VICTORY (AT LAST) AGAINST THE CRA's!!! Oh, how sweet it tastes!

[SurlyBonds]

Just like the old Chinese bamboo story... unless you keep going, the end result will never happen...even when you felt like giving up..

 

We got a four page email this afternoon in relation to our calls to Experian yesterday. This was from the Directors' Office who must now be softly shi**ing themselves waiting for the onslaught... I have added my own comments (with the permission of the letter recipient)...

 

I cut some waffle paragraphs out - God, do they still try and wriggle, even when they're stuffed - but I hope you get the salient points and admission of wrongdoing.... by a CRA. Good grief...wonders will never cease.

 

I'll bet he was squirming in his seat having to write this, gnashing his teeth and sticking pins into a Voodoo doll of me. Ouch!

 

Read, digest, enjoy and then go have damn good s*x... because it's almost as good as that... okay maybe I'm totally exaggerrating that last bit!!!!

 

Our Ref: ************

BY E-MAIL AND POST

6 September 2006

 

Dear Mr ************

 

Thank you for your e-mail received 4 September 2006 and your telephone call yesterday. [You're so very welcome...but, have you got the hearing back in your right ear?]

 

I apologise if I caused any offence in my last e-mail and can assure you that this was not my intention. Nor was I attempting to scare or bully you by suggesting you contact the Information Commissioner in the first instance. This is the recommended course of action suggested in the Information Commissioners own literature. Their leaflet 'Taking a Case to Court' also advises that a court will wish to know what steps you have taken to try and settle your claim. [that's right - grovel all you like now I've threatened to send your letter to the I.C.O. and sue your sad ars*s in a Court of Law]

 

I have been informed that the wording on our web-site is being amended to reflect a more accurate portrayal of our rights with regards to your information. [Ahem?... could it have been anymore 'less' accurate???] The suggested wording is as follows:

 

"We have a legal right to hold information about people that is already in the public domain (e.g. CCJs, IVAs, etc). Other information is collected and supplied under cover of the Data Protection Act 1998 Schedule 2.1 which says that the data subject should have given their consent. This will be collected by your lender or supplier when you apply for a product. A section on the application form will typically direct you to a section on the use of your personal data and will state that "by proceeding you are agreeing to your information being used in this way"."

 

I trust that this now meets with your approval. [Yes, maybe I should have even charged publishing fees for my wording! ] As discussed I can also confirm that as far as we are aware there is no specific piece of documentation or legislation that provides us with the right to retain your information for six years from the date an account is settled. [GOOD GOD!!!!!! .... they now FINALLY admit in writing!! halle-blu**y-lujah]

 

It was agreed throughout the credit industry that six years is considered a reasonable amount of time for account data to be retained from the point that an account is settled in accordance with the 5th Data Protection Principle.

 

 

[and this bit is absolutely vital to my whole initial argument:]

 

This information would only be retained with your consent as per the terms and conditions of the particular account you held. [Thank you for agreeing with me ... at last]

 

The generic terms and conditions I referred to in our telephone conversation can be found on the Orange web-site and read as follows:

 

19.3 Your information

Orange or its Group companies will use your information which you provide to us together with other information for administration, marketing, credit scoring, customer services, tracking your Device and web use preferences, and profiling your purchasing preferences. We will disclose your information to our service providers and agents to help us with these purposes. We will keep your information for a reasonable period after your contract with us has finished in case you decide to use our Services again and may contact you about our Services during this time. [Yes, I know what they NOW say - it was my kicking that forced to try a new tactic]

 

I am unable to comment on the specific terms and conditions you signed up to when agreeing your contract with Orange. [so STFU then and stop pretending you know all about what was agreed to] All companies that subscribe to our services are required to comply with our suggested consent wording which can be located on our web-site at the following address:

 

http://www.experian.co.uk/corporate/compliance/fairobtainingclauses/index.html

 

...

 

As requested I am also adding the following Notice of Correction to your credit report until you notify us that it is no longer required:

 

"THE DATA SUBJECT HAS EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 AND HAS CHOSEN TO OPT OUT OF AUTOMATED PROCESSING AS OF 05 SEPT 2006. CREDIT STATUS ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE VIA A MANUAL PROCESS."

