challenging the CRA's-have we all missed something?

[stuscfc]

Very interesting thread.Always wondered about how they can mark your credit file with markers when you have a mobile as they say its not covered by the CCA.Also other things like utilities and home phones how can they be on there when you dont have a credit contract as such for gas water or am i wrong.Maybe i am wrong ill shut up now lol.

[babybear39]

Very interesting thread.Always wondered about how they can mark your credit file with markers when you have a mobile as they say its not covered by the CCA.Also other things like utilities and home phones how can they be on there when you dont have a credit contract as such for gas water or am i wrong.Maybe i am wrong ill shut up now lol.

 

You're not wrong, they are :lol:

[sosumi]

PS: Dig deep in the manure-heap that DCAs call 'business', and there at the bottom lies a monster.

PPS: That's not a happy wink!

[babybear39]

PS: Dig deep in the manure-heap that DCAs call 'business', and there at the bottom lies a monster.

PPS: That's not a happy wink!

 

Right, shovels it is then... :lol:

 

Is it anything really scary like the kraken from POTC?

[vint1954]

I think these two sections cover their arses

 

Part II Rights of data subjects and others

 

Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress

(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

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.

 

 

SCHEDULE 2Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data

1 The data subject has given his consent to the processing. This is what they rely on, when you apply for credit you sign to say that they can process your request

2 The processing is necessary—

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3 The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4 The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

But when you sign an application form, is it not pre contract and only applicable to the OC making enquiries.

 

Full agreement to process your data, should be post contract.

[vint1954]

Maybe request your MP to raise the question with the Minister concerned?

[lickthewallfatboy]

But when you sign an application form, is it not pre contract and only applicable to the OC making enquiries.

 

Full agreement to process your data, should be post contract.

 

 

that would be my take on it as well

[babybear39]

that would be my take on it as well

 

Mine too...

[lickthewallfatboy]

I really think this "enforced consent" thing needs to be looked at

[vint1954]

I really think this "enforced consent" thing needs to be looked at

What do you think is the best way forward. I am in full agreement.

[lickthewallfatboy]

we need to find out if "enforced consent" is in fact lawful or not.....IMHO it is a form of blackmail ie if you do not go along with CRA's processing your data,you have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of being approved for credit

 

 

just on another point.....the bit about the 6 year and beyond holding,processing and retaining your data

 

on another site I read this-(standard response when requested to stop processing data)

As previously advised the revocation of your permission for Equifax to continue to process your data, it is our view, also shared by the Information Commissioner's Office, that we are able to share account data between lenders and the Credit Reference Agencies for the duration of the contract and for 6 years beyond on the basis of paragraph 6 of Sch 2 of the Data Protection Act. This states "“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.”

 

My final investigation into this matter is now closed. If however you are not satisfied with the outcome of my final review, I would suggest that you may wish to contact the Information Commissioner.

 

The address is as follows:-

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Alternatively, you may wish to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service. Please find contact information below.

 

Telephone: 0845 080 1800

Website: Financial Ombudsman Service

 

If you require further information on the content of your credit file, you may wish to visit: https://equifaxuk.custhelp.com. Here you can view our Frequently Asked Questions and submit an on-line query or attach supporting documentation via our "Ask a Question" facility, with no concerns about postal delays.

 

We hope the above details are of assistance to you.

 

Equifax Customer Services

 

the person in question phoned the ICO,and this was the report of the response they got

 

They(ICO) have advised that companies CANNOT rely on paragraph 6 of Sch 2 of the Data Protection Act if its deemed the information has not been processed fairly and lawfully. I then asked the question "If you was not advised the information would be processed for 6 years after the account was closed and there is no mention of this in their terms and conditions, is it right to presume the information is being processed unfairly?" In which they repled "If that is the case, then the information is not being processed fairly and as such they cannt rely on paragraph 6 of Sch 2 of the Data Protection Act"

 

we need to get that in writing!!

[lickthewallfatboy]

section 41 of the Information Commissioners Default Guidance Version 3.

 

"Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation.

 

Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file."

[vint1954]

I have checked a few websites. They all seem to try and justify the holding of data. I believe that:

 

1. You have to give permission for your data to be used. CRA's rely on the fact that you have given permission when signing an application. I am not sure that this would hold water if tested, due to the pre and post contract document issue. We all seem to have forgotten, that the CCA 1974 requires the OC to send us a signed contract. They never do.

