Citi Cards being obstructive with SAR

[silverfox1961]

The date of the original default must stand and if a DCA are putting newer dates in to prolong the default period, you can give them a (metaphorical) slap

[DonkeyB]

Recording incorrect data that falsely demeans your credit status is, in effect, defamation and you can claim damages.

 

Relevant case law includes Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] and Durkin v DSG [2008].

 

Following para nicked from SurfaceagentX20:

 

In Durkin, linked below, damages for wrongful impugnment of a man's credit reputation were awarded without proof of actual financial loss. Kpohraror was mentioned in Durkin. Before an award will be made, it will be necessary for you to show that the Defendant's activity complained of was in breach of contract or duty and consequently wrongful.

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html

[babybear39]

That's financial institutions for you...Bunch of crooks in the main, allegedly...

[Master Chief]

That's financial institutions for you...Bunch of crooks in the main, allegedly...

 

I am beginning to learn these alleged facts.

[Master Chief]

Recording incorrect data that falsely demeans your credit status is, in effect, defamation and you can claim damages.

 

Relevant case law includes Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] and Durkin v DSG [2008].

 

Following para nicked from SurfaceagentX20:

 

In Durkin, linked below, damages for wrongful impugnment of a man's credit reputation were awarded without proof of actual financial loss. Kpohraror was mentioned in Durkin. Before an award will be made, it will be necessary for you to show that the Defendant's activity complained of was in breach of contract or duty and consequently wrongful.

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html

 

Is that relevant to English judiciary?

[Master Chief]

The date of the original default must stand and if a DCA are putting newer dates in to prolong the default period, you can give them a (metaphorical) slap

 

SF, could I screen print it and PM it to you for your opinion?

 

No problem if you would prefer not.

 

MC

[silverfox1961]

SF, could I screen print it and PM it to you for your opinion?

 

No problem if you would prefer not.

 

MC

 

Course you can. Whether I will make head nor tail of it is another matter

[The Debt Star]

Reading all of this with interest. However, you will find that if yuo complain to the CRAs all you will get is verbage from them in return and NOTHING will get remedied. I have a curernt dispute on with a creditor and the CRAs are STILL recording adverse entries DESPITE this. I paste below the nonsense response received from the CRA I complained to. Also, the ICO are hopeless and have still not responded like 4 months after my initial complaint. I'm afraid OP that they can and will do what they like with our information and until there is an organisation with teeth in this country that fully protects the consumer (unlike the FOS and ICO) then we are just plain stuffed.

 

Here is what Experian mailed me when I complained to them:

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on X September 2010.

Your query has been brought to my attention in the Customer Relations team to investigate.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you in full the processes we have in place when an individual queries the accuracy of an entry recorded on their credit report.

Under Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you have the right to query information on your credit report that you believe to be inaccurate, once you have received a copy of your report.

You may wish to refer to the relevant legislation below that outlines the process we adhere to when dealing with disputed information.

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

159 Correction of wrong information

(1) Any individual (the ?objector?) given-

(a) information under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by a credit reference agency, or

(b) information under section 158,

who considers that an entry in his file is incorrect, and that if it is not corrected he is likely to be prejudiced, may give notice to the agency requiring it either to remove the entry from the file or amend it.

(2) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (1), the agency shall by notice inform the objector that it has-

(a) removed the entry from the file, or

(b) amended the entry, or

© taken no action,

and if the notice states that the agency has amended the entry it shall include a copy of the file so far as it comprises the amended entry.

I also draw your attention to the fourth Data Protection Principle, which states that:

Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

Within Schedule 1, Part II (Interpretation of the Data Protection Principles) of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is explained that, as a credit reference agency, we are not considered to have breached the Act by querying the disputed information and adding a Notice of Dispute statement.

7. The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where-

(a) having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and

(b) if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject's view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact.

Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information with the data provider as taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate.

Therefore, we were choosing to take no action with regards to your initial request to remove this information from your report. Should you wish to verify this you can contact our regulator at the following address:

The Information Commissioner's Office: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF

In view of this, I am of the opinion that we have acted correctly throughout this matter and in accordance with the relevant legislation. I remind you that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, each lender that supplies us with information is obligated to ensure that the data is accurate and kept up to date.