 

I would recommend that when applying for credit you notify each lender of your request as we cannot guarantee that a company will follow the instructions outlined above.

 

I have added this statement to the electoral roll information appearing on your report. As this is information you agree we are entitled to hold, it will be available to anyone searching your details regardless of any other entries being removed from your report.

 

If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact me directly either by e-mail at *********@uk.experian.com, by telephone on ********** or by writing to me at the following address:

 

Directors' Office, Experian Ltd, PO Box 8000, Nottingham, NG80 7WF

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr * * *******

Consumer Compliance Executive

Directors' Office

 

 

I've absolutely NO idea how many thousands of words I have typed into letters, emails or this forum, but when I get a result like this, I can honestly say that each and every damn key press was worth it.

 

Now, excuse me whilst I go and have a quiet lie-down and recover...

 

me----->

[SurlyBonds]

sweet !!!!

 

 

 

So is it equifax's turn next?????

 

Oh yes, and then CallCredit... and then the banks themselves!!

Of course, their admission in this letter can now be used as evidence that they agree that it is dependant on the specific terms of the individuals contract... and what's more Experian's legal dept. must have approved such a letter before allowing it to go.

HOWEVER, I bet that you will now see contract terms being altered to six years even for non-public defaults.. I note that Experian have already changed their suggested templates.

As I said on another thread, just amend the T&Cs, to read "for the duration of the contract only" and initial it.

Having said that, I think there are also ramifications under the UTCC Regs anyway, as there are no reciprocal rights for the consumer. However, it is harder to have a clause deemed unlawful, and removed from a contract and then have the CRA amend the data, than just amending the contract in the first place.

[SurlyBonds]

 

Am I being totally thick here? Am I missing something vital? Please explain!

 

I can't see what confusion there is at all??

 

That related to the scoring process that they run automatically on their sites and was in relation to my own file - I also had an issue with Orange Telecoms with my data card account. Equifax wouldn't take it into a courtroom but still refused to acknowledge that S12(1) could apply to them. Their insistence was that they did not auto-process data. Equifax and Experian are two different organisations, and they also hold different sets of data - not all lenders/suppliers subscribe to all three CRAs and they all use their own storage rules. e.g. CallCredit stores monthly markers for 60 months, Experian store 12, etc.

Despite Experian's earlier actions, they were still not prepared to force a manual invention on the file we were trying to sort.

 

You are forgetting that I am one of a group of three people helping about a dozen people get their own files cleaned up.. these are examples of letters and situations that we have gone through collectively.

 

This letter is vitally important as they are now finally admitting, in writing, that the "legal right" bit isn't valid and that my original argument about defaults should be determined by the contract is now being accepted. All previous with these idiots has been non-admitted and maybe carried out after lengthy battles. I don't think you realise that this letter can now be used as hard evidence - that is a big step forward, even if you don't recognise it as such.

 

I will now be taking Experian's 'evidence' back to Equifax and CallCredit to get a similar statement form them, and then I will take it further to get this formally recognised even higher...and I don't care how long that takes.

 

You will note from earlier posts that I've also amalgamated many letters (from different sets of circumstances) to come up with harder and more persuasive letters...we all do learn as we go along and refine what works and learn from what doesn't.

 

I've personally spent hundreds of pounds in research time and books, let alone time and effort and I have some very good help from a relative who's a civil barrister, who would normally charge shedloads for his time.

 

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with any advice, then don't follow it... however, it's working quite nicely for me, personally, and the group of people I'm helping. We're investing a lot of time and money in taking these collective DPA cases to the wire in a bid to help people on this forum try cleaning their files up, with some very simple ideas and usage of the Law. I thought that's what we are all trying to do?...or am I totally incorrect in that presumption and on the wrong website?

 

I'm now equally confused as to what your actual point is?!

[SurlyBonds]

this is the bit that im struggling with:

 

"THE DATA SUBJECT HAS EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 AND HAS CHOSEN TO OPT OUT OF AUTOMATED PROCESSING AS OF 05 SEPT 2006. CREDIT STATUS ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE VIA A MANUAL PROCESS."

