CAG CRA S.A.R Club

[elizabeth1]

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.

 

I have been going through the process of having my home on sale and I do not want neighbours to know, Why? - because the first question they ask - What price? Its like telling someone your salary - feck off it's got nothing to do with you or anyone else. So why is it so important for the Land Registry to provide Joe public with the price I either Paid for or Sell my house for? This is very wrong. Keep the statistcis, fine for general average property prices, but what I get for my house - my business and no one elses.

 

As for the Charge on a property, remember they can also put a ' Caution' on if the can demonstrate they have some kind of interest in your asset. It's dead easy to put on and hell to get off.

 

 

This Freedom of Information lark has really gone too far - and in the WRONG hands can become lethal.

 

BY SIMPLY SITTING AT HOME WITH THE INTERNET WE CAN FIND OUT HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE.

 

We really don't have privacy anymore - these companies just need to sit someone at a PC and it's amazing what they can research on people in a few minutes really. Land Registry is just one element they can use to establish whether a person is worth chasing for a debt owed or not.

 

Annoying really as it tells these companies far more than they need to know. Like Andrew says - it is not just these companies that can get this info - we can find out who sell what house for what price, what loans a person had against a property and guess a persons "worth" etc.. = the world knows our business?

 

Nothing intimate about any of our finances is there these days?

[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.

[andrew1]

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.

 

 

Information regarding the land I occupy, where it is and what it is I have no problem, I have no problem with the figures I bought and sold the property for being record for ' statistical purposes ', but I do not see any relevance whatsoever in telling someone else who wants to pay £3 what I paid or sold it for. That's just not right - Unless you can provide me with a convincing argument to the contrary. It has nothing to do with DCA's or my next door neighbour what I bought and sold for, okay, the tax man can see it, the land registry record it, but the monetary value for the general public? - feck off - non of your business!

 

 

also,: "What you are against is that people can access information and obtain details about you - this is your right" ....... my right or other peoples right?

[Allwood]

As buzby said they are not going to make public records private, the land registry has always been open but it is more accessible to everyone now who has go access to a computer. It is big business and it is easier for social services when elderly people in the England, (not Scotland or Wales), has to into a nursing home their home has to be sold in the end to pay for the nursing home, therefore it is much easier for the government to have this information at their finger tips when a property is sold for this purposes, as well as like stamp duties and of course the land registry is making money from it as well as estate agent, solicitors and **** debt collectors.

[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'!

[andrew1]

Buzby, I understand your argument and what you are saying, I'm playing devils advocate here, so 'testing' the argument is all I am doing. I do not profess to being much of an historian, records may well go back to the Doomsday book and what was paid, but there are flaws in the case you argue.

 

What is to stop the Inland revenue having access to the property sale/purchase price just as they do for my income? That information is not on public record nor should it be, but the revenue keep full details of it.

 

If I buy an Antique from you, should I know what you paid for it so that I can have a better or clearer bargaining position? I think not.

 

Title can be confirmed quite easily with the Land Registry without the financial transactions being for all to see. As for the rules, well the banks all had rules didn't they and we have seen what has transpired with them. I don't see any problem having a name on the Electoral Register, otherwise how would anyone know where or who we have in the country ( they don't anyway, but hey ho!).

 

I do not have a problem with anyone having information on a 'need to know' basis. 'Want to know' is one thing, 'need to know' quite distinctly another, and I really don't see why a section 10 on the Land Registry shouldn't stop them advertising to the world my financial status without my permission. Credit Reference Agencies are a good example. There is nothing in statute as far as I'm aware which says we HAVE to have our data registered with them other than what is in the public domain such as Bankruptcy or Criminal Activity, but these CRA's have brainwashed us all into believing that it is their right to record all this information and they have colluded with their masters, the financial institutions, to have clauses in their agreements which allows with the inclusion of ones signature under the small print, to let them pass our details around the globe - that doesn't make what they do lawful or that we, under statute have to have that information processed for another 6 yrs. So where does that leave the Land Registry? Lawful or just what they can make money out of in our ignorance? You tell me.. I think it needs challenging.. might be another pounding like the banks, but needs challenging none the less.

 

 

 

Sarah

[Allwood]

'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'!'

 

I totally agree with the above also it would be a benefit if the government were to put more restrictions on the CRA's as well, due to the amount of information that they hold on everyone in the country, it is a huge money making racket and the CRA's do not mind who or what goes on as long as they get their money for their share holders as well as the CRA's that are not PLCs the are only concern about getting money in for their company.

