Taking Experian to Court

[dayglo]

this report is out of date. It refers to a time when the first data protection act (the one in 1984) was administered by the Data Protection Registrar.

 

We now have the Data Protection Act 1998 (the main differences are that the 1998 one recognises an individuals' right to privacy and the 1984 does not - amongst others)

 

If you were to cite this reference in court, you would be hit right back with - "it's out of date and the replacement, the ICO state 6 years is ok and consent isn't required"

 

There are other ways to tackle this, they are complicated, but they are being worked on.

[mayja]

this report is out of date. It refers to a time when the first data protection act (the one in 1984) was administered by the Data Protection Registrar.

 

We now have the Data Protection Act 1998 (the main differences are that the 1998 one recognises an individuals' right to privacy and the 1984 does not - amongst others)

 

If you were to cite this reference in court, you would be hit right back with - "it's out of date and the replacement, the Information Commissioners Office state 6 years is ok and consent isn't required"

 

There are other ways to tackle this, they are complicated, but they are being worked on.

 

New Data Protection Act

 

 

This Guidance Note is based on the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The Data Protection Act 1998, which takes account of the requirements of a European Union Directive on the subject, is due to be brought fully into effect in 1999.

 

When this occurs consideration will need to be given to the requirements of the new Act.

 

However most of the advice in this Guidance Note, particularly with respect to the Data Protection Principles, which relate to the quality of data will still be applicable. Readers should be aware however that some points of detail may change.

 

This is not out-of-date. This is a guide the CRA's and the lenders are aware of. The Information Commissioners Office can't simply now change their mind. It would be seen as unreasonable and in my opinion would question the credibility of the Information Commissioners Office.

[dayglo]

ok - I wish you good luck with taking Experian to Court.

I wouldn't recommend this course of action for you at this time.

[mayja]

ok - I wish you good luck with taking Experian to Court.

I wouldn't recommend this course of action for you at this time.

 

Dayglo,

 

Why not? Please explain in detail. I don't wish to flog a dead horse but I have made a request to the DCA under the CCA. They admit no legal contract, consent etc. exists. I tell Experian this and provide proof. Then procceed with Court action against the DCA. Experian refuse to query this info with the DCA and send me the response I posted. What course of action do I have left. Experian know no contract or consent can be proven but refuse to do anything. I think I have a case but obviously value your opinion.

[dayglo]

as I said above, the route that is most likely to result in the removal of your settled default is by issuing an N1 against the DCA and taking THEM to court. But I thought you were already doing this? If this is successful what would you be suing Experian for exactly, given that the default will have already been removed?

[mayja]

as I said above, the route that is most likely to result in the removal of your settled default is by issuing an N1 against the DCA and taking THEM to court. But I thought you were already doing this? If this is successful what would you be suing Experian for exactly, given that the default will have already been removed?

 

 

I am taking the DCA to court. London Scottish Bank/Robinson. Claim issued on the 20th September.

 

My case against Experian is about the quality of data they hold. I believe you can make a claim against 2 parties on one claim. I am thinking of making Experian a 2nd defendant.

 

We'll see how Experian respond to my claim.

[dayglo]

My case against Experian is about the quality of data they hold. I believe you can make a claim against 2 parties on one claim. I am thinking of making Experian a 2nd defendant.

 

:o :o

 

let's work this through a little..... Even if you can satisfy a judge that the quality of data is poor, and I'm not sure how you can judge the 'quality of data' It is either accurate or it isn't. If it is 'accurate' in the sense that the default was justified but you argue, rightly, that without a contract in place that they have no right to continue processing the data then that is ok. Quality of data us unlikely to be the issue, it is will come down to the main question that we are all waiting for a judge to answer....

 

"is it ok for a CRA or a subscriber to process non-public data for a period of six years after the ceassation of a contract?"

 

We say it is NOT, they say that it IS.

 

Adding Experian as a 2nd defendant is interesting to say the least! I just wouldn't do it. Why make it more complicated for yourself?

 

Do you intend to sue Experian for damages relating to the 'quality' of data? If so, how will you quantify and prove this?

[Tobes]

If she has requested that the company should remove the default, and they've refused, and she's requested that Experian remove the default, and they've refused, as they are both related to the matter, and it's unclear just who has the power to get it removed, I think it's entirely appropriate to name Experian as a co-defendant...

[mayja]

:o :o

 

let's work this through a little..... Even if you can satisfy a judge that the quality of data is poor, and I'm not sure how you can judge the 'quality of data' It is either accurate or it isn't. If it is 'accurate' in the sense that the default was justified but you argue, rightly, that without a contract in place that they have no right to continue processing the data then that is ok. Quality of data us unlikely to be the issue, it is will come down to the main question that we are all waiting for a judge to answer....

 

"is it ok for a CRA or a subscriber to process non-public data for a period of six years after the ceassation of a contract?"

 

We say it is NOT, they say that it IS.

 

Adding Experian as a 2nd defendant is interesting to say the least! I just wouldn't do it. Why make it more complicated for yourself?

 

Do you intend to sue Experian for damages relating to the 'quality' of data? If so, how will you quantify and prove this?

 

 

Dayglo,

 

I'm not contesting at this present time processing my data for 6 years after the ceassation of a contract.

 

I am contesting that I don't remember signing a contract and furthermore I don't remember giving my consent to disclose my personal infromation to a third party. THE DCA REFUSE TO SUPPLY THE AGREEMENT, THE RESULT IS COURT ACTION. There isn't a contract and as far as I'm concerned there never has been. My complaint with Experian is why won't they even acknowlege my query. Do you believe there response about the Information Commissioners Office stance is OK?

Becasue I bl**dy don't. This is my Data and I can't get any credit or have a decent life because of this out-of-date, non-proven and incorrect data.

