Are debt collectors allowed to search my credit files / report history?

[Bazooka Boo]

And you should look at suing them for damages, CRA's are no better than DCA's, make a formal complaint to the CRA and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they fail to remove the incorrect data, regardless whether or not anyone can see it, you will take legal action and sue for damages.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi,

I have just had a call from my MPs office about the CRA's and Table 1 searches, this is now being taken up seriously.

So please if anyone else has got the information/complaint please send it to your MP as soon as possible, as MPs can only fully take up matters on behalf of their own constituents.

We may well get a very good result from this!!

[MJack]

huggy..

 

I have some good news after following others in my quest to have these searches removed from my table 1 I have in fact in a short space of time got mackenzie hall to remove their search and am in process of getting ccml removed.

 

What sort of compo can I ask as the way i found that these were on my credit file was due to fact that a bank has turned me down for a mortgage and they advised me to look at equifax.

 

these companies cannot get away with their own rules and laws..!!!!!

 

cheers

 

Mjack

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would start on the high side But it'seems the average is about £100.00 per search on Table 1 but don't forget to add in the costs of pursuing them, and as joint data controllers you can go for the CRA as well.

I would start at A minimum overall claim for compensation and cost depending on how many searches were done. say £1000.00 overall.

I f you have any proof of financial loss caused then it's a big leaver,start by ''politely'' giving your reasons for compensation and wait for the response if unfavourable then escalate your claim.

[huggys boss]

I worked out how much I had lost in bank Rewards, as my bank use Equifax for their searches and the Table 1 searches were the reason why our basic account couldn't be upgraded to a rewards account.

 

I then added a bit for the embarrassment and a bit more for my time and postage costs.

 

They only offered my 1/4 of what I had asked for, but I was quite happy with that. If all 4 of them do that, I will get what I feel I have lost anyway.

[MJack]

cheers

 

for information-

 

equifax had no real idea of their correct proceedures and simply advised that these searches are allowed in table 1,Mackenzie Hall however knew exactly what the right thing is and when i rang them and spoke to their compliance manager(a nice bloke actually)he admitted that the searches shouldnt be in table 1,it was equifax`s fault(but he would say that wouldnt he !!!)but he will get it removed within 5 days.

 

ps the search was for a "debt" from 2001 !!! he did try to send me a letter asking for me to pay ---which he completlety backed down when i advised of statute of limitations.......so these weasels will try anything,be on your guard..they dont run the world..!!!

[MJack]

update.

ccml contact details

old docks road,

90 watery lane

preston,pr2 1av

 

01772765202 or 01772765262

 

complaints manager micheal billington-again have to admit ,seemed like a reasonable man.

 

he advised he will speak to equifax and deal with issue thern ring me back--will keep posted.

[huggys boss]

Thank you for that, just the details I needed.

[MJack]

update

 

ccml have just come back to me advising that equifax have told them that the search footprint is correct-ive rang equifax and just keep getting monkies who will not give me a definitive legal answer as to which table a debt company with no written or verbal authority should be in where they do a search..

 

i need a legal fact in law as to where they should be....please advise

[huggys boss]

I am sure Brig will be about soon to point you in the right direction. I have a letter from Mackenzie Halll which states

 

"I have sent a request to Equifax today for the removal of our searches in Table 1 - this has been an error as these searches should have been placed in Table 2. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. The searches should take no longer than 7 working days to remove."

 

If you need a copy of it to send to them then just copy and paste it from my thread. Post 28 in here.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?277604-Need-Help-Taking-on-the-CRA-s/page2

[MJack]

what have equifax told you regarding whether ccml should be there in table 1 or not?

[huggys boss]

Try again, I did reply but then got booted

 

They would neither confirm or deny it on the telephone, but I am waiting for a response to my letter (which I gave them 7 days to respond on 21st Sept!!!!!!). They did hint that it was the DCA's responsibility to put the searches in the right place though.

 

I intend taking it further with them because as Huggy41 puts it, if someboy owned a shop and allowed somebody to advertise in their window and the advert was highly pornographic who would be at fault? The person for placing the ad or the shopkeeper for allowing it? They run and maintain the data base to in my opinion the buck stops with them, as it would with the shopkeeper and the porn!

[MJack]

absolutly-I am quite happy with the fact that because equifax pass the info to whoever it wants they are liable,as data controllers...

 

what I am having difficulty with is where the hell a debt company search should be..????? If they rang me and asked where do headphones go,its not a hard answer is it.....so either they are hiding something or are soooo thick they dont know..!!!!!

 

(for the benefit of cra workers......they go on the ears..!!!!)

[huggys boss]

Your file speaks for itself. It clearly states:

 

"Table 1: Credit Searches

The following table shows searches undertaken in connection with credit applications."

 

and if they are too blind or too thick to read and understand what it states on their own forms they deserve everything that they are starting to have thrown at them.

 

I did emphasise this fact to the DCA's who had registered in my table 1 by pointing out that as far as I was aware they did not provide any sort of lending services and even if they did, I certainly hadn't applied for any sort of credit from them so in effect they had broken the law by accessing my file without my permission.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is exactly the type of wording that the DCA's would expect you to comply without query if such a sentence

appeared i any agreement.

I am currently seeking firm opinion on this but so far have been told as we have all been saying DCA' DO NOT GIVE CREDIT THEREFORE ENTRIES BY THEM ON TABLE1 are at the very least inappropriate.

[MJack]

brigadier can you shed any light legally as to this problem?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As bove the terms used are explicit and used on a document term STATUTORY CREDIT REPORT my colleague a QC

believes a judge would accept that it incontrovertible!!

[MJack]

to get this in layman terms..that table 1 is without doubt only for credit appication searches?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

YUP:lol:

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I will have more info later today.

[huggys boss]

If there was any reason at all that a DCA could register searches in Table 1 then they wouldn't be paying out compensation. I have received mine from Mackenzie Hall after only 2 letters. There was no fight at all.

[MJack]

good point HB,but they really dont know their A**E from their Elbow...am waiting for a strong point of law from Brig then will prob get letter together to force the retraction from the table.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As promised Iv'e gone a little further and have been advised further and

have been advised that:-

The whole premiss of English Civil Law is of THAT WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE WITHOUT DOUBT REASONABLE.

Originally it was seen as what ''The Man In The Street Would DEEM Reasonable''

 

Thus if a statement is made and is specific in its term and no riders or caveats are made then that statement should stand in its own right.

The statement we have '' SEARCHES UNDERTAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH CREDIT APPLICATIONS'' IS EXPLICIT.

Taken with the later statement (Table 2)

 

''Searches Undertaken For Purposes Other Than Credit Applications and Have No no impact ON A Credit Decision''

 

Would Imply that Table 1 does have such an impact.

 

Thus DCa's posting searches on Table 1 with the complicity of the CRA

is unreasonable and inappropriate.

 

One could reasonably form an opinion that such searches if in quantity and frequency may give rise to the supposition of vexatiousness.

 

I can find no current evidence of this thesis being tried in law.

the above is formed from advice and research of my own, there may be other interpretations of this matter.

The Brig. 07/10/10

Edited October 7, 2010 by BRIGADIER2JCS
Glitch

[MJack]

hurry brig----spill the beans.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

To add a rider.

 

The above can also relate to any of us in litigation if you show that you have attempted in all reasonableness to rectify

the dispute before resort to litigation the merit of your case is strengthened.