[make them aktiv runners]

Information regarding the land I occupy, where it is and what it is I have no problem, I have no problem with the figures I bought and sold the property for being record for ' statistical purposes ', but I do not see any relevance whatsoever in telling someone else who wants to pay £3 what I paid or sold it for. That's just not right - Unless you can provide me with a convincing argument to the contrary. It has nothing to do with DCA's or my next door neighbour what I bought and sold for, okay, the tax man can see it, the land registry record it, but the monetary value for the general public? - feck off - non of your business!

 

 

also,: "What you are against is that people can access information and obtain details about you - this is your right" ....... my right or other peoples right?

I fully agree, what you paid and what you got is totally unnecessary and irrelevant to Joe Public. I also agree certain Government bodies should be entitled but not anyone else.

 

The deeds themselves give information useful to the purchaser without the need of paying a solicitor (i cannot however see how th purchase price would help a buyer)

[Allwood]

I am not sure about this but I think when you purchase a property you can request that the purchase price does not go on your deeds. Although, there are websites where you can obtain this information therefore it is irrelevant whether the price that you paid for your home is on the deeds or not.

[andrew1]

I bought my home 20 yrs ago so the price I paid totally irrelevant to a buyer. The information available to a DCA from credit files on what mortgage or loans I have is none of their business IMHO but combined they have a profile far too intrusive for my liking & what I sell my home for is just for nosey parkers and crass dca's.

[reallymadwoman]

I've been watching this thread with great interest as I am seriously concerned about the amount of information about me that is available to anyone with a computer.

As an example, today I got the renewal documents for my household insurance along with 3 other quotes! Where did these people get my renewal date? Have they guessed from the date I took out a mortgage?

I always 'opt out' of marketing information and I never answer questions I consider to be irrelevant e.g. asking for a motor quote and being asked your home insurance renewal date. I'm also registered with mail preference and telephone preference, but that doesn't seem to stop them.

This one may be trivial in the great scheme of things, and the unsolicited mail will be returned in their pre-paid envelopes as usual, but it's just an example of how far sharing of information has gone.

[reallymadwoman]

Also this may be of interest to someone on here.

 

'Found this when I was searching the CCA 1974 for something else.

 

'174 (1) No information obtained under or by virtue of this Act about any individual shall be disclosed without his consent ...

 

(5) Any person who discloses information in contravention of this section commits an offence.'

 

And from the enforcement section at the end

 

'Wrongful disclosure of information .....Summarily £400 On indictment 2 years or a fine or both'

 

There is a list of exemptions, none of which would apply to creditors/DCAs processing data.

 

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?'

[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.

[sosumi]

Hubby got his (£2) Credit Report from Experian yesterday. No compaints form, or copy of complaints procedure from them. Looks like the other £2 cheque was eaten by Experian - - but we're content to leave it at that, for now.

We'll never be using 'Loyalty Cards' again. I was looking at the Nectar Website yesterday, to see how to actually close the account, but I think they don't think anyone would want to. then there's also the 'Clubcard' belonging to that other supermarket giant - well, I have to admit I'm tempted to SAR them too!

I wonder if I can? There is actually a serious reason behind this - namely the completely wrong mobile phone bill my m-in-law received.

Anyway, I haven't yet SAR'd CallCredit.

As for the Land Registry - we're both struggling to get out and about just now, but that's still high on my list. I have absolutely no problems with the Land Registry - in exactly the same way that I have no problems with any other legal body having information about either of us. We always make da*n sure we're on the Electoral Roll, because we believe in democracy. Of course, if my voting choice shows up in 'Marketing Data' from a Credit Reference Agency... that's a completely different matter. Again, I think it's great that there should be a Fraud Tsar, but somebody should be watching CRAs too. Our property is our property. We're part of what we're told is an 'open society' and we accept our social responsibility. But you have to wonder, while the Government is actively working to reduce Fraud, why they're letting the Land Registry display signatures? English Law is (through the tireless efforts of people here) helping us challenge the behaviour of DCAs. But there's big business accessing everyone's information, and it's very uncomfortable, to say the least!

[andrew1]

oops!

 

Sarah

[andrew1]

As for the Land Registry - we're both struggling to get out and about just now, but that's still high on my list. I have absolutely no problems with the Land Registry - in exactly the same way that I have no problems with any other legal body having information about either of us.

 

For the avoidance of doubt in my mind sosumi, following my earlier posts, can I ask, are you happy about the financial data ie: sale price/purchase price and what mortgages/loans are on Land Registry being available to Debt Collection Agencies et al?

 

If so,would you mind giving me an idea of your perspective on it as I'm trying to get convinced there are good public reasons for it being available in broader terms than perhaps I am looking at it?

