CAG CRA S.A.R Club

[car2403]

This is interesting in light of all this;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/169061-credit-crunch-about-bite.html

[JonCris]

I will wait until Monday and if I hear nothing will compose my complaint and send it off to the I.C.O.. I will post it up on this thread.

 

Just for the record, this is the response from Callcredit:

 

Dear Mr,

Thank you for your e-mail; I am sorry that you did not find my response adequate. I confirm once six years have elapsed on settled and defaulted accounts, the credit account records are removed from all credit referencing databases. However, I further confirm these records are not immediately erased from archives, research datasets, or disaster recovery facilities. I trust this clarifies matters.

Yours sincerely,

 

It would have been nice to get this response without sending multiple letters and emails though. All my correspondence was completely clear from the off. They seemed to continually think I was concerned about the future of my own ruined credit report and not just a concerned citizen. All they kept on saying was 'it won't be visible on your report', 'it won't be visible on your report'. Well I knew that and the best way to keep it like that is to permanently erase the data after a set period of time.

 

For the record the reason so many debtors are being chased in recent times for 'out of time' debts IS because of Call Credit who have developed a system whereby previous addresses, some very old, are linked to new ones.

 

These links can be very tenuous & serious mistakes have been made such as the wrong person being evicted. The wrong elderly person being harassed to death, literally, for a debt they did not owe. We can also cite many such cases from this site alone so goodness knows how many there are out there.

 

The link might only be that you have a similar name living in the same area or even a family member with a similar name to link you (in their minds) to anothers debt.

 

This situation is likely to continue & get much worse just as long as the so called regulators allow it

[patrickq1]

this thread has gone awful quiet i have just read this from a web post and it is quite frightening what the labour gov are upto look at the tory mp locked up this week like the libs said a tin pot dictatorship or what ????

Government faces fight from within for spy database

A Home Office revolt is stalling a plan to store our e-mails and calls but a more sinister one may take its place

 

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, faces a revolt from her senior officials over plans to build a central database holding information on every telephone call, e-mail and internet visit made in the UK.

A “significant body of Home Office officials dealing with serious and organised crime” are privately lobbying against the plans, a leaked memo has revealed.

They believe the proposals are “impractical, disproportionate, politically unattractive and possibly unlawful from a human rights perspective”, the memo says.

Their stance puts them at loggerheads with the spy-masters at GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham, who have been driving through the plans.

The Home Office rebels appear to have forced Smith to stall plans to announce a bill in the Queen's speech authorising the database. She has instead ordered her officials to review the proposals.

This weekend a top law enforcement body further dented the government's case for the database. Jack Wraith, of the data communications group of the Association of Chief Police Officers, described the plans as “mission creep”. He said there was an “inherent fear” of the data falling into the wrong hands.

“If someone's got enough personal data on you and they don't afford it the right protection and that data falls into the wrong hands, then it becomes a threat to you,” he said.

Smith is already studying less explosive but equally effective alternatives. One option involves a system based on sending automated requests to databases already held by telephone and internet firms.

Privacy campaigners believe the proposals form part of a “pentagon” of five huge databases, all linked together in real time to create the ultimate surveillance society.

This would include compulsory registration of all Britain's 72m mobile phones, more than 40m of which are prepaid. Terrorists and criminals prefer to hide behind the anonymity of prepaid phones, so a communications database needs to include accurate details of prepaid subscriber details.

The Home Office yesterday declined to comment on the plans. But the office of Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, said it expects this register to be included in the database proposed in the draft communications data bill.

Vodafone is believed to be one of the mobile phone firms now drawing up plans for compulsory customer registration. Such a system, already used in Europe, would require a passport or ID to register a phone.

Phones can be located to within a few yards using cell site analysis – which tracks mobile phone users as they move from one signalling area to the next.

The system would then link with the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system of traffic cameras, which provides live coverage of motor-ways and main roads. It, in turn, is linked to the DVLA in Swansea which holds the records of all registered vehicles in the country.

By monitoring a single telephone call it would be possible to identify exactly where its user was and the registration number of the car in which he or she was travelling. This car could then be found within seconds by the ANPR cameras and tracked along its journey.

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, said: “If you can do this in real time, with all the databases being interoperable, you have absolute perfect surveillance.”

The plans for a communications database are equally intrusive. At their heart is a massive extension in an existing network of black boxes plugged into the internet. They intercept data on the web and extract information to be routed into computers held by MI5 and GCHQ, if required.

Little is known about the extent of the system, but sources say that last year GCHQ was given £1 billion to extend it. Total costs for the project are estimated to be as high as £12 billion.

Advocates of the database say terrorists are stateless and highly mobile and their communications are hard to detect among the billions of pieces of data on the internet. Last year about 14% of all calls were made over the internet, prompting police to complain that they are losing the ability to track calls.

Unlike telephone companies, which must keep data for billing, internet call firms such as Skype have no reason to keep the records.

A European Union directive introduced after the London and Madrid terror attacks compels service providers to keep all telephone and e-mail data for two years.This requirement will be extended to cover websites in March. But it does not include calls via the internet. Anyway, call and e-mail data is held separately in hundreds of company databases.

