump through any more hoops for them and that all the information they require is in my email - if it wasn't corrected by 15th January then I would make my complaint. They replied with exactly the same text again. I called them and got bounced to three different departments and finally asked for the new details (which were in the email in front of him). I blew my stack unfortunately and told them they had all the info they needed, that I didn't have it to hand, and to get the bloody hell on with it!

 

Roll on 15th January that's all I can say; the ICO is likely to get three bloody complaints in a row!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a complaint to Experian regarding 12 anomalies in my data, including being married to three different people, all with the same surname but different first names. God one mother in law is enough!

 

There were three unrecorded entries of my data, all without my permission and the rest were either duplications of the same info or just wrong. I've complained to them and they've put some notice of corrections on the file, but I will still be complaining to the IC.

 

Mike


If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - I was about to say that we foirget that the CRAs are not our 'friends' and are not entitled to chapter and verse concerning outr lives and identities, but then - you know all that.

 

Why lose sleep over the fact CRAs are not there to represent our interests, and the more misinformation they have and incorrect data devalues their product in the eyes of their clients and could, quite possibly, lead to their eventual downfall? Just a happy thought for the New Year! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They DO act in my interest inasmuch as if information about me does not tally with what I tell a prospective lender, it may prejudice my ability to obtain credit; therefore the more inaccurate information about me that they store the more disadvantage I suffer (inasmuch as I want credit, anyway).

 

Their eventual downfall will come when someone with some influence takes the whole issue of consumer credit seriously enough to investigate it and present a report to The Commons. I don't remember ANYONE in Government taking last year's report on Bailliffs and DCA's seriously enough for even a Question to be asked in the House - never mind for a Report to be issued.

 

Someone like me, alone, can only gather personal experiences and anecdotal evidence; which is insufficient for a Commons Select Committee to consider a Report. Something like the Consumer Action Group CAN gather enough of such evidence and CAN present a Report to a Commons Select Committee - and I hope that they DO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And persisting in attempts to make their data accurate will somehow achieve this? Telling them something, so that what you tell a prospective lender the same thing proves NOTHING. They only work with what they are given, so as you have found when this information is incorrect and they refuse to update this to reflect the data you are empowered to provide, their hold on the the data subjects is seriously diminished.

 

As for a Commons Select Committee doing anything remotely useful - a King Canute Training School would achieve more, and if that is our ultimate sanction, then god help us all, especially is it is the Government itself promoting CRAs at the way to responsible learning. The only way out oif this in our lifetime is to ensure they are discredited with numerous legal actions for false and inaccurate disclosures, and punitive fines, under the Human Rights Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to put this info on the Consummer Info main forum but its locked. So I,m putting this here in the hope a lot of people read it.

I'll post it on other forums also or start a new thread.

I have had to do a lot or investigating into CRA's and Credit file searches etc etc, and I've found out something that I dont think people are aware of

Banks etc use different types of seaches on credit file,

1 an enquiry type search.....this one is used to check your file if you apply for credit with them. This search is recorded on your file so that you know it has been searched.

2 is an update search/entry to put monthly info about your account with them

Its the third type of seacrch that they use that will be of interest to members... its called a CM type of search,

 

This search method is used to "monitor" your credit status this search is never recorded on your credit file it is never seen by you nor other institutions, so in theory according to Equifax it can never harm you, but in my fight with Equifax over this because I stumbled on this search method by accident and they did not like me finding out about this search type I can tell you for a fact.

 

The RBOS used this type of search on my credit file and downloaded a hard copy of it on 6th Jan 06. I had had no dealings with the RBOS since 2000, so as they had no right to search my file they used this type of search.

 

This means that these banks etc can search anyones file get all the info they want and you are never aware of the fact that your file has been searched. for 6 months Equifax denied my file had been searched at all but I finally got them to admit it had and have now got the proof which I'm using in my case against the RBOS.

