Experian - use of potentially misleading language

[SurlyBonds]

Well Mr Jones,

 

As you seem to be the official mouthpiece of Experian, would you mind telling me when Experian is going to change its web pages on "You and Your Rights" to correctly state what the legal position is.

 

Currently, the page states:

-------------------------------

Can I prevent Experian from holding information about me?

No. In fact, we have a legal right to hold information about people. Credit reference agencies (Experian, Equifax, and Callcredit) help lenders quickly process credit applications. If we did not hold such information then it would be much harder for you to obtain credit. A good credit record makes it easier for you to get credit.

------------------------------

 

When we all know, in reality, it should say something like...

"We have a right, as does anyone licensed with the ICO, to hold information about people that is already in the public domain (e.g. CCJs, IVAs, etc).

All other information is only lawfully stored and processed with your express written permission through a contractual agreement with your lender or supplier. You usually give this permission when you apply for credit or a service on the application form."

 

It is noted that both Equifax and CallCredit do not boast such a lordy claim that they have a "legal right" whan we all know that all 3 of you CRAs don't have any such statutory 'rights' whatsoever.

 

Maybe I should raise a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office that you are falsely representing your 'rights' to the public by way of deliberately wording it in such a way as to give the impression that you are a lawful or official body.

 

What you need to understand is that people will actually warm to the idea of CRAs much better if you actually start playing by the rules, and not twisting them to make people's lives hell.

 

Your call.

[SurlyBonds]

I recieved a reply from Mr Jones via a PM, but I thought it would be useful to share his reply and my obvious response, as I don't think this lad has the slightest clue as to why people get so angry against organisations like his who think they can railroad through the Law.

 

SurlyBonds

 

We will look at your proposal, thank you.

 

Can you explain what you mean when you say that we 'make people's lives hell'? Surely you aren't saying that the way we word an FAQ on our website is making people's lives hell?

 

James

 

What you CRAs fail to realise is that someone (like friends of mine) who may have had financial difficulties in the past, have moved on and and have sorted themselves out. In 11 cases I know about, the financial stress was nothing to do with buying expensive holidays and dining out and then throwing the towel in. They were, in fact, caused by reasons such as redundancy, divorce, fraudulent behaviour of their accountant, severe depression through death of a child, long-term illnesses, and in one case, the terminal cancer of a partner.

 

I appreciate that you don't yet seem quite old enough to have experienced some of the more traumatic episodes that life throws at us, but I do apologise if you have, as I have no desire to see anyone go through what some of these people have...even my worst enemies who, at the moment, are the CRAs and the banks.

 

In all cases, these people pleaded, even begged, for support from their lenders, mortgage companies, etc., and in all but one case were, effectively, thrown onto the social scrap heap whilst their possessions and homes were repossesed.

 

However, despite the gruelling trauma that they endured, most have come back, albeit not quite in confidence, to start afresh and move on in life. However, the banks, etc. have chosen to be nothing short of petty, childish and downright immature in insisting that default data must be kept "for the sake of the credit industry". It's almost like it's some sort of pathetic sacrificial cow, and no one must destroy old records.

 

These are people who are trying to restart their lives and need every assistance they can get... e.g. the normal mortgage rate as they can ill-afford 4-6% above what everybody else pays, purely because they hit hard times through no fault of their own.

 

And don't give me the usual bulls**t answer along the lines of: "Yes, but they can put a 200 word statement on their credit file to explain the circumstances", because it's an irrelevant nonsense, and well you know it.

 

200 words can, in no way, tell the proper story of how an accountant forced you into bankruptcy by spending all your money on the nags, how your child died tragically and how it screwed your life up, etc., and we all know that lenders don't take a blind it of notice to most statements anyway.. they just refuse, point blank.

 

Your industry is an unregulated and immoral cesspit of parasitic Muppets, just making money out of other people's information and talking spin and management-speak to wriggle your way out of any argument, even when you are clearly in the wrong. It's a pathetic playground ethos of "no blame here guv" when you can't even say sorry to someone when you have clearly got it so VERY wrong.