If I let this go I am sure the response will become the same from Experian that is why I think the latest argument needs to be challenged in Court.

 

Consumer - queries entry they do not recognise

Experian - Oh didn't you know consent isn't needed

Consumer - No, must be right, damn better pay those £1,000 in bank charges as well.

 

Don't miss my point here.

[jimfishybob]

Hmmm....

 

The question is, What are you ultimately trying to achieve? If it is the removal of a default notice then the DCA is the one to sue.

 

I can't see the relevance of suing 2 organisations to achieve the same end. If you are going after Experian to prove some kind of point, then this could be a costly endeavour and a small claims court won't set precendent either way.

[Tobes]

I'm not even sure that it would be Small Claims; if it were, it would not be costly at all...If it weren't, then it could be very costly.

[jimfishybob]

I'm not even sure that it would be Small Claims; if it were, it would not be costly at all...If it weren't, then it could be very costly.

 

So, either way, there seems little point in pursuing this avenue.

[Tobes]

I think it would be very interesting indeed

[dayglo]

Hmmm....

 

The question is, What are you ultimately trying to achieve? If it is the removal of a default notice then the DCA is the one to sue.

 

I can't see the relevance of suing 2 organisations to achieve the same end. If you are going after Experian to prove some kind of point, then this could be a costly endeavour and a small claims court won't set precendent either way.

 

Mayja - I come back to the point I made right at the start, and JFB has made again, it is the default on your file from the DCA that is making your life difficult. You are already pursuing this? There is no point in adding experian as a co-defendant, it achieves nothing but adds an extra level of complexity to your claim.

 

Consumer - queries entry they do not recognise

Experian - Oh didn't you know consent isn't needed

Consumer - No, must be right, damn better pay those £1,000 in bank charges as well.

 

This has got NOTHING to do with bank charges or agreeing with the ICO. It is to do with YOUR attempt to remove a default notice placed by a lender and then transferred to a DCA from YOUR credit file.

 

my final thoughts on this topic

i) suing Experian in reference to this particular case is pointless and could cause you more harm than good.

ii) Didn't you say earlier on that you had already begun court proceedings against the DCA? How can you now add Experian as a co-defendant once the claim has been issued?

[mayja]

Dayglo,

 

I will first take the steps of issuing a formal complaint to the ICO and trying to address Experian's latest argument. Will keep you updated on the progress.

 

PS I still believe my proposed argument is valid and will research this more in-depth before pursuing legal action.

 

Thanks for the debate and will keep you posted.

[mayja]

Dayglo,

 

Thanks for the input. I think the best course of action will be a formal complaint to the ICO about Experian. I will address the argument from the horses mouth!

 

I still think I have a valid argument and will do a bit more in-depth research before pursuing Experian. Will keep you posted on the case against LSB.

 

thanks for the debate:)

[angry cat]

Hi Mayja,

I am quite in agreement with your thoughts about the CRA'a, if you have the time please my pollwing thread:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/33127-experian-equifax-advice-please.html#post258361

 

I fail to see how these CRA's have a right to process my/our Data

They have no statutory right, they are not Government Departments, they are Venture Capitalists

AC

[dayglo]

The 3 CRAs are many things, but venture capitalists they are most definitly not.

[angry cat]

I refer to the Groups that own them!

AC

[angry cat]

GUS formerly known as Great Universal Stores owns Experian-

The big break-up

Are you seriously saying that GUS would not be considered as a venture capitalist?!

With the greatest respect, I would say, Get Real

Love AC

[dayglo]

GUS formerly known as Great Universal Stores owns Experian-

The big break-up

Are you seriously saying that GUS would not be considered as a venture capitalist?!

With the greatest respect, I would say, Get Real

Love AC

 

errr... Do you know what venture capitalism is?

 

In a nutshell, VC typically involves making reasonably high risk investments with potentially high returns. the CRAs are many things but they are not a high risk investment. (although that may change in the near future )

 

GUS is a relatively mature business - not a single aspect of GUS could come under the VC category.

[jimfishybob]

my final thoughts on this topic

i) suing Experian in reference to this particular case is pointless and could cause you more harm than good.

 

Echoed.

[jimfishybob]

Actually this is my final thought...

 

If you go into a legal battle with a CRA based on the arguments in post #1, then you will more than likely lose.

 

Further, if you send the e-mail in it's present form, (without Dayglo's corrections), they will realise that you have not obtained any legal counsel at all, (as claimed), and the case would be thrown out on technicalities.

 

The argument is much more complex than, 'Did you give them permission or not'. Even if you can satisfactorily prove that they had no consent and consent never existed, there are still 5 other requirements within the Data Protection Act, any one of which will give them a right to process and divulge this information with or without consent. The sticking point at the moment is #6 and there are people far more qualified than I currently debating the impact this has on the whole issue.

 

For your own sake, complain to the ICO but leave the CRA's out of the courts.

[Tobes]

What you guys seem to be forgetting is that you're using the EXACT same argument with the original company as you are with the CRAs...And those companies are just as big and scary and resourceful, generally more so, yet you think it's safer and easier and less complicated to sue them?

[jimfishybob]

If that's the case then sue one or the other, why both?

 

My concern isn't the size of the CRA or DCA in question, merely I fail to understand what is to be gained by suing both and it's a question nobody seems to have answered yet. If the result is the same either way then where is the sense in complicating the issue?

 

Besides, in the case of the CRA's, this information constitutes their core business and they are likely to throw a lot more muscle into it than a DCA.

 

However, the point still stands that, with the greatest respect, I don't think Mayja fully understands the intricacies of her initial compliant and his/her assertions in their current form would be torn apart in court.