 

The application form can be seen perhaps as a Tender is. You are invited to tender or participate. Not until both sides have signed, does it become a binding contract. I have been in work situations, where main contractors will not pay for work done, until the contract is signed, even though all work is completed.

 

2. So no signed contract, no agreement, no payment, no supply of services unless they are daft enough, NO SIGNED PERMISSION WITHIN CONTRACT TO PROCESS DATA.

 

Surely this would mean that the OC must remove adverse data, when no signature is present and CRA's are neglegent for just beleiving the OC when they they have signed permission. It must be down to the CRA to check their possition before handling data. After all, that is their stock in trade. The OC cannot indemnify them.

[SURFBOY]

In reality, the CRAs ask the information provider "is the information is correct"?, they say "yes" , despite what dispute you have, and the CRAs then continue to display that data!

[vint1954]

the person in question phoned the ICO,and this was the report of the response they got

 

 

 

we need to get that in writing!!

 

Excelent point

[vint1954]

In reality, the CRAs ask the information provider "is the information is correct"?, they say "yes" , despite what dispute you have, and the CRAs then continue to display that data!

That may be so, but do they have the right to do that. As earlier, it is for the CRA to check that the data and situation is accurate. They cannot claim indemnity through the OC, no more than you or I could.

 

I think that they have become complacent and have been unchallenged up to now.

[vint1954]

In reality, the CRAs ask the information provider "is the information is correct"?, they say "yes" , despite what dispute you have, and the CRAs then continue to display that data!

Pinky69 is challenging this at the moment.

[hightail]

Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file."

 

I do think this should be pushed for. When I had a CCJ wrongly registered against me out of the blue, by default and for something I knew nothing about I had a dreadful job getting it removed. It's very difficult to prove a negative. Eventually it was some nice person (couldn't possibly say who) told me to write in and say it had been satisfied within 30 days. The court then wrote to the claimant company to ask them for details and when they didn't reply within a given time the CCJ was removed.

 

Surely it's not outside the bounds of reason that other entries on a credit file should be put tto the same standard of proof.

[mr.ton]

I think that they have become complacent and have been unchallenged up to now.

 

Absolutely.

Everyone has just assumed that they can compile/hold all this information & has just accepted it as the norm effectivley.

No more

[Stressed150]

Loving this thread...and subbing this thread

[lickthewallfatboy]

I think to put things simply so far

 

the CRA's justify their processing of your data because the agreement you signed with the creditor contained the clause "permitting" them to do so

 

small problem-don't have a signed agreement,so there is no contract implied or actual with the CRA

 

simples

[Kraken1]

To be honest, this seems simple to me, if you don't want to be on the cra's databases you shouldn't need to be. I don't see why you can't just 'opt out'.

 

Had a colleague once who was off the grid, by accident. He'd never had any credit and only had a basic bank account. Hence he didn't really exist for them. Problem was when he applied for a credit card (for work expenses) he didn't exist and so got refused! took him ages to sort it out and involved getting one of those 'pre approved' rubbish cards and spending and paying it off religiously to build a credit profile to get more credit, that he didn't really need. Go figure...

 

Anyway, opting out. Seems reasonable to me. Whilst this might have an adverse affect on your ability to get credit as they won't like to see the absence of a file I don't see the problem myself. You pays your money (or not...) and takes your choice.

 

With regard to unenforceable agreements, these are unenforceable, they do not cease to exist. this means that the cras can record the fact that a transaction existed and that you received money from xyz ltd. the fact that it can't be legally recovered against you does not mean that the transaction (be it gift or otherwise) does not exist. A cra's files contain lots of information about your financial situation, and does not just record bad information, as my example above demonstrates.

[wobbly]

Find this very interesting ,subbing

[mjc007.5]

subbing on this one - fascinating and definetly a work in progress. I have two accounts (so far) without signed agreements but adverse info at CRA. Lead the way......

[lickthewallfatboy]

With regard to unenforceable agreements, these are unenforceable, they do not cease to exist. this means that the cras can record the fact that a transaction existed and that you received money from xyz ltd. the fact that it can't be legally recovered against you does not mean that the transaction (be it gift or otherwise) does not exist. A cra's files contain lots of information about your financial situation, and does not just record bad information, as my example above demonstrates.

 

see where you're coming from,but I don't agree....

 

a gift in law is a gift-not credit.If I give you £100 strictly as a gift,does it then become a loan just because I say so?

 

if it is not a loan,it is not credit,and The Law Lords basically stated this to be the case.And if it's not credit,a CRA should have no part in dealing with your data whatsoever

 

IMHO of course