 

You disregard the Data Protection Act until someone stands up to you and threatens you with legal action, and walk over people's rights with such disregard to the Law that it is, frankly, shocking.

 

You are interested ONLY in generating money through supplying our data or supplying bulls**t stories and rumours to the press about Indentity Theft... the statistics of which, no one really believes - you really must think we're stupid to believe that one in 4 people has been IDd!!. However, you continue to do so to simply scare people into paying unrealistic sums of money to check their files on regular basis or subscribe to overpriced website services.

 

It is down to money...not social responsibility, or responsible lending practices or business ethics... it is simply money, and bonuses and stock options.

 

You have no "legal right" to store half the data that you do store, yet make stupid statements on your websites that you do, in the vain hope that people will believe your dishonesty. Unfortunately, with the dumbing down of education and the meteoric rise of spin, most people do believe such bull as they have no knowledge of their actual rights.

 

Your continued bleating of "baaaaa...The banks told us to put it on your file...baaaa" is total nonsense, and well you know it, and is a blatant evasion of your responsibilities under the Data Protection Act as a separate Data Controller. Between the two sets of organisations (banks/suppliers and CRAs), you have manged to wrap up the credit reference industry to the absolute detriment of the consumer and only for your own vested interests... it is nothing to do with helping the consumer. "Information is Power" is the mantra of the CRAs, "and we hold that power...Muhahahahahahha"

 

That is further proven by the inordinate amount of time that you take to handle queries or correct mistakes, and even they are often only corrected when the consumer has gone several rounds with you, which they should not have to do...again your pompous arrogance that you are ALWAYS right, and the consumer can't possibly be correct is quite disturbing to normal human beings and is totally irrational behaviour. So many people can't be wrong - there is only one common denominator here - the CRAs.

 

Your continued manipulation of statistics to spin out some bull about how many people "think your service is bluddy wonderful" is also a load of codswollop - we are NOT stupid. To dress up and include corporate clients' satisfaction surveys with those of the man on the street is downright deceitful. I have some news for you... the average citizen in this country thinks the CRAs suck and I don't know a single person who has NOT had an issue of some description with credit reference data or the CRAs themselves. And by the way, I am not some low-earning chavvy grunt who lives up to his eyeballs in debt - in fact I have a totally clean record, and mix in social circles of all classes - I am what you would market as an A1 consumer - and I am no longer astonished to hear people's complaints during normal conversation about the shoddy service of the financial service sector, including the CRAs.

 

Only when you, and the other equally discraceful CRAs, start operating in a more ethical, supportive and non-pompous attitude will people start respecting the CRAs for the work that they do carry out.

 

Until then, I will have nothing but disgust and contempt for your organisations, and I will make it my lifelong mission to continue exposing what a shoddy and immoral outfit you are, and that it's about time that the Govt. started coming down very hard on corrupt businesses like yours forcing you clean up your filthy little act.

 

But there again, you might choose to do it yourself...but then again, pigs might fly as there's too much money at stake, isn't there?

 

Making people's lives hell??... the word 'hell' doesn't even begin to describe what I see when trying to help people with these types of issues - you in your Ivory Tower aren't even worthy to meet half these people, let alone listen to their opinions as to how your agency has screwed up their lives.... and continues to do so, in most cases.

 

Maybe, just maybe, there might be a prick of conscience as you sit back sipping your Starbucks, and realising that not all is so rosy and cosy in Little England for those afflicted by the actions of agencies such as yours.

 

But, there again... "Porcine Airways Papa-India-Gulf-Sierra, you are clear for take-off, runway two six"

[dave]

Well, blow me down.

[Tinkerbelle]

Phew!! :o

*grabs a chair and quickly sits down fanning one's self*

 

Biff, Bash, Boff - Round 1 to SB. And 2, and 3, and 4, and ...

[Guest Alison82]

WOW, I feel sorry for anyone who gets on the wrong side of you!

