Clearing a default with Experian. . .

[hondamad21]

Ok Here is a few of the e-mails I have sent to Experian or Mr Lee Hancock in the Directors Office.

 

Now I know I have probably made some mistake so any help in any matter is greatly appreciated

 

Subject: Credit account information

Entry Number: ***

Query: Dear Sir/Madam,

 

As you can see from your records, I have recently received my credit report from Experian. I am writing to ask you formally to remove the following entry:

 

Entry Number: ***

Company name: EGG BANKING PLC

Account type: Credit Card / Store Card

 

In the cases of Egg plc default entry are invalid because I was not sent a default notice for the account. Egg plc have failed on various occasions to provide me with a copy of the alleged default notices.

 

I would like to remind you that this data belongs to ME not the company mentioned in the entry above. If you do not remove the entry in full, I will have no option but to issue you with a statutory notice to desist from processing my data. As a data controller you are obligated under the Data Protection Act to hold accurate data about a data subject, which must have been obtained legally.

 

"Section 10(1) Data Protection Act 1998 states that an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

(a) The processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) That damage or distress is or would be unwarranted."

 

As you can see there is NO mention of the CRA's being allowed to keep data for 6 years? Also I'm sure you can understand, the data for Egg's entry has not been obtained legally and the burden of proof lies with you to substantiate all information I am contesting; replying that you can't remove the data because the company involved have not permitted you to is simply not acceptable. If you cannot provide proof that the information is accurate then you are committing a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act.

 

I require the immediate removal of the entries mentioned above.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Hondamad

[hondamad21]

Response received . . .

 

 

 

Dear Mr ****

 

Thank you for your query received on 01 February 2007.

 

The accuracy of the information we hold is very important to us. Lenders (who provide most of the information on your report) use it to help them decide who to give credit to and therefore mistakes are not in our interests or theirs. We cannot check the accuracy of each piece of information we receive but we do carry out many important checks including whether or not names and addresses are complete and correct. We also make sure monthly updates to existing credit accounts are consistent with information previously sent to us.

 

We actively encourage people to check their own credit reports regularly and to tell us if they have any concerns about the information we hold. If any mistakes are brought to our attention, we contact the information provider immediately to correct any mistakes as soon as possible. We also produce free advice guides, under our consumer education programme, to help people understand and look after their credit histories.

 

In view of your comments about the default recorded by Egg, I am writing to them for you. This is because I cannot amend your report without their consent. I will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.

 

While I investigate your comments, I am adding the following statement to the entry you have queried.

 

"THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED."

 

Your report will change in the next seven days. Please use this letter if you need proof in the meantime.

 

I am telling all the companies that have searched your credit report in the last six months of the change to your information.

 

By querying the disputed information, we are fulfilling our legal obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998. The account information we hold actually belongs to lenders. Only they can amend it or tell us to amend it for them. We cannot amend or delete entries without the lender's direct consent. I would advise you that as a licensed client of Experian each supplying lender is obligated to ensure that the info they provide us with is accurate.

 

Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information as taking reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate.

 

Yours sincerely

--IMG_SIGMiss Rachel C Bury (RCB)--END_SIG

Miss ****

Consumer Services Officer

CreditExpert

[hondamad21]

My response to that. . .

 

 

 

Dear Miss ****,

I do not belie that you have actually read my letter in full. If you had you would realise that I am asking to remove all data in regards to my settled account with EGG plc.

Your statement . . .

"The account information we hold actually belongs to lenders. Only they can amend it or tell us to amend it for them. We cannot amend or delete entries without the lender's direct consent. I would advise you that as a licensed client of Experian each supplying lender is obligated to ensure that the info they provide us with is accurate ."

Is not entirely correct, the lender is only allowed to process the data when the contract is in operation. As the contract is now cancelled they no longer have that right. Also the providers have failed to provide roof of my consent; as I am sure you are no doubt aware, Experian is a Data Controller within its own right and has a legal obligation to make sure the information it holds is accurate and obtained lawfully. You have obviously ignored my concerned and failed to investigate fully, otherwise you would be aware of this. You will note that it is not sufficient for Experian to simply say that they cannot amend my data without the consent of the companies concerned.

