CAG CRA S.A.R Club

[buzby]

Isn't a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) just an expensive way of getting the same data fdor just £2 - that statute fee for applying for your credit reference?

[buzby]

Ah, tks. I hadn't seen the £2 effort described anywhere as an 'overview'. The enhanced services providing credit scoring and fraud protection for an ongoing monthly fee are really only additional bolt-ons using the data they already hold, and in itself not a factual representation of the actual data registered against your name.

[buzby]

I would be interested to discover what limitations they put on the data they are required to provide for the £2 fee. If you are saying there is more information that would affect my credit status viewable for an additional £8 (or whatever their fee is), then this would be an issue for the ICO.

 

As for Call Credit, for my £2 I got just 3 words on my report; 'No Data Stored'.

 

As a £2 investment I can just about stand for that, but not at a tenner!

[buzby]

SO then I say but look they don't even have a CCA in place so how can this data be right? I then get met with the reply that the company deny what I am saying.

 

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, a CCA agreement does not need to be in place for a creditor to report your dealings to a CRA. All it needs is your agreement - similar to that offered by mobile companies - which are not CCA regulated, but your agreement to disclose info to CRA's is!

[buzby]

Kinda irrelevant, really. The reference is to Section 10 of the Consumer Credit Act, which elizabeth1 feels must always be in place before a CRA processes data onto your credit file. Which isn't the case at all. CRAs can accept data from their clients, but the latter have to ensure they have told you (via T&Cs) that your financial dealings will be disclosed in this way.

[buzby]

the point is without the CCA as a properly executed agreement these DCA's don't own the account no matter what they argue - so should never have issued defaults or continuation of the CRA files.

 

Sorry, but a DCA has the right to process your data without a CCA agreement being in place. I provided evidence of this in my earlier post.

[buzby]

Absolutely, it is done all the time. But it is not the CRA who registeres the default - they are simply the facilitator - it is the creditor company who places it on your file. However the CRA need only their client (the creditor) to state that the consumers is in arrears or in default for the record to be updated. If you discover this and it is in error and the CRA refuses to update or correct the entry (usually after speaking to their client to originally provided the data), then your next recourse is to the Information Commissioners Office with a formal complaint, supplying any evidence to support your claim.

[buzby]

Nope - let's take this a stage at a time. You've now added the word 'lenders' to the equation, whereas my original comments were simply pointing out that a consumer, entering into a contractual arrangement with a firm (that includes the relevant disclosure to CRA clause) no formal CCA contract is required.

 

Now, moving onto the 'default' - any firm can say you are in 'default' if they think you have broken their agreement - in the old days this was previously called a 'Final Demand' - but they link the new terminology 'cos it sounds legal-eze. Once they flag your account as in default, they can carry on and do pretty much what they like to try and get their money back. They are under no obligation to provide you with a written notice or require you to make good the problem. They can tell the CRA you've been naughty and set a DCA on you.

 

Now, for those situations where credit (money) has been provided, then for those transactions where the Consumer Credit Act applies (you would need to check that it does, and usually it is stated on your contract) in this case certain formal steps must be complied with in the issuing of the Default Notice.

 

As to your last paragraph, Lowells (whom I've deal with before and received no satisfactory communication from them) but they are a DCA and should not be defaulting you for anything since the probability is the original firm - who passed your file to them, had already done so. Therefore there is a risk you will have TWO defaults for a single debt, and that is not allowed. You would need to contact the Information Commissioners Office to deal with this.

[buzby]

....and just while you are on the subject of data sharing...did all you people know that when you move home and fill in a redirection order for your mail the Royal Mail sell your new address to ' interested parties' ?

 

Yup - I mentioned this in another thread recently to a sanguine response. I understand RM actually get paid well for providing this service, which makes you wonder why they charge you for the 'redirection'. Further, there is no opt-out facility to receive only the requested redirection. I wonder if the ICO would act?

