Outstanding Debt Search - help please!

[themadcap]

Yes nothing bad in email just the facts of the situation

Ta Brig

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Let me know the result please, there are

other things that can be done in the event

of any problems:madgrin:

 

Brig.

[davidscreditfile]

I've had many dealings with Rob Sands and will say I have

found him sensible and reasonable if he is approached in the same way.

 

Brig.

 

First time I've heard anyone say anything positive about a DCA,:lol: - This Rob must be on the move out or something!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Been there some time last 4 years + that I know of.

[themadcap]

Hi,

He refused to have it removed, said they will send account back to Lowells and I need to SAR them for £10

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That's a good idea at least you'' have

all the data on the account to work with.

#Brig.

[davidscreditfile]

How about this;

 

 

 

Mr XXXXXXXXX

Address

Xxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxx

 

Date:

 

Re: Complaint – Searches

 

Credit Report Ref No: XXXXXXXXXXXX

Created: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Company Name: Apex (Apex Credit Management Limited)

Search Reason: Outstanding Debt

 

 

 

Dear Compliance Manager, Equifax,

 

I would like to lodge a formal complaint against your company and would like a clarification response to the below;

 

On 6.6.2011, I submitted a dispute online, concerning Searches contained on my credit file within Table 1 of my report. I informed you that I believe Apex Credit Management have the wrong data subject and asked you to verify that their information was accurate and correct.

 

I also posed the question regarding which of, Table 1 and Table 2, on my online credit report, were actually visible by potential lenders and other organisations.

 

On the 08.07.2011, I received a reply from Emma Dempsey, advising me that Apex Credit Management had investigated my claim and that the search was to remain on my file. I was also informed that searches carried out in Table 1 are not visible to potential lenders or any other organisations. This was concurred by your client Apex Credit Management.

 

I would demand that you seek evidence from your client Apex and ensure that they do indeed have the correct data subject, complying with the First and Fourth Principles of the DPA 1988 and on the advice given my the Information Commissioners Office on the registering of Information. During this process I would also demand the removal of this search until you have verified the above.

 

I would also like clarification on searches contained within Table 1 of my credit report. On numerous occasions, both Equifax and your clients have stated that searches in Table 1, are not visible to potential lenders or other organisations. However, this in contrary to the information provided by Equifax online, within “Information about searches” Where it states that searches in Table 1, can be seen by potential lenders and other organisations.

 

It also contradicts information given by Equifax to a Megan Webster, Adjudicator at the FOS,

Quote ''Equifax has clarified to me that a lender WILL be able to see these types or searches and it may be something that has an impact on a decision''

She goes on to state.

''A lender doing a credit search may wish to take into account any outstanding debts an applicant might have”

 

Finally, I would ask for a formal response to my concerns as to the actual use of the Table 1 and Table 1, are they seen or not seen by lenders, and the impact if any on a subject’s credit status.

 

I would be grateful for a response within 14 days,

 

Regards,

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Reply today from Equifax:

 

Dear David,

 

Thank you for your enquiries and I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

 

I understand your comments about the accuracy of the search information on your Credit Report. As you are aware we have disputed this information on your behalf with the lenders in question. Whether we remove information following a dispute with depend on the response from the company concerned. The company is not obliged to provide supporting documentation or proof as part of the notice of dispute process. As you're aware the Mackenzie Hall information on your report has now been removed from your file but as Apex have not provided authorisation to do the same, the information remains unchanged. If you wish to pursue this dispute I can only suggest that you contact Apex directly or forward the matter in writing to the Information Commissioner's Office at the below address:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

I'm sorry for the confusion caused by our responses over whether the searches in Table 1 of your Credit Report are visible to other lenders. Our searches on your online file are divided into Table 1 and Table 2 to let you know which searches may influence a lending decision when you apply for credit. In Table 1 you will see Credit searches, Outstanding Debt searches and Debt Collection searches. Both Credit Searches and Debt Collection searches are visible during an application you make for credit and can be taken into account when assessing your details. Outstanding Debt searches on the other hand are more complex. Outstanding Debt searches can appear in either Table 1 or Table 2 on your Credit report depending on the level of confidence of the trace. The searches in Table 2 are not visible to any other lender and will have no impact on you during an application for credit. The Outstanding Debt searches in Table 1 are not visible to other lenders but in certain instances, may have an impact if you are being assessed for credit by a company who are using an automated scoring system that takes this information into account.

