Default Entry

[The Debt Star]

However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

 

I would imagine that upon request the creditor would show a copy of the notice to Experian. However when i show a letter to Experian from the creditor which states in no uncertain terms that that default was incorrect then how can Experian be under any illusion that the default entry should be there? Whats your textbook answer for that Phil?

 

The Data Protection Act requires that information of an individual be correct. Experian holding inaccurate data when it has been proved beyond doubt that it is is a breach of the Act no matter how they try and sugar coat it with all the pathetic standard replies!

 

Quite, which sums up nicely why the CRAs abuse the data that technology alone has allowed them to process in the way they have.

 

Thing is Phil Experian, how can you justify behaviour like that described by the OC above? you can't. Which is why you're no better than a banker selling PPI, so get off ur moral high horse or you'll get dragged off it on these forums, cos they're packed with the victims of the CRAs and ur paymasters, the bankers.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have to agree with that DS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Debt Star]

thought you might! though doubtless Punxsutawney "Experian" Phil will argue the OC is just being bitter ;-)

Edited May 15, 2011 by The Debt Star

[Jamesx81x]

Cast Iron example here of how they abuse the position they have been given and it is examples like this that need to be used to knock these idiots off their perch.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A solid bombardment of complaints regarding every incident to all the relevant regulatory bodies

in an attempt to if nothing else harass them int action.

[Jamesx81x]

Am waiting Phil

 

Or are you too busy copy and pasting Experian (crap) Sorry meant guidelines

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Right 1ST time IMHO:ohwell:

[The Debt Star]

A bit like Groundhog day this innit? Must be like that working at Experian.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yea but it's the HOGS that keep coming back:doh:

[The Debt Star]

lol. if it was groundhog day I wonder if Experian Phil opens up the same complaints and sends the same inane replies to consumers? doh! of course he does. It goes like this:

 

Thank you for your email, which we received but did not read on 17 May 2011.

 

YOUR QUERY:

 

- Rip Off Bank Plc (Account started 01/01/01)

 

SUMMARY:

The information you have seen is as we have received it from Rip Off Bank Plc.

As they have not provided further information regarding the data I refuse to comment on what it may be referring to.

 

WHAT NEXT:

 

I suggest that you contact Rip Off Bank Plc for further assistance, who will ignore you and tell us that the data is correct.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION:

 

If you have lived at any other addresses, you can add these to your report profile online and we'll ensure that advserse data gets posted on those too. You will then be able to view all of the false, inaccurate and damaging information that we hold in your name at the addresses provided. Having 24 hour access to your report gives you no advantage whatsoever of being able to change your information as we arbitrarily change it. As a member you are able to speak to our reports team with any queries you may have about the information on your report. Rest assured they will do nothing to assist you. Remember: Its not our Fault, Its Theirs.

 

Kind regards

 

Experian Phil

 

Customer Service Officer

Customer Support Centre

Experian

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sums it up brill my grand son has a phrase that matches IT WASN'T ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Debt Star]

He has the makings of a great data controller

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The other one is I didnnnnt DO ITTTTT. so i think your right I'll get his CV off to experian, he is only 7

so might be over qualified:madgrin:

[The Debt Star]

Equifax take them from 4.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi DS I did think about call credit but they are still in their prams.

[The Debt Star]

thats a picture of a bath?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Babies,:doh: prams

[justiceforall]

The data belongs to your lender, and if they tell Experian it is correct, there is nothing more that Experian can do for you. You then need to go to your lender to dispute it. Please state which provisions of the Data Protection Act that you think Experian have breached. Please Google 'data protection technical guidance' and read the first result that comes back from the ICO. This should help you clarify whether your lender has erred.