[buzby]

The royal mail has got such honest people working for them, I do think, I sent some vouchers as a present to my grandchild a couple of years ago and it was stolen by them, they could not locate it. I am sure people have read about the thieves that they had working for Royal Mail a few years back millions was stolen by employees.

 

I has the same issue - my granddaughter's 6th birthday card contained a Disneyworld 5-Day pass and 2 cinema tickets in a birthday card. It was delivered ripped open and inserted into a 'Found Open In The Mail' plastic bag. Of course, the card was intact, but the tickets which were stapled to the card had 'fallen' out. RM said it was my fault I had sent it my RD and not Special Delivery and only paid £33 in compensation. Since a staff member at the mail centre was dismissed for theft on a large scale at the same time, they were immune for liability as RMs Act of Parliament SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES liability due to theft by staff. Clever, eh?!

[buzby]

Worth remembering that Great Universal Stores created the country's largest CRA, effectively selling on the data they had initially collected from their customers.

[buzby]

I haver just today received Junk Mail from Call Credit completely out of the blue. I have never given them my details and whilst there is the usual disclaimer at the bottom should I wish to unsubscribe, I still class this as unwarranted and would be grateful if others advise if they too receive the same type of mailing - offering to ensure you 'retain' a high credit score.

[buzby]

A lot of this JUNK mail comes from guarantees you fill in when you bu a new Hoover or Washing Machine or whatever.

 

Not in my case, as I never provide this information as a matter of course. The same goes for my DoB. Even my local library said they wanted it before I could use their Internet terminal! I demanded to see the Head Librarian and was told it was so they could generate a password for access. Asking why I couldn't give a random 6 digit number instead stumped her. Yet others gave out their info without question.

 

Interestingly, Callcredit's e-mail was supposedly from 'Call Credit Anti-Fraud' as the SENDER, and used my first name as a salutation (which could not have been discerned from the email address itself). I've now responded asking for details of where my information was obtained - as part of MY security procedures.

[buzby]

Yup, who would have thought that a CRA would stoop so low....!

[buzby]

Danny, I'd find that kind of initial question impertinent - and my response is, "what's yours?, is there going to be a surprise party?" This usually floors them. However, as I have ACR (Anonymous Call Rejection) on my phone line - free from VM, and I won't answer calls to my mobile that don't present a number, these incidences are getting fewer!

[buzby]

Hmm 'low single digit organic growth'. Sounds as though the cash-cow has been milked to oblivion! I wonder what their credit score has sunk to...?

[buzby]

Whilst you're doing that, also consider using middle initials spuriously to track who misuses your data. The CRAs may keep things separate until a formal 'linking' takes place. I'm unsure if they get Deed Poll changes and record them as a matter of course, but nothing would surprise me.

 

The middle initial ploy is most useful in tracking down where your details originated from, and I developed this system.

 

A - the default

C - Council, (library, property taxes etc)

S - Retail / Shopping / Surveys

T - Inland Revenue

V - Voting (Electoral Registration)

 

the remainder are used for various other purposes!

[buzby]

I can't claim the credit for originating the idea, on the Glasgow Underground (which is a circular railway) back in the 1960's every station have an advert on the wall for a hypnotist called "Joel B. Sneader", offering to help you stop smoking or give up gambling or whatever.

 

As the train moved on to the next station, I noticed the person offering the service was now "Joel C Sneader" and so on, round the 15 stations. Mr Sneader then knew from his customers calls which underground station his adverts were best placed!

[buzby]

Within a few months of Registry Trust recording a CCJ against me, I received at least 18 invitations from firms ranging from Barclaycard and others all offering to help me 'repair' my credit. The problem I had was with a lender and the blight was eventually lifted, however with RT actively SELLING this information (that is supposedly in the public domain, but on their computers) I have no opportunity to opt out or seek that my data is not disclosed in this way. I have no doubt that for their own perverse reasons the Government will not kick the crutch away from RT - but someone should.