You mention that you are writing to the companies concerned and I appreciate your efforts in this regard. You will note, as mentioned by yourself that Experian has a legal obligation to ensure all information it holds is obtained lawfully. Therefore, in anticipation of your reply that the companies state the information is correct and you cannot remove or amend it, I require you to provide evidence as per your obligations as a Data Controller that you have ensured its accuracy and legality.

In summary I will not accept a reply stating that my data cannot be removed purely based on the fact that the companies concerned have not given you permission to do so. If your reply goes along the lines of this, without providing evidence that you have adhered to your legal obligations as a Data Controller, I will issue you with a Statutory Notice which will compel you to provide the evidence. If you do not comply with my Statutory Notice I will issue legal proceedings.

I trust my position on this is clear enough.

Thank you for your time.

[hondamad21]

Next reply from Mr Hancock . . .

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr ****

 

Thank you for your e-mail received 8 February 2007, which has been brought to my attention in the Directors' Office.

 

We have recently been in contact with the Information Commissioner in connection with defaulted accounts being retained for six years from the date of default.

 

As you may be aware the first data protection principle states that:

 

Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless:

* at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met; and

* in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

 

One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is the view of the Information Commissioner that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent.

 

In the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is because if you do not agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice if you want the credit on offer.

 

The Information Commissioner has notified us that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

 

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

We have been informed that the Information Commissioner takes a wide view of the legitimate interests and considers that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions.

 

The fifth data protection principle states that:

 

Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

 

Account information is held by credit reference agencies for a period of six years after the account was last active. In addition to current credit commitments, the preceding six years of an individual's credit history is taken into account by credit grantors when applications for credit facilities are assessed. As a consequence, this historical information is relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this data the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the credit reference agencies do not appear to be in breach of the fifth principle.

 

I can also inform you that the Data Protection Act 1998 stipulates that we have an obligation to ensure that we take 'reasonable steps' to maintain information on our database that is accurate and up to date.

 

All of our clients sign up to strict terms and conditions within their contract that require them to make sure that all the data they submit is accurate prior to providing it to us. Our regulator, the Information Commissioner, considers that this is having taken 'reasonable steps'.

 

We also have over 200 generic checks in place to check the overall consistency of the data that we receive and a specialist department dedicated to running these necessary checks prior to loading the data to our records. This is because it is not possible for us to individually check each item of the data. This would involve going back to the company and asking them to check information that, as far as we are concerned, they have already confirmed to be accurate by sending the information to us.

 

If any specific issues are brought to our attention we will also query the accuracy of the specific entry being disputed with the company concerned and add a Notice of Dispute alongside the information being queried, as we have done in this instance.

 

You should also note that as an impartial third party, a credit reference agency can only make enquiries of credit lenders on behalf of borrowers. It is important to understand that a credit reference agency is in no position to determine whether information is accurate or inaccurate in the event of a dispute between the credit lender and a borrower.

 

Before undertaking potentially expensive legal action, I would strongly recommend that you contact the Information Commissioner, who regulates the Data Protection Act 1998, so you can verify my comments. The address that you may require is as follows:

 

The Information Commissioner's Office: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF

 

If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me directly either by e-mail at *** by telephone on 01***

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mr L J Hancock

Consumer Compliance Executive

Directors' Office

[hondamad21]

My reply to that . . .

 

 

16-Feb-07

 

Dear Mr Hancock,

 

 

Thank you your recent e-mail Ref:

 

There are a few points that I will like to raise with you.

First your statement regarding . . .

"Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless:

* at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met; and

* in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

 

One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is the view of the Information Commissioner that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent."

The consent is ONLY reverent when the contract is still valid. When the contract has been made null and void that consent is then withdrawn, as the contact is now NOT legally binding. The contract with the company Egg plc has now been cancelled for nearly 2 years.

Secondly your interpretation of the Information commissioner is misleading. As nowhere in your quote . . .

' "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject" '

. . .dose it state that you can continue to process data for a period of 6 years after a contract has been cancelled. Your continual process of data in relation to Egg plc is directly affecting my legitimate interests and thus affecting my rights and freedoms.

I would at this point also like to state that in the Data Protection Act it also states that . . .

"10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.

As the Data Protection Act states, I am entitled at any time by notice in writing to data controller (In this case you Experian) tell you to stop process any of my personal data on the grounds that it is causing me substantial damage or substantial distress.