 

Apologies for coming onto the thread a bit late in the day, and apologies also if I am misunderstanding, but do you work for a Credit Reference Agency? The reason I ask is that it has been my personal experience of one particular CRA that they tend to do a Pontius Pilate on things when you advise them that you believe there is an incorrect default registered on your file. To simply suggest that data belongs to the lender is another anomaly of a system that has become corrupt through the power it has been allowed to accumulate by the establishment. Unfettered power is not a good thing, not even if those holding the power are right. For power to be just, it has to be fair and impartial, and the system, in my opinion, is neither. The system is funded by the financial sector (i.e. the lenders) and is never inclined to bite the hand that feeds it. Even those charged with regulating the system seem incapable of actually regulating in a fair and impartial manner. As has been stated above, a complaint to the ICO can take a year or more to come to fruition. A complaint to a Credit Reference Agency (CRA) can take you nowhere, because they tend to favour the hand that feeds them - i.e. the lender or DPA or DCA (debt purchasing agency/debt collection agency). The hand that feeds them may well be feeding them bull****, but it matters not, just so long as they pay their membership fees.

 

So, I can't necessarily agree with your contention that if a lender tells Experian that an entry is correct, there is nothing more that Experian can do for you. Experian, as indeed any other CRA, has a statutory duty of care to the consumer (i.e. the borrower) as much as they may have a financial obligation to the lender. I say financial obligation because it is quite clear CRAs make loads of money out of lenders and/or the financial sector.

 

I have heard the term "fair and impartial" applied to credit scoring. Credit Scoring can never be fair and impartial if it is computerised because computers are not infallible, they are only as good as the information we feed into them and very often the information fed in is incorrect. Very often, in CRA terms, the information on credit files is incomplete. Consequently, the only information that those doing a credit check are fed is the often incorrect information fed into the computers. Quite how CRAs are fair or impartial is another of the great mysteries of a corrupt system that uses only the information given to it in many cases by Debt Purchasing Agencies (DPAs) and Debt Collection Agencies (DCAs) without those agencies having provided proof of any alleged debt.

 

For a default to exist, the lender should be obliged to prove to the CRA that a debt exists in the first instance. We all know how that is done in Law, why should it be different with regards to a credit file? Yet it is. Hearsay is taken as proof and information that would not stand up in Court remains on a credit file. If the DPA or DCA or whoever else cannot provide evidence to prove so, then the default should not be allowed to remain on the credit file. Credit Reference Agencies cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that only the lender can instruct them to remove defaults from a credit file, whilst on the other hand purporting to abide by the ICO's guidance and indeed, the Law pertaining to the DPA. The two are incompatible; the truth usually is incompatible with hearsay, yet the system allows hearsay to rule simply because it has the power to do so and so few mere mortals know how to bite back.

 

Any entry on a credit file that cannot be proven to be legally binding should be removed forthwith, but Credit Reference Agencies simply refuse to do this and so, the never ending cycle of abdication continues. They simply refer the consumer back to the lender or DPA or DCA and most DPAs and DCAs are about as helpful as a nail in the brain. If a DPA or DCA or any other lender cannot produce a signed original credit agreement, they have no rights in Law to enforce or otherwise seek to discredit or harrass the alleged debtor or the information applied to said debtor's credit file.

 

It is because the system is corrupt and because it takes interminable amounts of time to get an incorrect entry modified or removed, that 9 times out of 10, the consumer gives up trying. It's like bashing your head up against the proverbial brick wall... nice when it stops! Hence, the offending information remains on a credit file for 6 years and often longer (another inconsistency and illegality in the system) and the system screws many an innocent party. Does the system care? I don't think so. Does the ICO care? I don't think so. Does Equifax care? No. They are the system.

Edited May 17, 2011 by justiceforall
infallible incorrectly noted

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

What a superb post it high lights every thing that is poisonous and vexatious about the whole debt industry.

I TAKE MY HAT OFF TO YOU!!!!!!!!!

[The Debt Star]

justiceforall, absolutely bang on the money. James Maperson (Experian Phil) hasn't been around for a few days but I'd dearly love him to reply to your post and try to justify his employer's position.