 

I would recommend that when applying for credit you notify each lender of your request as we cannot guarantee that a company will follow the instructions outlined above.

 

according to section 12(1)

 

 

 

 

 

Rights in relation to automated decision-taking.

 

 

 

 

12. - (1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.

 

there is definately some discrepency between these two statements! it clearly states the data controller must ensure that this is not carried out automatically..

so it is without question the cras have to stop the process happening, not add a notice of correction, and inform you to tell the searcher it must be done manally.it is not your responsibility to do that it is clearly the cras 007

 

 

 

Just to clear this up as simply as possible...as I have been on this forum nearly all day, or on the phone helping members (yes...for 14 hours solid:( ) ...and I really do need to get to bed as I have to drive a long way to a meeting tomorrow....

 

put simply: IF there is a Notice on your credit file, then it flags any decision algorithm to then have to stop and flag it up for manual intervention and decisioning.

 

Got it?

 

But, what is, exactly, your own agenda here.

 

I still allow the CRAs to process my ongoing contracts... my fight (all along) has been to stop these charlatans storing incorrect or old data that is, frankly, none of their business. It was between me and the supplier, and once it's finished (by whatever means) then it's finished, and the CRAs can stick their noses out and stop dishing the data (or dirt, if there is any) out like gossiping old fishwives like they do.

If both sides keep to an agreement, then all's well with the World... but I don't like fulfilling my side and then (out of principle) seeing the other party decide how to interpret the contract that we both agreed... a bit like bank charges.

 

For those I am helping directly, it makes a huge difference to have non-public defaults removed so that they can reschedule their finances at better rates, or in most cases, actually reschedule their finances. CJJs won't get removed unless the lender is in an exceptionally good mood, so don;t even try...as it's public data. However, normal defaults aren't, and I have been trying to get the CRAs to recognise this and play fair, within the Law.

 

Saying that, I did help one person get a CCJ set aside (off the register) when talking very nicely to the supplier concerned, and being civil about it.

 

I have said all along, that if anyone is attempting to debt-dodge and simply wipe their file clean, then it simply won't happen, and I certainly haven't used it in ANY situation where the default is not settled. Settled defaults, yes...but I do not know how a judge would view an unsettled debt - see my posts in the Default Hell thread. My advice is get your current credit under control, and maybe some lenders will actually agree to remove if you stick to a repayment plan... I have have spoken to many on the cases I'm working on, where they will... yes, it's a bit like a free CAB service, if you must know.

 

If however, those defaults are still outstanding as a result of bank charges, then you have my absolute full support, but you can easily clear those off by making it a condition of your case that the bank removes them forever, or ask to judge to order it so on your claim.

 

Everyone who's on the electoral role has a credit file, and you can't remove that, because it's public information, according to a test case, to help prevent money laundering in the wake of terrorism legislation.

 

So, even if you wipe off every entry, you will still have a file, albeit devoid of entries except your address.

 

But, remember this, if you try removing all your entries, including current ones, how are you going to get credit? That's why I leave my current ones on there...it's just the historic ones that I (personally) want taken off, and i want my file manually processed. However, I equally respect the right of those people who want to leave them on or choose auto-decisions - that's their lookout, and their own legal right.

 

What my own personal argument is, and the cases I'm fighting, is that the CRAs should not have the omnipotent right to determine when data is removed... that should be down to 1) the contract and what permission you personally gave, then 2) what any statute says, and 3) finally a judge if no one can agree.

 

Which, coincidentally, is what the Law is all about.

 

That's what this site is all about... getting the credit industry (inc. banks and CRAs) to act lawfully, that's all.

 

If you've interpreted my previous tongue-in-cheek posts to mean that I'd like to see the return of anarchy and down with the whole of the financial infrastructure brought begging to its knees, then you really have got the wrong end of the log. Sorry to have disappointed you.

[SurlyBonds]

 

My credit file doesn't contain anything more untoward than a couple of 1 and 2 markers over the recent past. All I'm trying to do is to get the CRA's to remove my data from the automated processes.

 

If that's all you have, then believe me, you have absolutely NO problem with your file. 1s and no more than 2x2s would not make a major difference through most of the lender's algos that I know. It's even worth talking nicely to those involved, explain why the missed payments happened and try asking for them to be rectified. Certainly if any of these lenders mess you up, you can use it as a very powerful bargaining chip.