Because of the data held by you on my file in regards to Egg plc, I have was unable to get a part time job at Bank X even though I passed the interview process. I have been unable to get an unsecured loan or a mortgage due directly to the default, thus causing my family and me substantial financial damage, as I am forced to continue with a mortgage where the interest rate is very high. Also by not being able to get a part time job to supplement my income, to pay for the higher interest rate, has caused my family and me incalculable distress.

I am happy to note that you accept . . .

"I can also inform you that the Data Protection Act 1998 stipulates that we have an obligation to ensure that we take 'reasonable steps' to maintain information on our database that is accurate and up to date."

. . .that it is legally binding for you to maintain information on your database that is accurate and up to date. As I have stated to you previously I have no recollection of receiving a Default notice (as is required by law) from Egg plc. My numerous requests to Egg plc to supply me with a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act have gone unanswered. I have even gone so far as getting Trading Standards to chase Egg plc on my behalf to no avail. Thus they have supplied no PROOF that the default has been legitimately applied. This then puts the matter to you, where you have taken inaccurate data and applied it to my file in breach of the Data Protection Act.

I have am now writing to the Information Commissioner regarding your continual processing of my inaccurate data. I am in particular mentioning your claim that you are allowed to process data for 6 years after a contract has been cancelled even thought it has/ is causing me substantial damage and distress.

I look forward to your response, however I will warn you that my patience is now wearing thin. Should you continue you premeditated statements I will then look towards launching a court action.

 

 

Your Sincerely,

[hondamad21]

I have today received another e-mail from Experian. I will update that and what I sent them when I get home tonight.

 

Hondamad

 

 

----------

“Everyone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.”

 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

[hondamad21]

sorry a bit later but here is his responce. . .

 

 

Dear Mr ****

 

Thank you for your e-mail received 16 February 2007.

As advised in my original correspondence, the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that in the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is because if you do not agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice if you want the credit on offer.Therefore, the issue of consent is irrelevant regardless of whether the contract is still active or not. The Information Commissioner has advised that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

Historical information is relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this data for a period of six years the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the credit reference agencies do not appear to be in breach of the fifth data protection principle that states:

Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

If an individual could simply have an account removed at the point that it became defaulted, there would be little incentive to maintain a good payment history on that account. The account holder would be aware that their ability to obtain credit in the long-term would not be compromised through their failure to meet the terms of the original agreement and this could lead to more people being less careful in how they managing their financial affairs.

This would ultimately be likely to result in more bad debt leading to higher interest rates for us all due to the inability of companies to properly assess applicants and the increased amount of debt that they would have to write off.

We will not be complying with your request under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the reasons stated above.

With regards to the accuracy of the information we have contacted the company on your behalf and will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.

If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me directly by writing to me at the following address:

Directors' Office, Experian Ltd, PO Box 8000, Nottingham, NG80 7WF

[hondamad21]

I am slightly nervous that I wrote this in heat of the moment rather than properly thinking and then drawing up a proper response:(.

 

My response. . .

 

 

Dear Mr Hancock,

 

Thank you for your e-mail dated 26 Feb 07.

Again, you have failed to say how my consent can still continue when the contract is cancelled. Can you point me to Act of law or any legislation, which states that YOU as a data holder/controller can continue to process my data when the contract I had are cancelled? Once the contract has ended, this term is no longer in situ, consequently this information cannot be made available to anyone without that consumers authorisation. There is nothing that grants the CRA's any rights to hold or process this information other than the contract, which was originally signed. Once this contract has ended, the rights under that contract also cease.

"Historical information is relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this data for a period of six years the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the credit reference agencies do not appear to be in breach of the fifth data protection principle that states:

"Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.""

I may be reading your quote incorrectly but where dose it state that you are allowed to keep the data for 6 years? Can you again please point me to some legislation which pacifically states 6 years when talking about defaults?

Before you answer that question I may ask you to look at the attachments I have sent with this e-mail. (SurlyBonds Scanned copy of the Experian letter) The attachment is a letter that was sent by your company to an associate of mine. In the letter your colleague admits that there is NO legal justification for you to hold on to my data for 6 years!!!

 

 

 

As for your comments. . .