 

I particularly agree when you say "credit scoring can never be fair and impartial if it is computerised." Thats true. I would go further and say that is the ability to process and store data on computers per se that is being abused here by these unregulated cowboys masquerading under the pretence of legitimate businesses "doing the right thing" for society. Experian Phil commented on my "Should the CRAs be Outlawed" thread, saying that a car loan lender should be able to assess a purchaser's credit worthiness. Yes, they should, but not by using data supplied by the CRAs. I distinctly recall people buying cars before the advent of the CRAs and that was probbaly because the finance houses kept their own paper records.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Here, Here DS I wonder if PHIL is a computer generated Avatar programmed with the Experian script.

[Jamesx81x]

This is the kind of thing the likes of Martin Lewis and associated cronies should be taking on!

 

Someone who is listened to has financial backing and knows where to shout the loudest

 

The regulation of CRA's has to be the biggest consumer issue and concern outside bank charges and ppi but no less important!

 

Data belongs to the individual it concerns, not the lender and not the CRA's. By signing credit agreements you give a creditor permission to report that data and the running of your accounts! It says exactly that in the terms and conditions of such agreements!

 

Where exactly does it say when you take out credit the creditor owns the data! Nonsense!

 

Would Experian like to point to the relevant section if the Data Protection Act that states in no uncertain terms the creditor owns the data they place on file?

 

I feel we may be waiting for some time for that!

[The Debt Star]

but do you work for a Credit Reference Agency?

 

yes, he does

 

one particular CRA that they tend to do a Pontius Pilate on things

 

Experian!

 

Unfettered power is not a good thing

 

It is NEVER a good thing.

 

The system is funded by the financial sector (i.e. the lenders) and is never inclined to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

Correct, which is why the CRAs must become regulated. We want OFCRA!

 

Experian, as indeed any other CRA, has a statutory duty of care to the consumer (i.e. the borrower) as much as they may have a financial obligation to the lender. I say financial obligation because it is quite clear CRAs make loads of money out of lenders and/or the financial sector.

 

Well, for one thing when we pay them money to for a report, we become their customers and should be treated fairly. For another, they are credit controllers jointly with the lenders are obliged to record accurate information and should take off inaccurate information until it is proved otherwise. Equifax did that for me recently but Experian never, never do.

 

I have heard the term "fair and impartial" applied to credit scoring. Credit Scoring can never be fair and impartial if it is computerised because computers are not infallible, they are only as good as the information we feed into them and very often the information fed in is incorrect.

 

Aint that the truth

 

Very often, in CRA terms, the information on credit files is incomplete. Consequently, the only information that those doing a credit check are fed is the often incorrect information fed into the computers. Quite how CRAs are fair or impartial is another of the great mysteries of a corrupt system that uses only the information given to it in many cases by Debt Purchasing Agencies (DPAs) and Debt Collection Agencies (DCAs) without those agencies having provided proof of any alleged debt.

 

Quite, and which is why we see so many threads here on the abuse of the table 1 credit searches by DCAs and their ilk when such searches are meant to be by lenders only

 

For a default to exist, the lender should be obliged to prove to the CRA that a debt exists in the first instance.

 

If there is a change in the law here, the CRAs would be finished, and they know it.

 

Any entry on a credit file that cannot be proven to be legally binding should be removed forthwith, but Credit Reference Agencies simply refuse to do this and so, the never ending cycle of abdication continues. ...If a DPA or DCA or any other lender cannot produce a signed original credit agreement, they have no rights in Law to enforce or otherwise seek to discredit or harrass the alleged debtor or the information applied to said debtor's credit file.

 

or even a copy of a default notice, often never sent.

 

It is because the system is corrupt and because it takes interminable amounts of time to get an incorrect entry modified or removed, that 9 times out of 10, the consumer gives up trying. .

 

They rely on this. That is their tactic.

[The Debt Star]

Data belongs to the individual it concerns, not the lender and not the CRA's. By signing credit agreements you give a creditor permission to report that data and the running of your accounts! It says exactly that in the terms and conditions of such agreements!

 

Where exactly does it say when you take out credit the creditor owns the data! Nonsense!

 

Correctamundo. I rather fancy that we should be aiming to remove that aspect of the credit agreements, which may have an effect on the CRA industry overall.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

One does wonder sometimes if the ''Consumer Champions '' are completely on the consumers

side I have my personal doubts from recent experinces.