 

You can obviously get any old historic accounts removed, providing you gave no long term rights in your contract.

 

But, it has now gone midnight... I've run up my fifteenth consecutive hour...and I really am off to bed.

 

Send me a PM with your number, and I will try and discuss what you are trying to achieve, and suggested ways forward, or I am going to be replying to this thread for the next six years.... no pun intended.

[SurlyBonds]

What am I seeking sb? In the words of Marcus aurelius antonius “I seek the truth”

 

The issues I raise are not about debt dodging or bringing about the downfall of the financial institutions, more about protecting myself and my children’s future against the global greed of these large institutions and their powers to ruin lives at the push of a button.

 

I am appalled at some of the cases on this site and the way they have been treated, and feel sorrow and anger at the thought of the stress and destruction good families have been subjected to, in many cases leaving behind a trail of divorce separation and complicated illnesses as a direct result of those actions.

 

I detest the way in which these institutions hide away behind a cloak of mystery and untruths and the way you are prevented by a mirage of corridors from getting to the door you really need to enter to get an answer that is lawfully yours for the taking, but unfortunately its more like trying to gain access to a Victorian gentleman’s club in Mayfair.

 

In this day and age we should not be subjected to loans and credit cards which in some cases amount to nothing more than piracy, and the wheels of justice should be far more on the side of the consumer to limit the interest charges and terms lawfully applied to these products and to contain the collection of these delinquent loans to a properly organised body that would have to operate within specific guidelines laid out by a court and given the powers to cease interest and grant payment breaks to assist the borrower to overcome his difficulties and return him to a solid standing financially upon which to continue to repay the debt.

 

The judicial system in this country is nothing more than a dinosaur and sadly not everyone can come to terms with the scenario it portrays.

unfortunately many people feel uncomfortable in this environment in to which you have to enter, given limited resources to defend your rights, using terms you are totally unfamiliar with in your normal everyday life, which I fear gives cause for the more powerful bodies to bury our lawful rights even deeper, purely as a result of a system in place to defend our rights which is generally unapproachable by the layman.

 

This is just the beginning of the data revolution, and I for one am here to ensure that when these companies hold in the very near future every morsel or titbit of information about you and your family on your id card and implement every other data gathering item put into our lives from your mobile phone to your skybox, that if someone does try to push that button, I and my children after me will have the lawful power to prevent that machinery from burying us all, without redress.

 

That’s my agenda sb

 

007

 

Well Mr Bond, I think that (generally) me and you are in agreement... I hate corruption (espeically in public office - guess I'm onto a dead horse on that one!), bullying and the endemic attitude of the big corporations that they somehow think they have more rights than me.

 

I vehemently dislike the CRAs with a passion not because of what they were setup to do, but more to do with what they have turned out to be... a money-grabbing know-it-all cesspit with no morals, ethics, or understanding of the real World... see my earlier posting to their Milky Bar Kid office junior at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/28604-experian-use-potentially-misleading.html#post223084

 

However, I do believe that change will force these things to start redressing the balance... it may sound a little like some wishful thinking of good v. evil, but if you look at what advancements have occured in civil rights in the last 200 years, then I think you'll agree that things do generally change for the better. However, my main worry at the moment is that since this latest liberalist namby-pamby Govt. came into power, then more and more corporations have successfully lobbied for very unfair and unequitable advantage. It is all down to money and the celebrity-worship culture that we live in...

 

In all, I genuinely think that this country has somewhat lost its way, and that sleaze and corruption are so endemic, that people have given up the fight - they just don't care anymore - just look at the voting levels. However, every now and then, things like this site pop up and catalyse one firkin big fight-back that takes these Muppets by surprise, and they suddenly realise that they had better shape up.

 

I firmly believe that a persistent, annoying campaign that refuses to lie down will eventually create some changes in this whole financial industry, but that will only happen if enough people take up their rights and start exercising them.

 

Those companies will then start having to realise that they are going to have to run their organisations from a slightly different angle, with more emphasise on RESPECTING the customer and affording them the courtesies that they are entitled to.