I hope this explains why we cannot act unilaterally to remove data from your report, especially when the company concerned has confirmed it to be accurate or has not authorised us to make any amendments, as in your case.

Furthermore, as we also have a responsibility to enable lenders to make informed lending decisions, I am sure that you can appreciate why we cannot amend information simply because the individual concerned claims that the data is incorrect.

If we operated in this way, any individual could claim that all the adverse information on their report was inaccurate purely as a means of improving their credit report. This would put our clients at risk by enabling people to potentially obtain finance that otherwise would not be offered to them.

Because of this, if a consumer disputes information on their report we query this with the data provider. The only instances where we would remove information without direct authorisation from the data provider is if a Court Order is provided that specifically states that an entry should be deleted or a ruling is made from a recognised regulatory body.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of the queries that we raised on your behalf, then I suggest that you take up this matter with the Information Commissioner's Office.

I note that you are considering taking legal action including Experian and I would strongly recommend that you seek independent legal advice before doing so.

We have received several similar court claims and have been successful in having these struck out, as the cases were deemed to have no legal merit with regards to a claim against Experian.

This is because, in each case, we have been able to demonstrate that we have complied with the relevant legislation at all times. Consequently, the claimant has been left to pursue their claim directly against the company with whom they have a dispute regarding the data recorded on their credit report.

I therefore recommend that you review your legal position prior to proceeding with your claim. You may wish to consult with the Information Commissioner's Office in order to obtain an unbiased opinion.

I see that you have stated that you will be sending a DSAR request. So that I may assist you further in this matter, and hopefully save you £10 and from receiving information that is not relevant to this particular matter, please let me know exactly what you are hoping to receive as part of the DSAR as I may be able to send you this anyway without you having to go through the process of obtaining a DSAR which can take up to 40 days.

Kind regards

 

Customer Relations Consultant

Customer Support Centre

Experian Interactive

[Master Chief]

Thanks Debt Star, they basically said naff off then!

 

I definately think that Principle 4 is relevant in my case, becasue the information shown is incorrect.

 

I will investigate further.

 

Thanks again.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Master Chief
I rely to heavily on spell checkers!

[The Debt Star]

All the best with that MC. The info on my report is also wrong though, as Barcrapcard are processing late payments including charges that shouldn't be there! Total ****es they are.

[Master Chief]

All the best with that MC. The info on my report is also wrong though, as Barcrapcard are processing late payments including charges that shouldn't be there! Total ****es they are.

 

I hear what you are saying.

 

When you dance with the devil, you have to wait for the music to stop. Watch this space!

[Master Chief]

Anyone?

[dadofholly]

Would depend. If they are seperate companies in their own rights - or the same company using different trading names.

 

If they had the same registered address - then i would send them just one SAR.

[Master Chief]

Would depend. If they are seperate companies in their own rights - or the same company using different trading names.

 

If they had the same registered address - then i would send them just one SAR.

 

http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/loans/loans/citifinancial.htm

 

The above linked page states that Citi provide loans and credit card services, on the same page Egg is mentioned. No seperate companies are mentioned, so this would imply to a consumer that it is one company; No?

 

The address shown on that page is the one my SAR went to. So I think it is reasonable to expect that they should provide ALL information as requested and this will include other accounts not specifically mentioned.

 

That's my view in any case.

[dadofholly]

I would agree.

[Master Chief]

I would agree.

 

 

TY dadofholly.

 

Of course, now I know what I should expect to satisfy the SAR fully, it doesn't necessarily follow that I will get it. Time will tell I suppose.

[The Debt Star]

will do.

[Master Chief]

The more I think about this, the more annoyed it makes me feel. I know that it would be more productive to focus on the other matters, but until I am furnished with the results of my CCA & SAR's and complaints, I'm left twiddling my thumbs. In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea to continue to gather as much additional evidence of this DCA’s underhand activities as possible.

 

At this stage I’ll refrain from formal complaints etc., but I would like to get a clear picture of what has happened and which rules/laws have been violated; if any and what possible recourse there might be. Then I’ll just tuck it away until such times as it becomes relevant.

 

I have a full Experian printout from Nov’ 2006, clearly stating that the original delinquent account was settled by the OC on 05/08/2002, and I assume that this is the point at which it was assigned to the DCA. The next entry in respect of this debt shows it to be a credit card debt with the DCA’s name against it and the default date is now 28/04/2003, some 8 months following the OC’s settlement date.