 

"If an individual could simply have an account removed at the point that it became defaulted, there would be little incentive to maintain a good payment history on that account. The account holder would be aware that their ability to obtain credit in the long-term would not be compromised through their failure to meet the terms of the original agreement and this could lead to more people being less careful in how they managing their financial affairs."

I agree and disagree with that statement. First yes there should be an incentive for the account holder to maintain a good payment history. However there is already a right and legal way for Bank/Credit companies to maintain this via the threat of a County Court Judgment. This is both open and fair where by a Judge decides. A default has no legal bases.

I have kept this letter short in hope of a swift reply from you.

[un1boy]

hiya

 

he is basically saying exactly what he said to me.......good luck, I'll keep watching.....

[LeeS80]

 

If an individual could simply have an account removed at the point that it became defaulted, there would be little incentive to maintain a good payment history on that account. The account holder would be aware that their ability to obtain credit in the long-term would not be compromised through their failure to meet the terms of the original agreement and this could lead to more people being less careful in how they managing their financial affairs.

This would ultimately be likely to result in more bad debt leading to higher interest rates for us all due to the inability of companies to properly assess applicants and the increased amount of debt that they would have to write off.

 

 

I don't think any of us here are trying to remove defaults as soon as they occur, Mr Hancock (if you're reading!) more a point of removing settled defaults.

 

One of my big "bug bears" with this CRA crap, is that even though someone may have defaulted, their credit rating doesn't show that they have agreed to repay the debt once their financial problems were rectified (which is what happened to me).

 

As for responsible lending, well that's never gonna happen is it? My youngest brother came home last week, with a mobile phone contract for 18 Months, £35 per month. No checks were done to see if he was earning an income etc. So although I believe these comms companies are not governed by the CCA, surely to god this can't be classed as responsible??

 

Sorry for ranting in your thread, Hondamad, but my gripes seem to follow nicely from Mr Hancocks opinion. And that's all he has - an opinion. No Law.

 

I hope you get it sorted soon, I'll be watching the thread.

 

Lee

[hondamad21]

Hi LeeS80,

 

I agree with you. I was unable to pay Egg due to financial problems. As soon as they were sorted out I paid in full. At no time did I receive a default notice or even the intention of Egg defaulting me.

 

But hey CRA/Banks/Credit providers are a law on to themselves!!!

[un1boy]

Hi LeeS80,

 

I agree with you. I was unable to pay Egg due to financial problems. As soon as they were sorted out I paid in full. At no time did I receive a default notice or even the intention of Egg defaulting me.

 

But hey CRA/Banks/Credit providers are a law on to themselves!!!

 

Well, if that's the case and they have entered a default notice then they have committed a criminal offence under the CCA!!

 

They HAVE to send you a default notice!!

[hondamad21]

Egg sent me a computer screen print out with Default written at the top right hand corner. When I asked for a Certified and signed copy they said and I quote . . .

 

"We have previously provided you with a screen print showing the date on which your default notice was issued, and we are under no obligation to provide a signed copy of the actual notice. The default was registered lawfully and correctly and Egg acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Egg Card account to which you were a party at the time. Our actions were not therefore unwarranted. We do not accept that the placing, and continued presence of, the default on your credit file causes or is likely to cause substantial damage and distress as defined by section 10 of the Data Protection Act."

 

What a load of **** !!! :-x:-x

[un1boy]

Egg sent me a computer screen print out with Default written at the top right hand corner. When I asked for a Certified and signed copy they said and I quote . . .

 

"We have previously provided you with a screen print showing the date on which your default notice was issued, and we are under no obligation to provide a signed copy of the actual notice. The default was registered lawfully and correctly and Egg acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Egg Card account to which you were a party at the time. Our actions were not therefore unwarranted. We do not accept that the placing, and continued presence of, the default on your credit file causes or is likely to cause substantial damage and distress as defined by section 10 of the Data Protection Act."

 

What a load of **** !!! :-x:-x

 

Ok, they aren't required to keep a copy, but they do need to prove that it complies with sec 88 of the CCa:

 

88 Contents and effect of default notice

(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify—

 

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

 

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;

 

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid.

 

 

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than seven days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those seven days have elapsed.