 

It is a bit like redressing the balance of the scales... at the moment, and I can't work out how, it's almost like they are doing US a favour by serving us... how this ever came about I don't know, but it certainly has changed over the last 10-15 years.

 

And if those companies refuse to move forward and redress the balance, then trends and new companies prepared to come up with customer first ethics will win... it's a damn competitive market out there, and it's very easy to get set-up and start winning lots of custom... just look at Amazon, Scottish Power, etc. two companies in particular who are often noted for sticking up for the customer, especially with Amazon when it comes to their market traders. eBay have lost the plot which is why they are losing thousands of customers and they and their subsidiary PayPal are facing complaints by the truckload.

 

And the same will happen to the banks...and the CRAs... at the moment anyone reputable can setup a CRA and if they ran it properly and honestly, they would wipe the floor with ExpeFaxCall. I might even start.. hee hee.

 

However, we will not win this fight by resorting to their level of immoral tactics... we just want what is right,and nothing more. And that is why we must remain whiter then white in our dealings with them and ensure that we don't jeopardise any future political shift that is the long term aim of this campaign.

 

Gandhi and the World's largest democracy stuffed it to the former Empire and broke the back of the full military and economic might, but not once did MG ever advocate sinking to the same level. He did everthing as lawful protest only, and he never once condoned violence, no matter what horrors were inflicted... even Amritsar.

 

The CRAs will, I believe, change...they will have to, becuase there is now too much going on in this country in relation to people getting fed up with this apathy. It has recently happened in a big way in New Zealand with a huge swing back to basics, morality and redressing the balance in favour of the people, and it will, God willing, replicate here.

 

150 years ago, we were still sending kids up chimneys to choke to death on soot...and that was legal...

100 years ago, woman couldn't even vote for the 'Mother of all Parliaments'...

50 years ago, blacks in the US couldn't even use the same washroom as whites...

25 years ago, companies could do WTF they liked with your data...

 

Let's just take one thing at a time and build on solid foundations, before we start petitioning for total secrecy laws...

[SurlyBonds]

SB

 

I have a question, you stated above

 

I had a CCJ applied by the Inland Revenue around 3 years ago, I paid the debt in FULL and a couple of months ago I wrote to the IR and asked them if they would allow the CCJ to be removed. I actually got quite a nice letter back stating they were happy I received a 'Satisfaction Notice' and they would have no problems with the CCJ being removed from my credit file. (I cannot remember the exact wording and I am not at home where the paperwork is)

 

I then wrote to Experian/Equifax whichever agency it was enclosing a copy of the IR letter and they said it would stay on my file for 6 years and they could not remove it etc etc I did consider 'set aside' but my question is, how did you get it removed from the credit file? because in other posts you state a CCJ being a court order cannot be removed??

 

Thanks for your help

Chris

 

They are digging themselves into a very large hole...oh goody, can I come a watch???

 

Basically, if the Inland Revenue (the original Claimant) has agreed to its removal in a letter, you can go through the Court process yourself...

 

or you could POLITELY ask the IR to do it for you by them requesting for it to be set aside and removed from the register through a General Form of Judgement or application to set aside a judgment.

 

Offer to pay their Court fee which is about £30 (I think? - I'll have to look that one up) and remember to THANK THEM for their assistance. After all, if they receive one good piece of feedback, others might also be lucky.

 

It is a little quicker if the IR do it, otherwise the Court will have to write to them again, on the basis of your application, and will ask the IR if they wish to contest your application. They shouldn't do, if they have sent you a prior letter agreeing to its removal.

 

If you explain that's it's quicker for them to apply to the Court for the set aside order (they should knwo this anyway) and PAY their fee for doing so, then they probaly might.. you could even fill out the court form include a cheque and send it to the IR for signing and forwarding on. Just an idea...

 

Either way, once that process has run the course, you should get a judgment from the Court saying something along the lines of:

"It is ordered that the Judgment (No.xxxxx) dated dd/mm/ccyy entered against XYZ for £x be set aside, there being no objection from the Claimant." or very similar.

 

That will then be de-registered from the Register of County Court records, and the Muppets at the CRAs then HAVE TO remove it from your file. Or, quicker, still, send them a notarised copy directly and give them 7 days to JFDI.