 

As I understand it, what should have happened here is that the original OC’s entry should have been updated to show the new owner and the default dates etc. remain the same.

 

Interesting to note also that, my NoA to DCA is dated 05/06/2003 and the very nice letter of introduction from said DCA is 23/05/2003. So if I’m right, the DCA placed an unlawful default notice & date on my CRA file, before they legally owned it. Or am I just pi**ing in the wind? And what happened in the 10 months between the settlement and NoA? Doesn’t add up to me!

 

What’s happened here, and if something dodgy has occurred, what (if anything) can be done retrospectively? Or does it cast any doubt on the validity of the assignment?

 

This has since fallen of my Experian report as has the other delinquent accounts that I have.

 

Having checked my Equifax report toward the end of October this year I note that it shows one delinquent account, the aforementioned DCA credit card. Even if you take the false default date, it would have (or should have) fallen off my file April/May 2009. But this is what I see today:

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23118[/ATTACH]

 

 

There are no default dates other than last updated 09/02/2010 and the monthly entries start Oct 2008 and finish Jan 2009. Even Equifaxes’ ‘U’ (Not Updated) entries cease then.

 

When I think back to around the time of Oct’ 08, it was just prior to this that my bank cocked up two consecutive months STO’s to the DCA, but these issues were rectified within a day of notification and most certainly within the payment period they were due. All the monthly entries, where updated, show AP ‘Agreement to Pay’ and not one shows a default.

 

But, still, it shouldn’t bloody be on the file in the first place. The DCA are, in my mind at least, clearly manipulating the CRA file/default date so that it remains there forever and a day. Oh and the balance is incorrect also.

 

Anybody’s views on this are most welcome.

 

 

MC

[Master Chief]

Help, I'm losing my marbles!

 

I read in a post today (fairly sure it was a reply posted by one of the regulars) regarding DCA's not being able to charge interest prior to a NoA (or along those lines), but I just can't bloody find it now or remember which thread. If this rings any bells with anyone, would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction?

 

Also, I'm still no closer to establishing what skullduggery has been going on with the dates of NoA's, introductions, defaults etc. Perhaps if I summarise what I know then some kind soul can advise if what I'm looking at is perfectly OK and acceptable practise (or not).

 

Details taken from 2006 CRA Report:

 

OC marked account settled 05/08/2002

 

DCA puts new default on CRA report 28/04/2003 (eight months after OC marked as settled and clearly this is not the original default date + who owned it during these eight months)

 

I receive welcome (NoA) from kind DCA 23/05/2003

 

I receive official NoA from OC dated 05/06/2003

 

So in essence, DCA placed (incorrect) default date on CRA file before they said they owned the debt, which in turn is before the OC's official NoA date!

 

Simple question, is this acceptable?

 

 

Regards,

 

MC.

[DonkeyB]

Probably one of mine – they should not try and backdate interest if, for example, they bought an account in 2007, but didn’t tell you till 2010. Now I’m trying to remember where I got it from, and what the law was...

 

Simple answer to question: No. Just gather the facts and present your complaint.

[coledog]

Subbing

[Master Chief]

Probably one of mine – they should not try and backdate interest if, for example, they bought an account in 2007, but didn’t tell you till 2010. Now I’m trying to remember where I got it from, and what the law was...

 

Simple answer to question: No. Just gather the facts and present your complaint.

 

All power to the elbow.

 

Thanks DB

[Master Chief]

Also, while checking my files today, I notice that five and a half years after the original & premature DCA ‘Welcome’ letter of introduction, I got another one! This would tie in with the dates of the previously mentioned bank STO cock ups (which were rectified within 24 hours of notification). It would appear that the re-payment account was closed and either immediately re-opened or a new one set up, all the references are the same as far as I can see.

So this probably explains the information still showing on the Equifax report beyond its natural life

MC.

PS. Why is my sig not showing? There is a tick in the little box!

[DonkeyB]

Signature only shows if your post contains a minimum number of characters.

[Master Chief]

Signature only shows if your post contains a minimum number of characters.

 

Thanks again DonkeyB. You're fast becoming my personal advisor, hope their won't be an invoice coming followed by threatograms lol.