Just thought I'd let every one know about this type of "secret " searches that are carried out without anyone knowing

 

 

Sparkie1723:)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparkie, do you know what CM stands for...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya buzby,

 

CM search means credit management its used everyday by 100's of banks, credit card companies, loan companies, but it NEVER shows up on your file, you wont even see them if you SDAR the CRAs, in my SDAR papers I got over 2000 pages not one CM search was recorded but I know for a fact that The NAt West & THe RBOS searched on 21 /12 05 & 6/01/06.

 

Sparkie 1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - that's useful to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried to put this info on the Consummer Info main forum but its locked. So I,m putting this here in the hope a lot of people read it.

I'll post it on other forums also or start a new thread.

I have had to do a lot or investigating into CRA's and Credit file searches etc etc, and I've found out something that I dont think people are aware of

Banks etc use different types of seaches on credit file,

1 an enquiry type search.....this one is used to check your file if you apply for credit with them. This search is recorded on your file so that you know it has been searched.

2 is an update search/entry to put monthly info about your account with them

Its the third type of seacrch that they use that will be of interest to members... its called a CM type of search,

 

This search method is used to "monitor" your credit status this search is never recorded on your credit file it is never seen by you nor other institutions, so in theory according to Equifax it can never harm you, but in my fight with Equifax over this because I stumbled on this search method by accident and they did not like me finding out about this search type I can tell you for a fact.

 

The RBOS used this type of search on my credit file and downloaded a hard copy of it on 6th Jan 06. I had had no dealings with the RBOS since 2000, so as they had no right to search my file they used this type of search.

 

This means that these banks etc can search anyones file get all the info they want and you are never aware of the fact that your file has been searched. for 6 months Equifax denied my file had been searched at all but I finally got them to admit it had and have now got the proof which I'm using in my case against the RBOS.

Just thought I'd let every one know about this type of "secret " searches that are carried out without anyone knowing

 

 

Sparkie1723:)

 

Does this then mean that If I request a copy of my file including all searches made specifically requesting enquiry and update searches as well as credit management searches that they will have to show all? If they do not then surely they are in conflict with section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried to put this info on the Consummer Info main forum but its locked. So I,m putting this here in the hope a lot of people read it.

I'll post it on other forums also or start a new thread.

I have had to do a lot or investigating into CRA's and Credit file searches etc etc, and I've found out something that I dont think people are aware of

Banks etc use different types of seaches on credit file,

1 an enquiry type search.....this one is used to check your file if you apply for credit with them. This search is recorded on your file so that you know it has been searched.

2 is an update search/entry to put monthly info about your account with them

Its the third type of seacrch that they use that will be of interest to members... its called a CM type of search,

 

This search method is used to "monitor" your credit status this search is never recorded on your credit file it is never seen by you nor other institutions, so in theory according to Equifax it can never harm you, but in my fight with Equifax over this because I stumbled on this search method by accident and they did not like me finding out about this search type I can tell you for a fact.

 

The RBOS used this type of search on my credit file and downloaded a hard copy of it on 6th Jan 06. I had had no dealings with the RBOS since 2000, so as they had no right to search my file they used this type of search.

 

This means that these banks etc can search anyones file get all the info they want and you are never aware of the fact that your file has been searched. for 6 months Equifax denied my file had been searched at all but I finally got them to admit it had and have now got the proof which I'm using in my case against the RBOS.

Just thought I'd let every one know about this type of "secret " searches that are carried out without anyone knowing

 

 

Sparkie1723:)

 

Might be an idea to post this in one of the debt forums!!!:-o:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all

THis will be a long post so bear with me its interesting to say the leat.

I,m a member of both Experian & Equifax on line credit sites.

 

The CM searches on my file I refer to were carried out

The First By The RBOS on 21/12/05

The Second By The Nat West on 6/01/06

 

These were done because Iv'e got a big claim against the RBOS it comes to trial on 29th March.