 

By the way, if the CRAs try arguing the toss, then they are in VERY deep water...

 

to fail to act upon the directions of a judge is an obstruction of justice and putting yourself in Contempt of Court (a criminal offence), and you can be banged up in the nick if a judge has had a ****ty day.

 

Believe me, this does work and the CRAs Muppets are talking the typical don't-really-know-but-I'll-try-making-up-an-answer bulls**t.

 

I have done exactly this process for someone who had a CCJ registered against them by a utility company.

 

We initially had EXACTLY the same response from Equifax, until I sent them a letter (cc'd to the judge in the case) inviting them to explain to the judge why they were rejecting his official judgement and should I apply for a Contempt of Court Order against them

 

...it's even funnier when you phone them and ask the actual Muppet from the CRA who sent the letter and ask them if (s)he would like to be the named "obstructor of justice" on the Court application or would they like to nominate their line manager...

 

and then stay very silent whilst they slowly fill their undergarments... and listen to them sob quietly.

 

"There, there, Equifax, we know you can't help it...you're all uneducated idiots... we know it's not your fault...now don't cry...come on, be a big grown up boy now... they don't really drop the soap in the shower and order you to pick it up...that's just a nasty-wasty rumour."

[SurlyBonds]

The letter has been delivered in hard copy with signature thereon... so I can now use this in my case with the I.C.O.

I'm even going to keep the envelope and frame it!

[SurlyBonds]

SB

 

I then wrote to Experian/Equifax whichever agency it was enclosing a copy of the IR letter and they said it would stay on my file for 6 years and they could not remove it etc etc I did consider 'set aside' but my question is, how did you get it removed from the credit file? because in other posts you state a CCJ being a court order cannot be removed??

 

Thanks for your help

Chris

 

The even funnier thing about this is that I just found the following in Experian's own website:

 

Under what circumstances can a judgment be removed from my credit report?

A judgment is only removed in the following circumstances.

• It is paid within one calendar month.
  
• Six years have passed since the original court case (in which case removal is automatic).
  
• It is taken back to the court and set aside.
  
• An insurance company was responsible for the debt and you can produce evidence of this from them.

Source:

FAQs: Changing a judgment

 

Don't these Muppets even read their own literature..let alone the public Acts.:o

[SurlyBonds]

I have just got the paperwork in front of me now, the letter came back from EQUIFAX and states:-

 

 

I did pay the debt in full and also received a Satisfaction Notice and a letter from the IR saying they had no objections to the CCJ being removed, which I sent to Equifax, and the above is their reply.

 

on the Equifax site it states:

 

 

It also states

 

Chris.

..

 

Go to the link on my post to Experian's other page... I know that they have two pages that contradict each other. I saw the same think... maybe I need to ring their Milky Bar Kid Education 'expert'... ho hum.

 

However, I PROMISE YOU THIS:

If the creditor agrees to a 'set aside' of the CCJ, then the Court will issue an order to that effect.

 

That Order will be noted by the Registry Trust Ltd, who will then notify the CRAs to remove the entry. And they have to do it or they are in Contempt of Court.

 

Nobody, in this country, can ignore the ruling of a judge, and if he Orders it so, it must happen. The CRAs are NOT legal bodies, or judges...and their web pages are written with so much spin, their web designers must get dizzy. It is all a big attempt to look official and important, and it doesn't cut any ice with people like me who have always stood up to corporate bullies, which is all they are.

 

Experian need to synchronise their two web sections urgently.

[SurlyBonds]

OK slight change of subject but...If the bank/lender etc breaks the contract by applying unlawful charges...does that then mean that you can request the removal of that information from your credit file as it should no longer be processed as the contract is no longer valid?

 

1. Individual clauses in contracts can be deemed unenforcable, but the Unfair Terms Regs does state that despite one or more clauses being revoked, if the contract can still be performed after the removal of those specific terms, then it is still valid.

 

However, if you are claiming unfair charges back, make it a condition on your letters/LBAs/Court Claims, etc. that the default is to be removed as part of your claim.