 

I hope that this clarifies the situation. Please let us know if you require any further information.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Mandy Russell

Customer Relations

 

 

They just wont budge, even though the DCA have searched the W=wrong data subject.. looks like I will need to take this up directly with LTSB

 

Div

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi David, I mirrored your complaint with

a request for clarification (as a legal professional)

the replies are virtually word for word.

So my take on this a lender cannot see the T 1 search

but their ''automated '' system can.

This is where the confusion is occurring imho.

It is only the company who place the entry who

can remove it, so it's Apex you know have to

challenge regarding this, strict proof of their reason

for the searches other wise legal action will follow.

 

Brig.

[davidscreditfile]

Yeah, but basically every credit application has a score, automated or not, so basically all applications will take OD searches into account!

 

Re Apex, I've written and they replied saying their information is correct and wont remove it without speaking to LTSB - so I will need to letter them now ;-(

 

However, I'm up for the war

 

Div

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The way the normal on line search is carried out

is that the potential lender will look at the way

accounts are managed, defaults, late/missed payment

CCJs, residential info, GAIN & CIFAS data.

they then marry this to their in house systems, they

do not see your ''credit score'' as on your file it's

for your info only.

[davidscreditfile]

Any idea how 1 or more OS debt searches might affect an individual??

 

Div

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The more searches the bigger the

effect, if the data subject makes many

apps for credit all the searches by potential

lenders are visible and suggest desperation

or fraud.

Given the info recd from the CRAs and ICO which

I find still misleading I really don't know.

I am going to ask my MP to inquire of the Dept. of

Business and Skill how, why, and exactly who can see

these searches it is in line with the research I am

involved with on the CRAs.

[davidscreditfile]

I really think that it will be very nagative if in Table 1, however I feel that these DCA can just put these markers on anytime they Trace someone..

 

In any event, the DCA and CRA's are a law into themselves and I feel that in the years to come, you will not be able to get anything without a good credit report...

 

Let me know how you get on as I'm constructing my letter to LTSB at the moment and I think it is going to be a long one..

 

I am dreading my Experian report!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

David just read this: I have a credit report

from CRA1 which tells me my ''SCORE'' is

just 2 points off excellent, I have another

report from CRA 2 which says my score

is mid poor ie., average, CRA 3 says I have

5 out of 5 top of excellent.

I have no delinquent debts, no defaults, no late

or missed payments, no CCJs, long residence

at one address and no overdraft.

I can't fathom it.

[cashins]

Hi David, I mirrored your complaint with

a request for clarification (as a legal professional)

the replies are virtually word for word.

So my take on this a lender cannot see the T 1 search

but their ''automated '' system can.

This is where the confusion is occurring imho.

It is only the company who place the entry who

can remove it, so it's Apex you know have to

challenge regarding this, strict proof of their reason

for the searches other wise legal action will follow.

 

Brig.

 

For many years the 'foot soldiers' handling credit applications have not been able to see the actual information, the system says yes , no, or if refered to an underwriter - mabey.

If refered to an underwriter, they will see whatever is there including T1

 

David

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That is what I am attempting to

prove/disprove but contradiction

after contradiction misleading statements

even from the regulators is making my

task difficult.

[davidscreditfile]

I think the whole purpose of any negative mark is to refuse credit... or that is the way it is becoming. My main gripe is them being able to hold wrong

information and when disputed, they say they can not remove it without their client's say so, which is wrong as they are the Data Controller, it is their responsibility

to ensure the accuracy of the information....my example is equifax hold a wrong OS Debt search, but I need to go to LTSB to dispute it.. surely Equifax must

ask for proof of validity from LTSB if disputed, rather than take their word over mine? That is not being impartial !