 

(3) The default notice must not treat as a breach failure to comply with a provision of the agreement which becomes operative only on breach of some other provision, but if the breach of that other provision is not duly remedied or compensation demanded under subsection (1) is not duly paid, or (where no requirement is made under subsection (1)) if the seven days mentioned in subsection (2) have elapsed, the creditor or owner may treat the failure as a breach and section 87(1) shall not apply to it.

 

(4) The default notice must contain information in the prescribed terms about the consequences of failure to comply with it.

 

(5) A default notice making a requirement under subsection (1) may include a provision for the taking of action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) at any time after the restriction imposed by subsection (2) will cease, together with a statement that the provision will be ineffective if the breach is duly remedied or the compensation duly paid.

 

How can they do that if they can't provide the actual notice that was allegedly sent to you?

[conar686]

HondaMad/Uni boy et al

 

Mr hancock has stated much the same to me (pse see my post today), though in mine I think I've been the straw that broke the camels, as he has stated that Experian will no longer enter into correspondance with me.

 

Even though I may have defaulted, my credit rating doesn't show that I have agreed to repay the debt which I am doing through an IVA all it shows is '8 defaulted' not that I have been paying the debt off for the last 18mths

 

I'll be following this thread as we're at the same status. AS an after thought how, DO, we know the bold Hancock is not monitoring this forum & getting a heads up on our strategies - or am I being paranoid:rolleyes:

[humbleman]

I think it might be a good idea if all those affected by a common CRA gets together and issue them a writ and get them into a high court. Only my opinion.

[hondamad21]

His latest response . . .

 

6 March 2007

 

Dear Mr ****

 

Thank you for your e-mail received 26 February 2007.

Concerning the letter to another individual this was with regards to the information appearing on that persons credit report. You will also note that it makes no reference to defaulted accounts. In that letter we were referring to settled accounts and the advice given will vary depending upon the financial payment history of the individual concerned.

Settled accounts would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions you have complied with. As settled accounts have a positive impact on most credit scoring criteria the removal of such an account is only likely to adversely effect the individual to whom it relates.

The full letter also advised we will not be removing any information without direct authorisation from the company concerned.

As I have already advised the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that we do not require your consent to process account information about you. Therefore by retaining this information we are not saying that your consent continues after the closure of the account.

You should also be aware that we only make this information available to other companies with your consent. This is usually provided during the application process when the applicant will sign or provide verbal authorisation for the lender to access a credit reference agency's records to help them make an informed lending decision.

I would also reiterate that historical information is relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this data for a period of six years the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the credit reference agencies do not appear to be in breach of the fifth data protection principle.

I would remind you that the Information Commissioner's Office is an independent official government body responsible for administering the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We have now received a response from Egg and they have confirmed that the details we hold are accurate and have requested that we retain the information on our database. Unfortunately I am unable to amend this information without the authorisation of the company in question. If you have any further queries or wish to discuss this further, may I suggest you contact the company concerned direct at the following address:

Egg Banking PLC

: MsEgg PLC, Point North, Waterfront West, Brierley Hill, DY5 1LU The 'Notice of Dispute' will remain on your report for 28 days it will then be removed, unless I receive further notification from you:

"THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TOASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED".

You maybe aware that you are able to add a short explanatory statement, called a 'Notice of Correction', to your credit report. If you wish to add such a statement, anyone searching your details in the future, as well as companies who have searched the report in the past six months, will see a copy of it and it may have an effect on any future applications you make.

If you would like to add a 'Notice of Correction' to your credit report, please let us know the exact wording you would like to use. We cannot add a statement that is longer than 200 words or one we think is defamatory, frivolous, scandalous or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

We have clarified our position in connection with your ongoing dispute and I am sorry if this has not resulted in this entry being removed from your report. As we can only amend or delete information at the request of the companies concerned I would suggest that if you wish to pursue this matter that you take this up with them.

Alternatively, you may wish to take up this matter with our regulator, the Information Commissioner. The contact details you may require are as follows:

The Information Commissioner's Office

: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF Having queried the accuracy of the entry that you wished to dispute, we have fulfilled our legal obligations and complied with your rights under Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998. In view of this we will not be answering any further correspondence from you in connection with this matter.

Any other queries that you may have about your report will be dealt with in accordance with Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me

 

Directors' Office, Experian Ltd, PO Box 8000, Nottingham, NG80 7WF

Yours sincerely

 

1.So he is admitting that settled accounts can be removed depending on the financial payment history???