 

If the default has occured solely or primarily as a result of penalty charges, then your letters/Court Claim should mention this, and insist that the default was then unfairly applied through THEIR breach of contract. I used this against argument against First National in the great where's-my-settee debate.

 

2. If they have issued a default notice and terminated the contract... then the contract is dead... and the permission to disclose died with it, unless there was a clause that allowed disclosure after the end of the contract...which I doubt there was.

[SurlyBonds]

Independent Online Edition > Loans & Credit

 

In April the BBA admited that various lenders were using coded messages via the CRA's to give an opinion on how accounts were managed. We all knew this occurred but had no proof of this untill April 06.

Surely the banks and CRA's can not possibily have any justifaction for this behaviour seeing as it is secretive and we the people whose information is being used have no access to it to challange or correct it?

It is also an opinion of the bank sending the message.

I would love to challange this aspect of processing as I strongly believe from personal experience that negative messages are being passed about customers who challange these institutions.

 

I challanged and won against several in 2003 using DPA though I think reading your posts that timing and luck had a lot to do with my sucess as my understanding of DPA is scarce compared to yours. However I feel that the financial world has something on me that prevents me from obtaining credit with certain lenders. (not just internal behavioural checks)

 

Have you any thoughts on this that you would be willing to share?

 

And yes I am paranoid (but I have reason to be!)

 

I had seen the article, and as I work on banking systems, I'm only too aware of what they get up to.

 

I know fully well that banks will share your log entries with other lenders - after all, you said they could when you signed the contract! - it's classed as data.

 

Log entries are all the ancillary notes and copies of correspondence, etc between you and the bank, and they can use their own entry fields and free text fields... in the industry there is a well established joke that there's an ABC marker = Awkward Bl**dy Customer... there are plenty of others too, a bit like doctor's shorthand on patient bedboards.

 

However, it is simple... do a full data request on the bank's internal systems, including copies of all emails, etc. concerning you.

 

You can also ask for a complete log of everyone who has ever accessed your account details, including members of staff, dates, times and reasons why. 'Access reasons' have to be provided with a lookup reference table if they are in coded form. Under the FSA, all banks have to keep an audit trail, usually called MI for short, so ask for yours.

 

Banks however, are not allowed to give any type of "reference" to another bank as to your banking conduct, unless you give written permission for them to do so. It states this clearly in the Banking Code - Section 11.2, and you can insist on approving the copy before it is sent.

[SurlyBonds]

Well its off to the OFT for me for me then as I requested all of the above and have not recieved any of these details.

I was told that the FSA did not regulate current accounts so only Data Protection Act guidelines were followed and that DPA did not cover the information I requested.

No further explanation was given for that.

I may just start to fight harder.

 

Thanks for help.

 

No, not quite....

 

the FSA requirement is for the retention of data to help prevent money-laundering, etc. and provide an audit trail of the account. You don't actually use the FSA to see the data.

 

The data is requested under the DPA... but it is only there in the first place, because the FSA, and other Acts, says that thay have to keep an audit trail.

 

Hope that clarifes it for you.

[SurlyBonds]

Well its off to the OFT for me for me then as I requested all of the above and have not recieved any of these details.

I was told that the FSA did not regulate current accounts so only Data Protection Act guidelines were followed and that Data Protection Act did not cover the information I requested.

No further explanation was given for that.

I may just start to fight harder.

 

Thanks for help.

 

Okay, the section of the Data Protection Act that allows the data subject ALL data rights, not just your financial data:

 

 

PART II

 

 

 

RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS

 

Right of access to personal data.

7. - (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled-

 

(a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,

 

(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of-

 

(i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject,

 

(ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and

 

(iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed,

 

© to have communicated to him in an intelligible form-

 

(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and

 

(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and

 

(d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.

...

(7) An individual making a request under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description.

 

(8.) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day.

 

How much more of the actual Act do they want thrown at them?????

 

... really, these people are absolute Muppets... and they shouldn't be in the damn job if they can't read English. If I had any employee acting as stupid as this, or giving information that was blatantly incorrect, then I would issue a very final warning.

 

It's the same with the Freedom of Information Act, you can ask youor local Council for example, for every damn email that's ever been whizzed around their system about you.... but that's another very long story ...;-)