Yes, quite simple... the complaint was not handled by their legal department, so I am taking action aganst them for advocating advice that has not been properly investigated in relation to the contractual issues. That complaint has gone above the head of the person who sent the letter, and has also gone to several MPs and the DTI. The I.C.O.s office has now referred the matter to their own legal people as they are now concnered that any advice going out to the CRAs was without their knowledge. In fact, the I.C.O. solicitor that I spoke to, wasn't even aware of the issue. In addition, I don't need it anyway, as a judge will need to satisfy himself that any such advice letters are clearly in line with the Law, which they clearly aren't. Plus I have your company's letter to show any judge that your company admits that they should be referring to what the contract allowed in the first place. So, I guess you don't need to sit there with such a smug grin, after all!!

A point, BUT... We give the banks permission to hold the data, and they have a legal duty to hold it for six years. The CRAs do not have a legal right, nor is there a legal duty, and there is certainly no need to pull off duplicate data going back six years from a CRA, when it can already be obtained from the original bank. Why does it need to be kept twice??

Uhuh... of course it does... Screen capture from Equifiction's own website:

No!! Wrong! not on all CRA systems is doesn't... CallCredit use D for default..

MLK was a clear and concise orator who inspired his people, and fought prejudice and inequality with a unbridled spirit. After showing such inequality to the higher authorities, and how it affected their lives, he had the Law changed so that everyone, eventually, had equal rights... and he didn't stamp his feet once. And it all catlysed with one small episode on a bus...

erm...no !! 0000000000D is a defaulted account, which would appear to have been defaulted within one month of an other wise perfect account. Lizzie has quite rightly pointed out that this account was fine, and then arbitrarily put into default... why isn't there a 'quality of data' check put in place to fish out these sorts of anomalies and then be investigated. Why is the onus ALWAYS on the customer to prove otherwise. In cases where credit reports have had errors on them, or been resolved, the CRAs should refund the £2 fee, and offer an apology. BTW, I do know about these things, my company puts gateways engines into suppliers to read this stuff, so please don't think I'm just an angry customer. In fact, my own file is fine, in relation to adverse data, I just don't beelive that you have any legal right to hold historic data on my file.

such as....??? If consumers have tried all the usual 'reasonable' "better way" methods... precisely why can't they invoke Laws which were introduced to protect them? Do I detect a little subconscious utterance there?

Pete, don't allow yourself to get wound up. (and that's coming from me!! ) If he wants to stick his head in the sand and keep repeating the company mantra, then fine... here's as good a place as any. The chap hasn't answered a single question so far, and just repeats either: a) what we all already know; or b) what "his" view is or what "he believes is right"; or c) what his employer pays him to say. I suppose we all have a job to do. Having re-read the entire thread and all his other posts, it is blatantly clear that this is being done to try and create a banging-your-head-on-the-wall environment to try and wind people up. It is the same frustration that Paxman experiences with half the Commons on Newsnight. They will only answer what they want to answer, or deflect the real issue away with a nonsensical or irrelevant comment that has abolsutely no bearing on what you sought in the first place. I can see why he's an official mouthpiece. However, far from extolling the virtues of the CRA industry, he has simply confirmed our belief that they think they are a law unto themselves, and whatever they do is correct because that is the way they've always done it, rgardless of the lawfullness or legality. To that end, I won't be giving any credence to any further comments he gives, as it is obvious that he either can't answer the questions (because he doesn't know), or won't, or wants to try and go on the charm offensive and sweet-talk his way by repeating the company line, which is, by now, sounding very boring, repetitive and totally non-informative. I have it on reasonably good authority (we have a few insiders) that the CRAs are quietly cra**ing themselves over the potential legal issues that could arise out of these matters, and are going on the offensive to try and tell people like us on these type of forums that we are wrong, "so suggest you don't attempt any further action". In reality, the CRAs have actually realised that their legal argument could collapse in a Court (with or without the 'recommendations' and 'interpretatons' of the I.C.O.) as they know that a judge has to (as in MUST) interpret the contract in relation to the DPA. Just like the banks penalties issue, a case precedent would cause them severe problems and tons of work in having to cleanse millions of database records. With the advent of the Internet, more and more of the great unwashed are now aware of their rights, especially through sites like this, and have woken up to the fact that the CRAs are basing their entire business model on sand, and certainly without the specific backing of the Law. It is my firm belief that the CRAs hoped that the DPA came in quietly and they then hoped no one would notice. Granted, it has taken a few years, but some of us have seen how you could drive a coach and through their "legal rights". As to the I.C.O., it is quite clear that they are also contradicting their own advice - we've seen correspondence this week that's totally contrary to their own Legal Advice document. It is my suspicion that someone knows someone. As to you James... well I know you've tried convincing people on here, but it is somewhat backfiring if you insist in repeating the company line, and not telling it from the heart. James, you must realise that people are very angry about these issues, as it costs them money, time, effort, and sometimes their livelihoods, let alone the reduction in quality family life through not having the means to live like normal people. Adverse data severely affects people's lives (whether you want to try and spin that one away or not), and I think you need to pull your head out the sand and start realising that this issue will not go away. There are other court proceedings starting and I, personally, am preparing to take the matter through the right Court to get this heard, as well as having the support of many MPs (from all parties) who likewise realise that defaults are not a 'balanced' punishment against someone's reputation. It is time that the CRAs started realising the problems they cause and offer an alternative way forward for adverse data.