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The terms of the contracts between

CRAs and creditors is obviously confidential

but they must comply with the DPA provisions

that the data supplied is accurate and up to date

I believe that they assert that the data they

provide is to the best of their knowledge compliant.

The creditor/DCA is the data controller of the information

posted on file, there for you must refer any complaint

to them first.

I have to disagree that the CRA should act on a debtors

assertion that an entry is faulty without confirmation

from the creditor, with whom the dispute must be raised

first, there is provision to place a notice of dispute on

the CRA files where an entry is challenged.

[queensclose]

it may be stat barred but until you write to them and educate about the limitations act they will still chase you. and mark entries on your credit file. they know its stat barred because they paid pennies in pound. but hide behind the fact they bought the debt and not the file. you need to tell them to close the account and set the debt to £0. doubt they'll remove the entry. worse part is the entry has an impact on your score

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

it may be stat barred but until you write to them and educate about the limitations act they will still chase you. and mark entries on your credit file. they know its stat barred because they paid pennies in pound. but hide behind the fact they bought the debt and not the file. you need to tell them to close the account and set the debt to £0. doubt they'll remove the entry. worse part is the entry has an impact on your score

This has nothing to do with the Limitations Act, the matter concerns the posting

of outstanding debt searches on credit files, and the responsibility for

the removal of them.

OD searches have been recognised as not

being unreasonable as long as at least one of

the ICOs principles is met, the OFT says that

they feel that the searches should be visible on files.

[davidscreditfile]

The terms of the contracts between

CRAs and creditors is obviously confidential

but they must comply with the DPA provisions

that the data supplied is accurate and up to date

I believe that they assert that the data they

provide is to the best of their knowledge compliant.

The creditor/DCA is the data controller of the information

posted on file, there for you must refer any complaint

to them first.

I have to disagree that the CRA should act on a debtors

assertion that an entry is faulty without confirmation

from the creditor, with whom the dispute must be raised

first, there is provision to place a notice of dispute on

the CRA files where an entry is challenged.

 

They placed a NOD on my file, but when LTSB came back to Equifax and said the info is correct, they removed the notice of dispute and closed

the dispute down.......so whether or not they place a NOD, they still are going by LTSB word against mine, which is totally wrong because under section 159 and consumer Credit Regulations, I can see no regulation that states that a CRA cannot remove data without the consent of the creditor/supplier of that data. This being so when they tell me that they cannot remove it without the consent of LTSB they are actually making a negligent misrepresetative statement under the misrepresentation Act 1967. S2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967. Credit Reference Agency’s “ accepted industry standard” will not be accepted in a court of law as an excuse for saying that, nor can they say that they act impartial, as if they would not take LTSB word against mine.

 

LTSB passed Equifax the information, Equifax then processed the information onto my credit file, without actually verifying that the information was correct, again which is wrong.

 

So whether or not they have filed a notice of dispute, do you think hat any potential credit supplier is going to take my Notice of Dispute and believe me???

 

I can understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day, we are talking about one's own private information and if that information is wrong, there is no easy solution and finally, the rights of the data subject actually overrule those of the CRA's!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This not about regulation it's about

the fact a creditor has searched your

file and has confirmed that they believe

it is correct, you must take it up as a formal

complaint with the credit or the DCA who

placed the information, a Formal Complaint

or a SAR to find the data regarding

the reason for the serach, the CRA will

know no more than that the creditor

believes the search is justified.

So you have the remedy in straight

forward terms LTSB must reveal the

reasons and justification for the search

Equifax will not be able to do this.

[Bossman81]

Good luck Bossman!!

 

Back from my honeymoon. No response what so ever! Don't know what to do! I want those searches removed.

[cashins]

This has nothing to do with the Limitations Act, the matter concerns the posting

of outstanding debt searches on credit files, and the responsibility for

the removal of them.

OD searches have been recognised as not

being unreasonable as long as at least one of

the ICOs principles is met, the OFT says that

they feel that the searches should be visible on files.

 

But can every tom dick & harry DCA do this.

 

My thoughts are that the owner of the debt can do this, but not every DCA they pass it around on a 'collecting for basis' otherwise the cycle will never end.

 

David