 

Thanks

 

Sarah

[sosumi]

Hi Sarah,

I'm not disputing that there may be a case against having private information so publicly accessible, only that in our case, we are working on the assumption that everything about the Land Registry is legal, and that what they do is in the wider public interest. I don't claim to know anything about the Land Registry except that it is part of the Government, and I have to believe that Government, at the highest level, is working to protect the citizens of this country. Our society is being threatened by outside forces - eg. the London bombings - and it is important that people who perpetrate such attacks should be brought to justice. I might not like it, but I accept that the public interest is at times, best served by withholding some information to citizens, but having it available to statutory bodies. Again, I'm on a quest for answers, but I also need to have faith in Government. The Freedom of Information Act allows me, I think, to access my medical records if I asked for them. I wouldn't, but the option is there. I have to trust, Andrew1 - that's all it comes down to. I have to have faith in the State.

I can give an example. A couple of years ago we drove to Dover as a birthday treat. We booked a room at the Travel Inn in Dover, but didn't know where it (Travel Inn - or Travelodge?) was exactly. So we parked up in a car park in town, bought a couple of foot passenger tickets and took the ferry to Calais and back. We love the journey. We bought some duty-free wine and ciggies, but spent most of our time on deck. It's great to see Dover fade out of view, then the white cliffs greeting us on the way back. People do these journeys all the time I know, but for us it's a rare treat.

So we got back into Dover, got in the car and tried to figure out where the Travel Inn was. The road maps weren't helping, so we asked a cashier in the petrol station on the main road in Dover. She said just turn left, it's at the top of the cliff. My navigation's crap and we drove into the ferry terminal! We realised what we'd done, but were about 50 yards past the barrier so couldn't just reverse out again. So we drove on, met officials, explained we were trying to get to the Travel Inn and they passed us through. We must have met at least four sets of security guards, but we just explained and carried on. They gave us an 'owl' and told us to follow the 'owl' signs. We followed the 'owl', sadly we had to give it back at the last checkpoint (couldn't keep it as a souvenir!), got back out of the ferry terminal and - eventually - found the right road to the Travel Inn. :oops:It was pretty obvious to all concerned that we'd made a mistake, but we were also glad that security was so high at that time.

I'm trying to deal with things one at a time. It's hard, because I'm also writing, hubby's got a broken foot and I'm decidedly wobbly. As far as I know, everyone's argument is sound, but I have to try and focus on what I know I can deal with. When I get to the Land Registry offices I'll be asking a lot of questions though! Particulary re. DCA 'access'!

[andrew1]

Oh, I wish I had your faith! I often come through Dover on the ferry and sometimes I wonder why they waste money on these guards - walk straight through not a soul in sight! - mind you, that vision of Dover fading into the distance is pretty special isn't it? Mobile switched off and not a telephone wire to be seen - love it!

 

I sadly USED to have your faith, but then you are probably younger than I and I believed in my guardians of my country - now, I wouldn't trust a living soul of a politician. I'm sure there are some good ones amongst them, but collectively I've seen too much waste and ignorance of the real world down where it matters and once you start to uncover things and the goings on I have been finding in my ventures to expose you lose a considerable amount of faith in those so called carers of our well - being. It's a real sad feeling to think that you can't trust people anymore. I do trust, but even friends can't be trusted I have found out, loose talk, selfishness, in this highly demanding life pattern we have these days, people do not have the time to be careful and I hate it not trusting people, but I've got more knife marks in my back from those I trusted than I care to mention.

 

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts - all helps expose the 'transparent' organisations a little more. Trouble is I'm beginning to enjoy it! Gotta get a life!

[stevokenevo]

Jeez, i have just read this thread from start to finish.

 

Now that people have received the info they requested from the CRA by SAR, how do they plan to use this info?

 

I have not sent a SAR, but know exactly which entries i would like to challenge on my report.

[andrew1]

Jeez, i have just read this thread from start to finish.

 

Now that people have received the info they requested from the CRA by S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), how do they plan to use this info?

 

I have not sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), but know exactly which entries i would like to challenge on my report.

 

This is all about finding out where all your data is passed about, who to, what for, what was sent, so you know who knows what about you.

 

In the Data Protection Act there are laws as to what can be passed on by people-companies about you and this request to the CRA's tells you what everyone else knows about you - believe me it's frightening. You can then use other means like Section 10 notices to stop your data being processed. It's a lot of reading, and a lot of debating, but well worth it in the long run.

 

When you think that next year, when the fixed rate mortgages are coming to an end which began a year or eighteen months ago, when you apply for a new rate or new deal on a mortgage you will be given a rate according to your credit history. One false default could cost you thousands over the years - THAT is why it is so important that EVERYONE gets to know what is in their Credit files and where your data is going to. Worth every penny of the £10.

[stevokenevo]

Ok Andrew, thanks for the advice.

 

I shall organise a letter and pop it in the post, as you say, for £10 it has got to be worth it.