The silence is deafening... Must be Starbucks time...

Actually, just to clear up the facts here... by Law, under the Supply of Goods and Services Act, andrew is fully entitled to withold payment, providing that he has written to them with his complaint. If he considers that there is a breach of contract, then he is allowed to write to the supplier and inidcate such, in which case the supplier should not be charging him any further until the matter is resolved, or it is a judged by a Court. So, again, may I suggest a bit of swatting up on contractual law. In this case, the phone operator has been abritrarily allowed (by the CRAs) to register a default, not by going to a Court, but by alleging a breach of contract, to which they were actually the alledged culprit.

A lot of it is neither up-to-date, nor accurate, and in relation to the contractual aspects, is either in breach of the contract terms or irrelevant in relation to the "public interest". As per andrew's example above, the issuing of a default to CRAs is a ridiculous state of over-processing to which he has no appeal process. I reiterate my earlier post: "If we're holding public personal data for six years" "public personal data" = ordered so, by a Court, after a hearing by a judge, having heard both arguments, and with parties allowed to make representation... and even then an appeal mechanism, and further facilities to overturn decisions in light of new evidence. Judgements made after due diligence of the English Law, e.g. County Courts Act, Consumer Credit Act, Insolvency Act (Enterprise Act), etc... laws laid before Parliament, passed via a democratic process over 800 years old, argued, debated by those MPs duly elected by us, the people, then put before the Lords to apply the rationale behind those Acts. That, my dear Watson, is called lawful democracy with due representation of the people affected by such judgements. "it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time". "private personal data" = at the sole discretion of a for-profit, share-capitalised organisation and their fellow fat-cat cronies. Hmmmm.... now where in the dictionary did I see that word "equitable"??? Interesting that you have not replied to that post. So, in light of these two very distinct methods, do you still contend that a bank's arbitrary say-so to issue a default notice should be allowed to hinder someone's credit file, which not only affects their credit rating, but can lose them their job, if they work in certain industries.

I'm not being condescending... I am asking a simple question. Are you going to answer it? If a civil contract is terminated, then the terms and clauses likewise terminate, so where does the lender think he can continue any implied right? It's simple.

erm James... please do go and read a contractual law book, I beg you... becuase you do REALLY need to understand the basis of a contract. BOTH parties have the full right to cancel a civil contract within the terms (usually 30 days notice, etc., sometimes 90 for job roles, etc.) I've just given consent for my daughter to learn the recorder at school, so by your logic, she is bound to remain learning it until she leaves school even though she might not get on with it. I can withdraw consent on anything as trival as this, as can I when it comes to my data - the LAW says I can. It's a civil contrat, not a Parliamentary statute that says I'm bound in for ever and ever, amen. Once a contract is finished, it is finished... the lender has some continued rights under the CCA to pursue any unpaid money (if any), but the rest of the paper on which the contract was signed is as useful as toilet roll. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Ermm.... how did we deduce that one, dear Watson??? "If we're holding public personal data for six years" "public personal data" = ordered so, by a Court, after a hearing by a judge, having heard both arguments, and with parties allowed to make representation... and even then an appeal mechanism, and further facilities to overturn decisions in light of new evidence. Judgements made after due diligence of the English Law, e.g. County Courts Act, Consumer Credit Act, Insolvency Act (Enterprise Act), etc... laws laid before Parliament, passed via a democratic process over 800 years old, argued, debated by those MPs duly elected by us, the people, then put before the Lords to apply the rationale behind those Acts. That, my dear Watson, is called lawful democracy with due representation of the people affected by such judgements. "it makes sense to hold private personal data for the same amount of time". "private personal data" = at the sole discretion of a for-profit, share-capitalised organisation and their fellow fat-cat cronies. Hmmmm.... now where in the dictionary did I see that word "equitable"???

So that would be a non-legally statute body then (not listed in the exempted organisations lists in the DPA), just the industry itself arbitrarily deciding how to screw up people's lives for six years. So, if I said that I represent an industry that has decided as a group that all its members are entitled to throw eggs at anyone called James on a Monday of each week (even though it's not lawful), then by your own logic that would be okay, would it??? Answer the question...stop skitting around it? P.S. Do they send all Experian Staff on How to Talk Spin courses, or are you expected to be qualified when you apply to join them? Just curious.

Absolutely you're no lawyer. Consent is obtained by the lenders... we all know that, and have for many years. However, that is only whlst that contract exists. No longer than that. Full stop.