 

2. Again he is stating that consent is obtained via the contract but not giving reason/justification on how it can continue once contract cancelled.

 

3. Very interesting use of words when states . . .

 

I would also reiterate that historical information is relevant to the purpose of credit referencing and by holding this data for a period of six years the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the credit reference agencies do not appear to be in breach of the fifth data protection principle.

 

 

Anyone on how I should reply???

[conar686]

Looks like we are in the same boat (see my threads) we are being left with little option other than to take it to court action.

 

However, as on last attempt to get their attention & so show how serious I am on this matter I have sent the following letter

 

Consumer Compliance Executive

Experian Limited

PO Box 9000

Nottingham

NG80 7WP

Dated 3 Mar 07

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Dear Mr Hancock

I am in receipt of your email dated 28 Feb 07 the contents of which have been noted, I do not agree with your assessment, and am confident that I will win should this matter reach a court of Law.

I have not dismissed the ICO recommendations, rather I have noted them and asked for the statue in Law that allows you to process data on me that is plainly false, misleading or satisfied.

To reiterate all I have asked is that Experian

a. As Data Controller make sure the information it holds is accurate and obtained lawfully, I am within my rights to request you to please provide me with proof (copies of mails or letters will suffice) that you have done so.

b. Remove Satisfied & old data, as there is no legal statute that allows you process this data for a period longer than I allow it, certainly not 6 years. If I am mistaken please provide me with the appropriate statue.

c. Remove defaulted data as being misleading & false, I received no default notices nor have these companies provided me with true-signed copies of said, despite many a request for them to do so.

I have no interest in debating the differences between guidance & legality at this present time so please respond only to the points I have made above.

I’d hoped that we could have come to an amicable arrangement with respect to my data held & processed by Experian you leave me with little choice other than the following;

This is a formal notice, served under the provisions of Chapter 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 in requesting that you conform to my demand for a change in the manner in which you hold and process subject data about me.

As you are no doubt aware, Schedule II, Section 12 (1) of the said Act allows all data subjects the right to insist on the removal of any and all data from automated processes in respect of matters relating to them. I have reproduced that clause for your information, in case you do not have a copy to hand:

An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct

You will note the exact language of the Act, in that such a request may be made in relation to a number of different reference checks "which significantly affects that individual", and the Acts specifically cites

"credit worthiness" as one of those examples.

Recent checks on my file have caused severe complications, and now "significantly affect" my everyday life, and that of my family. An additional point to note is that issues of this nature that adversely affect "normal family life" are in breach of the Human Rights Act to which I referred in last letter.

Therefore, you have seven days from receipt of this letter to remove all such data from your system where it is referenced and processed via automated processes. You will obviously need to transfer it to your manual process system and alert your customers that my data can no longer be searched automatically.

If you fail to comply with the above, I will, initially, place a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office as your failure to comply with a properly served notice.

I will also seek guidance on your suitability to hold a Data Protection licence when you are clearly holding data that is no longer relevant to the account, the account information provider or the data subject, and is being held after a contract has been terminated, by whatever means, whether by default or cancellation.

Should ICO fail to take action I will be left with no other option to apply for an N1 County Court Order against you, which my legal representative & I are confident will result in you accruing Court fees, other legal expenses and disbursements.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the above change has been made to my file by the 12 Mar 07.

Yours Faithfully

[humbleman]

Conar686

 

excellent!!!!

[tifo]

some useful info here for me as well ....

[file_wizzard]

I apologise in advance as you will no doubt interpret my response to be negative, and not what you would wish to hear however the facts relating to the statements you have made are as follows;

 

Remove Satisfied & old data, as there is no legal statute that allows you process this data for a period longer than I allow it, certainly not 6 years. If I am mistaken please provide me with the appropriate statue.

you are quite correct, however the industry regulator (ICO) has already stated that the time period adopted would appear to be “reasonable” , and if you did chose to contest this in court you would need to present a very strong case to the court as to why the appointed regulators statement is flawed.

 

I’d hoped that we could have come to an amicable arrangement with respect to my data held & processed by Experian you leave me with little choice other than the following;

 

This is a formal notice, served under the provisions of Chapter 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 in requesting that you conform to my demand for a change in the manner in which you hold and process subject data about me.