They used this search method to get info they were'nt entitled to see or get.

But they slipped up, because my partner and I are not married these searches left a "footprint" on her file as an associate search, if we had been married I would never have found out about this search method.

When these searches did not show up on my file I started asking arkward questions, which ended up in the RBOS telling lies to the ICO.

 

Anyway I finally got Equifax to translate the electronic recordings of these searches on my file in to hard copy. This info Equifax and Experian normally will not supply it because they are just electronic signals ...thats why they are not recorded on credit files no one sees them not even the searcher and the RBOS and the Nat West have not got these docs they are only in my trial bundle.

 

But because of my court case Equifax were very helpfull and supplied them to me, This is what they look like.....

 

14/12/06 15:18:41 Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

 

SEARCH & TRACE

====================================================

 

Record Date / Time...........21/12/05 15:04

Type......................8

Option....................

Name......................................My Name

Joint Indicator...............

Transient Association.....

Opt Out Indicator.........

Client Name.................Royal Bank of Scotland

Client Number..............14451206

Company Class.............BANK

Company.....................

Date of Birth................XX/XX/XXX

Search Type................CM

 

 

 

 

====================================================

Action DIsplay Mode X

 

More Sub Records To Display

Next CTST H

MD0

 

The Nat West Search was the same but as I have said they did not show on my credit file because they used the CM search method and it was under this search method they downloaded and copied my credit file. That is Theft of Information.

 

Now what I'm getting at and will bring to the Judges's attention if the Nat West can download my Credit file ( I've never had any dealings with the Nat West) without me knowing and pass it on to the RBOS.

 

That means any Bank, Building Society, Finance House can download anyones file without them Knowing theres no need for them to have consent they just go and do it. and if there just happens to be someone in one of these places that is ....what you would say "out to make himself quite a bit of money he can do this and sell complete credit files by the dozen on the Black Market and he'll never be traced, maybe this is where all the fraudulent obtaining of info is being supplied from ....you never know.

 

Theres a lot to think about there.

 

Finally the search info I've shown here , you will never get in your SDAR.

I've got 2000 pages in mine from Equifax but theres no record of these searches.

 

sparkie 1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some observations - and whilst I'm not excusing RBS's tactics, the fact NatWest were there too is no big deal, as they are part of the RBS Group (ie a wholly-owned subsidiary) so there is no issue of Nat West accessing your info - it's all part of the Group and as such would be OK.

 

Theft of information? Whose? The information is Equifax/Experian's and you gave permission for it to be handled and passed by the bank to them. There is no issue of 'theft' because you waived your right to keep this information restricted. To succeed, you would need a considerably stronger argument to make any headway on this aspect of your claim. (As much as I'd like to wish otherwise!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Buzby Wrong wrong wrong

 

The Nat West is just part of the RBOS group, it has its own registerd office and its own License with the ICO.

It is lawfull for the two to pass information to each other about their customers.

But each data controller CANNOT access the actual Credit files of each others customers FACT.

Furthermore that would lead to questions as if you were an RBOS customer you could walk into a Nat West Bank branch and cash an RBOS cheque ....you cant, because they are separate legal entities. I have not spent 3 years on my case not to get things right believe you me.

My MP Mr Andrew Miller who helped draft the Data Protection Act is now involved as well as the ICO investigations dept AND Equifax legal dept in London over this issue so I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

 

 

ONE I have never been a customer of the Nat West

 

TW0 I ceased being a customer of the RBOS in January 2001

 

THREE When trading relationships end with a bank etc etc, all permission to obtain pass process any info about a data subject is cancelled further processing of any data they hold MUST CEASE unless there are extra special terms in any agreement a data subject has/ had with the institution, that allows the processing to continue after trading relationships end and this must be specially written into the standard Data Protection Declaration

 

FOUR Equifax have confirmed that as the searches were CM searches they in fact have no knowledge of them UNLESS they carry out an internal audit of their data banks that is why it took over two months to analyse their system to give me the info I asked for.