[Paintball]

This is all about finding out where all your data is passed about, who to, what for, what was sent, so you know who knows what about you.

 

In the Data Protection Act there are laws as to what can be passed on by people-companies about you and this request to the CRA's tells you what everyone else knows about you - believe me it's frightening. You can then use other means like Section 10 notices to stop your data being processed. It's a lot of reading, and a lot of debating, but well worth it in the long run.

 

When you think that next year, when the fixed rate mortgages are coming to an end which began a year or eighteen months ago, when you apply for a new rate or new deal on a mortgage you will be given a rate according to your credit history. One false default could cost you thousands over the years - THAT is why it is so important that EVERYONE gets to know what is in their Credit files and where your data is going to. Worth every penny of the £10.

 

Here, here to the latter part of your post Sarah; in the last few months since I began an audit of my Personal Credit File, I have discovered so much in it that is either damaging or incorrect ... and I am currently trying to assess that damage in monetary terms, a task in itself.

 

The conclusion I have come to (as have others on this thread) is that data sharing is a money making exercise and therefore tolerated and in many instances, positively encouraged, with little or no thought to to the wider implications and basic rights of the data subject (or just turning a blind eye in the assumption that we will do nothing). In other words, a [problem]!! It's the job of Mr Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner to protect these rights and to monitor what is shared, by whom and the methods used ... is this really being done? No!

 

Mass complaint anyone?

[andrew1]

Okay, so money making eh? well take one Registry Trust - a not for profit organisation set up to record CCJ's on behalf of the court service by a Mr Malcolm Hurlston - you know the chap - that's right he who set up CCCS the debt help charity.

 

Well, would you like some ccj records? Cheap at twice the price for anyone with a little bit a dosh - of course there's no money in it is there?

 

This is a price tariff obtained straight from the horses mouth if you fancy taking a look: It's only part of it and I start on part 3:

 

"Thirdly we provide data in bulk to organisations that require all of the judgments filed within England and Wales. Again, using this method we can only supply new judgments being processed each day and therefore cannot supply data on judgments filed historically. The data is received and verified by us on a daily basis and files of successful records are put up to FTP sites each night, Monday to Friday. The data purchaser then collects these files and processes the data in accordance with our contract and data protection principles. As a guide, including satisfactions and cancellations of judgments, we process in the region of 4,000 records per day. We handle and verify each record individually so the processing of the data to match satisfaction and cancellation records to their original judgment records is the responsibility of the purchaser.

The costs for buying data in bulk vary depending on the type of data required but currently are as follows:

 

-For consumer judgments only, there is a non refundable deposit of £20k (k as in 000's) and a refundable deposit of £72k required in advance and monthly payments thereafter of £24k, also payable in advance. (This makes the initial payment calculation: £20k+ £72k+ £24k).

 

-For commercial judgments only, the non refundable deposit is £5k, refundable is £15k and the monthly payments £5k.

 

-For consumer and commercial judgments the non refundable deposit is £25k refundable is £86k and the monthly payments £29k".

 

-For commercial judgment data an advance deposit of £17,250 (equal to three months estimated volumes) would be required. For consumer data the advance deposit payment is £60,320, (again, equal to three months estimated volumes). Any outstanding balance is fully refundable providing the one month’s notice has been given.

 

That's what I like about these not for profit organisations - be interesting to see their annual report and how much everyone gets in salaries wouldn't it?

 

When you get a flyer through the post, as snlc did from the Money Group (formerly The Mortgage Group) offering loans when you most need it, well this is where they come from - The Registry Trust - charging loan companies for freely available information ' IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (ccjs) and they are paying the Registry Trust these kinds of sums of money just to get your information to sell their sub-prime loans to you. Details were obtained from The Money Group after sending in an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and they get their info from Registry Trust and The Response Team ( haven't checked them out yet ). If they are prepared to pay this kind of money and Registry Trust are supplying not just Money Group, but all those other companies too there must be serious profits for the loan companies.

 

Now, if you wikipedia " Not for Profit Organisation" this is what it says and I hope for a certain number of people this is EXACTLY what happens:

 

" not-for-profit organization "

Definition

 

"An incorporated organization which exists for educational or charitable reasons, and from which its shareholders or trustees do not benefit financially. also called non-profit organization. "

 

Oh, and isn't it Mr Hurlstron who's judging the DCA's of the year awards - silly me, course it is. These very same DCA's who chase you when you can't afford these Sub Prime loans. I'll let you come to your own conclusions. - and I have more.....

 

 

Sarah

[Goldlady]

Abuse of position, insider dealing (criminal offence), conspiracy

[andrew1]

Abuse of position, insider dealing (criminal offence), conspiracy

 

No evidence of insider dealing - I'm working on it!