[lesser1010]

way to go,at last someone saying what the rest of us think(well me for one).peoples champion.

[lickthewallfatboy]

WOW, I feel sorry for anyone who gets on the wrong side of you!

 

 

I was just about to say the same thing!!!

[dave]

There needs to be a major overhaul of the credit reference agencies and/or laws surrounding the issue.

 

Under the Data Protection Act, it's my belief that they are 'over processing' data too.

 

e.g. If you get defaulted for 10k you cannot (or would find it difficult to) obtain credit for the next 6 years.

If you get defaulted for £5, you cannot obtain credit for the next 6 years.

 

It seems to me to be 'over processing' and the punishment is the same regardless of the crime - i.e. the punishment does not fit the crime.

 

I think this could become quite a political hot-potato.

[Black Rat]

Well............ Mr Jones:rolleyes:

The silence is defening...........

[SurlyBonds]

Well............ Mr Jones:rolleyes:

The silence is defening...........

 

I'd be VERY surprised if Mr Jones comes back with any answer... I should imagine that knocking a few home truths into the open has probably hurt his cosied little feelings... he's probably blubbing into his Starbucks and all over his Pierre Cardin suit as we post "It's just not faaaiiiiiiiiirrrrr... [sob] [sob] why doesn't anybody like me"

 

I personally think the CRAs ought to start opening up and offering consumer panel forums so that people can really tell them what we really think...but I doubt we'd ever be invited to their cosy Ivory Towers as we are considered, after all, the great unwashed, without whose data, these parasites would be on the dole ...just like those that they love to opress.

[SurlyBonds]

There needs to be a major overhaul of the credit reference agencies and/or laws surrounding the issue.

 

Under the Data Protection Act, it's my belief that they are 'over processing' data too.

 

e.g. If you get defaulted for 10k you cannot (or would find it difficult to) obtain credit for the next 6 years.

If you get defaulted for £5, you cannot obtain credit for the next 6 years.

 

It seems to me to be 'over processing' and the punishment is the same regardless of the crime - i.e. the punishment does not fit the crime.

 

I think this could become quite a political hot-potato.

 

Totally agree... it's a absolute disgrace the liberties that they go to.

 

In a Court of Law, every judge has to apply 'sense of proportion' in relation to the 'offence', damages or punishment - it is one of the fundamental things that thye must mash into their judgement.

 

The CRAs are black or white... and that's it. And the biggest problem is that it is actually hurting those who can least afford it.

 

Maybe today's letter from Experian will be the major kick-start in my own campaign to get these ars*s into line. I am already meeting with a national paper to are keen to hear these views, and have (via my MP) arranged to discuss the matter with the DTI.

[jamesbond]

oh dear me !! appears cras have got trouble coming , go get em sb.

[jimfishybob]

Er...there's no 'p' in decietful.

 

:D

[SurlyBonds]

Er...there's no 'p' in decietful.

 

:D

 

Ay... and it's also spelt 'e' before 'i'...

[buzby]

FWIW back in the days the Electoral Register was being split intro a Public/Private version to allow people to opt out as they wished, Experian, I recall was the one who made the most bleating that if theyt could not access the data the country would sink under fraudulent credit agreements and the like unless an exception was made to give them access to the full live register.

 

And whaddayaknow? The Government agreed so that the information you give for Electroal Registration purposes as an opt-out, reaches the CRA's because their commercial interests were at stake.

 

Makes you sick.

[purplefile]

Well said Surlybonds.

Well said indeed.

 

What can we do to help in your lifelong mission??

[un1boy]

Surly I have just read your answer and all i can say is wow - wait to go and wondered what everyone thinks of drafting up a letter to our MP's? Maybe a template letter like the one for the cahrges in the template library which I will be sending asap.

 

Imagine if thousands of people sent their MP's the letters about the CRA's and their lack of compliance with the DPA etc - surely they'd have to act, it's basically a criminal offence. The MP's would be inendated.

 

I for one would definitely send it and would personally make sure all my friends and family did too!! Any comments?