 

FiVE Because I was an original ccustomer of William Glyns Bank since 1971 long before the Consumner Credit Act and long before tha Data Protection Act was even thought of I have never even had a Banking agreement with the RBOS becaause they merely took William Glyns Bank over.

 

As far as the information that the CRA's hold IT IS NOT theirs it belongs to the different subscribers to their data base

 

That is the reason why when you add a notice of correction they tell you they will contact the supplier for clarification, further more I also have that in black and white from both Experian and Equifax that they information they hold is not theirs.

 

I can assure you that I am not talking out of my hat I have made sure that I am correct and that is why so far the RBOS have offered me £ 5000 to go away.......No chance, I've got them sweating too much.

 

sparkie1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added footnote

At the first hearing of my case in court I had applied for it to be heard on the fast track, on reading my evidence and statement of claim the Judge said "far too many issues involved in this case" I am moving this case up to the multi track .....and to the High Court ......Cobbetts barrister at the hearing nearly had a heart attack.

 

 

sparkie 1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think you'll find a more liberal interpretation will apply than the strict sense you are hoping for. As for the interest of the ICO, I wouldn't hold your breath, as I have first-hand experience of their selectivity."""

 

I do not doubt the sincerity of what you are discussing, however you are close to the engine room and I can assure you it is not as black and white as you infer, there WILL be latitude (whether we like it or not), and it is this I feel you have to watch out for.

 

***My complaint was against the insurers Admiral Group Plc, passing my personal data to the 'Insurance hunter' database. I was not a customer of Admiral, or any of their subsidiaries. I asked then to confirm that my data had not been passed to Insurance Hunter, and they advised for Fraud Prevention purposes, they could. Involving the ICO, I provided them with the correspondence file which included letters from an unrelated firm in County Durham, who were acting as an 'Uninsured Loss Recovery' agency, and my details were supplied to them by Admiral.

 

After deliberation, the ICO asked Admiral if (a) By details had been passed to an outside agency, and (b) If they had passed my data to Insurance Hunter.

 

Admiral responded by saying that they had not passed my data to anyone, but in view of my concern, they would remove my file from IH as a 'goodwill gesture'. The ICO felt this was progress and closed the matter without seeking my response or agreement.

 

I went ballistic, the ICO ALREADY had proof that Admiral has disclosed my data to this other company, but either couldn't remember or ignored the issue. I have been unsuccessful in obtaining a response and I'm in the process if evaluating the ICO correspondence to see if I can use any of the documentation to further my action against Admiral.

 

The ICO paid lip service to the case, and copped out. I wish you luck, but don't go hyper over it, they will more than likely do a snow job as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Added footnote

At the first hearing of my case in court I had applied for it to be heard on the fast track, on reading my evidence and statement of claim the Judge said "far too many issues involved in this case" I am moving this case up to the multi track .....and to the High Court ......Cobbetts barrister at the hearing nearly had a heart attack.

 

 

sparkie 1723

Guess they've got to do that as your case certainly throws up a fair few (possible) precedents.Let me know when you've got a date through as I believe that much of what you have stated in your thread has major implications for my partner who has also suffered similarly and whom has, since the loss of his business, been unable to open even a basic current account owing to the fact that there has been a notification of fraud on his account because he'd been confused with someone else!!!

 

Best of luck any way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

onetrackmind,

 

Thanks for the good wishes, got my court date 29 and 30 March, 7days to go, Cobbetts have upped their clients offer for me to shut up to and go away to £5000, not achance , I've informed them that I believe this case should go to court, not only in my interests but in the publics interest, have not heard a peep to date.

Have a look at my post on my claim on the RBOS forum "big Claim RBOS I've put a lot of info on that forum, Thanks again for the good wishes

sparkie 1723

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...