 

As you are no doubt aware, Schedule II, Section 12 (1) of the said Act allows all data subjects the right to insist on the removal of any and all data from automated processes in respect of matters relating to them. I have reproduced that clause for your information, in case you do not have a copy to hand.

 

An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct[/size][/font][/i]

You will note the exact language of the Act, in that such a request may be made in relation to a number of different reference checks "which significantly affects that individual", and the Acts specifically cites

 

These paragraphs raise a number of issues;

 

Experian (or any CRA for that matter) do not engage in the automatic processing of your data, they merely store and publish to their clients, and within the scope of the act this is not classed “automatic processing” as no automated decision making is undertaken by the CRA’s themselves in respect of your data.

 

Therefore the request you have made above will only ever result in them responding to you and offering to place a notice of correction to your file which will state that you as a data subject have chosen to opt out of automatic processing under S.12(1), however unfortunately this is no guarantee that automated processing will stop, as the interpretation of this notice (or any notice of correction added to a file) is governed by the searchers own protocols and algorithms built in to any “scoring” system.

 

I’m sorry I cant be more positive, but the harsh reality is you will achieve little or no success pursuing the CRA in this manner, the best you will ever achieve is the addition of the S.12(1) notice.

 

If you want the core data removed this is a matter you would need to contest directly with the original creditor / primary data control and subsequently raise any potential litigation directly with them.

[Glenn UK]

I apologise in advance as you will no doubt interpret my response to be negative, and not what you would wish to hear however the facts relating to the statements you have made are as follows;

 

you are quite correct, however the industry regulator (ICO) has already stated that the time period adopted would appear to be “reasonable” , and if you did chose to contest this in court you would need to present a very strong case to the court as to why the appointed regulators statement is flawed.

 

 

 

These paragraphs raise a number of issues;

 

Experian (or any CRA for that matter) do not engage in the automatic processing of your data, they merely store and publish to their clients, and within the scope of the act this is not classed “automatic processing” as no automated decision making is undertaken by the CRA’s themselves in respect of your data. You make some valid points however, i am sure that recently it has been confirmed by the ICO that the CRAs have been deemed to be processing the data.

 

Therefore the request you have made above will only ever result in them responding to you and offering to place a notice of correction to your file which will state that you as a data subject have chosen to opt out of automatic processing under S.12(1), however unfortunately this is no guarantee that automated processing will stop, as the interpretation of this notice (or any notice of correction added to a file) is governed by the searchers own protocols and algorithms built in to any “scoring” system.

 

I’m sorry I cant be more positive, but the harsh reality is you will achieve little or no success pursuing the CRA in this manner, the best you will ever achieve is the addition of the S.12(1) notice.

 

If you want the core data removed this is a matter you would need to contest directly with the original creditor / primary data control and subsequently raise any potential litigation directly with them.

 

• "processing", in relation to information or data, means obtaining, recording or holding the information or data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data, including-

• • (a) organisation, adaptation or alteration of the information or data,

• • (b) retrieval, consultation or use of the information or data,

• • © disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, or

• • (d) alignment, combination, blocking, erasure or destruction of the information or data

 

I think you'll find they do process and have already in some cases been stopped from automatically processing some claimants data.

 

Could be wrong mind

 

Glenn

[file_wizzard]

Indeed they do "process" within the definitions of the act, however the line between processing and "automatic processing" is very thin, and this is the argument I imagine they would use.

[Glenn UK]

But Sec.10 of the act doens say that the Data controller has to be 'automatic processing' for the subject to have the right to tell them to stop their ptocessing it simply says

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

 

Since the CRA are data controllers if a subject sneds them a notice in writing that

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

Then the CRA has to stop processing the data full stop whether its automatic or not as i read it.

 

Of course whether the CRA agrees that the processing is likley to cauyse distress/dmage is the real issue imho.

 

One that is only likley to be resolved by the courts i think.

 

Glenn

[file_wizzard]

S.10(1) relates directly to “processing” and the argument they will use is that the industry regulator deems 6 years to be “reasonable in the circumstances”

 

If you are referring to “automatic processing” then it is S.12(1) which is applicable, not S10.(1).

 

12. - (1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data

controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.

 

 

And all this requires is the removal of an automated decision making process, not the base format in which the data is stored or published.