Wrong...politician's answers... blimey have you pre-written all these???... Adverse credit data severaly affects lots of avenues in life, not just chances to secure credit. It affects people working in a whole variety of occupations, who are credit checked as part of the recruitment process. A friend of mine, whose ex-girlfriend managed to rack up two defaults on his property before leaving, got dismissed from a top banking job for having this sort of stupid data on his file. Again, the 200 word notice and a review of his credit file did nothing to save his career. He is now trying to retrain in a career where credit checks are not required. That data is now over 4 years old. There are hundreds of other examples. It is baloney to even pretend that credit data only affects financial applications, because it doesn't... and what's more you d**n well know it, so don't pretend otherwise, it's not very becoming of a so-called spokesperson. however, I suppose that i should really expect anything else, as my experience of official mouthpieces is that they can never answer a single question straight, and will deflect any real quesry or difficult question into the path of somehting they want to answer. My previous post about what adverse data does to people's lives sums it up. Try reading it ... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/28604-experian-use-potentially-misleading.html#post223084 P.S. If Experian's big priority at the moment is my getting all blubby because of my avatar, then someone needs to go see someone, urgently.

Wrong!!!...politician's answer... "it makes sense to" does not equal "it is legal to" or "we are legally entitled to". When will you likewise admit on this forum that Experian and all the other CRAs have absolutely NO legal permission other than what was agreed in the contract between the two original parties... a contract that the CRAs were not a party to? Is the question really THAt difficult to understand?

Yeah right... that just about sums it up! Troll s**t-stirring alert raised to DEFCON 4.

Maybe we'll get some answers to some of the earlier questions now.... the ones carefully avoided. But, there again...

Totally agree. If it's put as part of the claim, then if they throw the towel in on the claim, they can't then argue with the default removal request, as this was caused by the first action. It is FAR easier to get the whole lot done in the first claim, than try and mop up afterwards. Just make a condition of settling, but put it on the particulars of claim first, it only needs to be added as, something like... "x) Order that the default notice arising as a direct result of these unlawful penalities be deemed unfair, and to be removed from the Claimant's credit reference files." ALL of the ones that we've dealt with have removed all defaults, and even reset any 1 and 2 markers back to 0 (without asking!) when sending the refund cheque. I guess that they don't want to expose themselves to potential litigation as a result of any incorrect adverse credit data.

Noted... BUT, in that case, where is the "legitimate interest" between the customer and the CRA??... I've never signed anything between myself and the CRA, only between myself and the supplier, and the DPA gives no rights to a third party, especially for them to assume inherited rights based on the first contract. If I give a friend permission to drive my car, it gives him no rights whatsoever to let someone else go drive it too, without my further permission. In Law, for a 'legitimate interest' to exist, there needs to be either a statute, a contract or an interest under the Law of Tort. For the first, there is no "six years" ANYWHERE in legislation, nor are the I.C.O.s contradictory statements any clearer - see below, For the second, the contract has finished, and for the third, if anything, the CRA is the tortfeasor, not the consumer. The word 'legitimate' derives from the Latin stem 'legis' (law) in that nothing is legitimate unless a 'law' of some sort defines it as so. e.g. I have no legitimate interest in my neighbour, as we have no contract, and unless I break a criminal statute in actions against him, or invoke the Law of Tort (basically, the law of responsibility to others in society), that situation remains as "no legitimate interest". Despite what the I.C.O. decided the other day over tea and bikkies, their own legal guidance document CLEARLY states: " 3.1.4 Lawfulness The Act does not provide any guidance on the meaning of "lawful". The natural meaning of unlawful has been broadly described by the Courts as "something which is contrary to some law or enactment or is done without lawful justification or excuse". (R v R [1991] 4All ER 481). The term applies equally to the public and private sector and to breaches of both statute and common law, whether criminal or civil. An example of information unlawfully obtained might be information, which is obtained as a result of a breach of confidence or in breach of an enforceable contractual agreement. Since 2 October 2000 it applies to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by a data controller bound by that Act. ... There are circumstances where an obligation of confidence arises between a data controller and an individual about whom information is recorded, for example, in relation to medical or banking information. The effect of an obligation of confidence is that a data controller is restricted from using the information for a purpose other than that for which it was provided or disclosing it without the individual’s permission. It would be unlawful for a data controller to do this unless there was some overriding reason in the public interest for this to happen. Where such personal data are processed for a purpose other than that for which the information was provided, the processing is likely to be unlawful processing. " "Overriding reason in the public interest"?? For a personal loan default that happened years ago.... I don't think so. And would the Secretary of State wish to issue an exemption on each individual case... Hmmmmmm, methinks not.

They are funny bu**ers....aren't they. "Gesture of Goodwill".... my a**e!! Ah well, it's a result... that's all that counts... even if they don't have the balls to stand up and say sorry... One day, one of these organisations might actually admit it... but there again...