[buzby]

But is it in the 'public domain'? This information used to be freely available, along with other lists of public record (like the Land Registry, or Births Marriages or Deaths). Now it seems, you have to PAY someone to see this information (so it it 'public'?) I think this is another case of back-door privatisation.

[buzby]

Good post Elizabeth1, This is one of the reasons I believe the Land registry should be challenged about divulging monetary values on property. IT IS PRIVATE and nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else.

 

This made me laugh, as the Land Registry - a sort of latter-day Domesday Book has been part of the fabric of these lands for centuries. What you are against is that people can access information and obtain details about you - this is your right - but the LR has by necessity been a public record and remains so. As do your BMD information and Electoral Registration and a pile of other things.

 

I need my investment to be recorded to ensure my rights are not infringed, that if something is going to effect my enjoyment of the land/property there is a method to contact me, but more importantly the Councils and Government use access to this to ensure relevant taxes are paid. The fact you own a property is a statement of fact, it is not 'personal' in the accepted sense like your medical records, and we all know when the Electoral Register went to an opt-out, the CRAs were given FULL access rights. I disagreed with this but they still got their way. Trying to make public records private isn't going to happen, as there are downsides that could have serious consequences.

[buzby]

Actually - it is my beef I have now to pay £3 for the data when previously I could get it for nothing!

 

Of course, YOU might not want someone to know how much you paid for a house, but then, if I was contemplating buying it how could I be sure you had good title to do sol? The fact the price is mentioned by chance also helps me gauge the amount to bid for the property, and since this has always been part of the data since the Domesday book, complaining now simply because it is more accessible for people to look at is a weak argument at best. Personally, I dislike the idea of the data being available but there's nothing I can do to change it and it is the same rules for us all.

 

Strangely, we have the ER example, where because of firms misusing the data, they were made subject to amendments to the law that allowed you to opt out of the the main register (not called the 'edited register') whilst the original could only be used for electoral purposes. Then, the CRAs managed to get an exception that gave them - one of the main users of the data - to get the full register so those who opted out would not be 'unduly inconvenienced' in obtaining credit. It was a risk I was prepared to take but the government agreed it would also help combat fraud (now where have we heard that argument before - oh yes, ID Cards). We're almost back where we started and what we want is immaterial. Public Records are one thing, but I am of the opinion that a CRA holding records about me without my permission than the LR doing the same with my property. Perhaps we should advocate that a CRA has to comply with a consumer's request to opt-out of hold data about them? Now, that WOULD be useful data 'protection'!

[buzby]

Would this section override the Data Protection Act i.e. creditor has to have your consent to disclose data e.g. to a credit reference agency, and if so can you withdraw consent?'

 

That's like arguing black is really white! The CCA is just that, it applied only where an agreement exists that is covered by it. In the pecking order, LR trumps all interests that follow it (for example, how the lender deals with you). As for other non-credit purposes, the provisions of the CCA are irrelevant.

[buzby]

Some observations; They'll get away with the unconnected letters by stating it was an 'isolated administrative error' so there will be little to be gained through the ICO on this, but you can strill make use of it. Return this correspondence and in your covering letter, acknowledge that you have recived your data and would like them to confirm that the information you have been sent represents the completed file with no omissions or exclusions. Ask for a statement confirming this.*** For good measure you can add that as the file only starts in 2004 (or whenever) you are interested in data prior to this date.

 

Regarding the SAR, this isn't time limited - they have to provide ALL data they hold. AIUI CRAs cannot provide data more than 6 years old, but there is a misconception that they delete it. I've been told they delete nothing, as a Data Subject you are also entitled to this 'spent' data.

 

 

 

*** This means is it ISN'T and they lie to you, the ICO can take formal action.

[buzby]

You can get off-the-shelf companies that have either traded or not for £99. There's nothing illegal about it - as for making it into a 'front' for a debt management enterprise, there's nothing to stop you as there is no licencing process. As for the CRA's if you can pay them the money, they'll provide access to the 'club'. In days gone by my bank actually did this (checked the status) of a potential customer for me for a small fee!