Opponents fear the cost and ethical implications of a central database are too great.

Liberty, the civil rights group, has said that it will mount a legal challenge.

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, said the idea was “awful”.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Patrickq1!

 

The system would then link with the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system of traffic cameras, which provides live coverage of motor-ways and main roads. It, in turn, is linked to the DVLA in Swansea which holds the records of all registered vehicles in the country.

 

By monitoring a single telephone call it would be possible to identify exactly where its user was and the registration number of the car in which he or she was travelling. This car could then be found within seconds by the ANPR cameras and tracked along its journey.

 

This will also link to the VOSA Database and the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) Database, i.e. the Motor Insurance Database (MID), so MOT and Insurance will be cross-checked too.

 

The DVLA, VOSA and MIB link up has been planned for a while, and may be operational. Those Cameras will soon know if the Car you are Driving is properly Registered, Tested and Insured all via ANPR.

 

Time to get a blurdy horse I think!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[joesoap]

And why shouldn't they know if a car is properly registered/insured etc?

[banker_rhymes_with]

And why shouldn't they know if a car is properly registered/insured etc?

 

Sorry, humour has obviously left the Thread. My apologies.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[cashins]

And why shouldn't they know if a car is properly registered/insured etc?

 

Because in the case of someone I know, despite having a valid insurance certificate in his car, had his car confiscated and removed to a pound by the police, as their computer said it was in fact uninsured.

 

He got it back after 3 days with an apology, (it was an error) but other than that he has recourse to anyone.

 

All because some spotty little dipstick somewhere input the wrong info.

 

David

[Newborn]

Stop worrying, of course it'll be alright! It's all just information and the Information Commissioner will be entrusted with all of this .................. oh?

 

Newborn

[GroundControl]

WTH more info is good and the more they can use is better, and why should they not know where you are 24/7 you may be a terrorist 14 year old driving without insurance at the very least

[sosumi]

Information Commissioner to Get more powers, according to CSA:

here

[andrew1]

Well lets hope they make use of it and not with a limp wrist either..

[AA99]

Information Commissioner to Get more powers, according to CSA:

here

 

I think that is excellent news! After doing battle with 8 creditors for the last 6 months, I have determined that the so-called authorities and organisations are absolutely not doing their jobs properly and do not seem to be on the side of the consumer. The recommendation I have had was the ICO, applied and complained online, and received a written acknowledgement in 2 days! Haven't yet been given a 'reference number' but at least my complaint against one of the creditors is filed and it's a good tactic and name to 'mention' from time to time.....

 

Will be anxiously waiting to hear what the review officer says ?

 

Must also mention that I would happily SAR at least 3 of the credit organisations or DCA's

[sosumi]

Experian: We're in untested waters

 

This is in our local paper - haven't seen it in the national press yet.

[AA99]

Great article, thanks for publishing it!

 

"Whatever happens, there has been a shift in emphasis inside Experian. The glory days of helping banks lend money to new customers are over."

 

Thank G**

[davey77]

The ICO may get more powers, but are they going to bother to use them.

 

We have all asked the CRAs to remove data even when an admission has been had in writing (from the Creditor) that no agreement exists and it is therefore unenforceable. Yet, what is the reply from the ICO?

 

Here is what one poster, in such a position, has had in response from Experian. And according to them, the ICO believe that payments made to an account are perfectly reasonable grounds for a lender to continue processing your data, even if no agreement exists:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177986-unenforceable-loan-3.html#post1953881

[car2403]

The Information Commissioners Office may get more powers, but are they going to bother to use them.

 

We have all asked the CRAs to remove data even when an admission has been had in writing (from the Creditor) that no agreement exists and it is therefore unenforceable. Yet, what is the reply from the Information Commissioners Office?

 

Here is what one poster, in such a position, has had in response from Experian. And according to them, the Information Commissioners Office believe that payments made to an account are perfectly reasonable grounds for a lender to continue processing your data, even if no agreement exists:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177986-unenforceable-loan-3.html#post1953881

 

This adds more fuel to the fire to reclaim all payments made under an unenforceable agreement.

 

Should you be able to show that those payments were made in err of judgment against the belief that the payments were "due" rightly and correctly under an unenforceable agreement, you could easily use the ICO's view here against them - should the payments be recoverable in Court, then payments have never been "made" in good faith and the data cannot be said to be within the principles under the DPA.

 

In fact, challenging this view on this basis is probably a way to go - but I think we'll all knwo what the outcome of that will be, don't we...

[AA99]

I apologise in advance but just can't trawl through nearly 1200 posts. I was presuming this thread is about everybody requesting an Subject Access Request from each of their CRA's:confused: I've got practically nowhere with my creditors in writing for 7 months now and have been harassed by telephone. I have not yet Subject Access Request'd my CRA's

 

Is that my next move:confused: Some Creditors have terminated my card (not agreement:confused:), some have sold on, some have passed on (I wish:mad:) my loan, passed it back, grrrrrrrrrrrrr:x

Edited February 3, 2009 by AA99
spelling

[car2403]

The thread is about SAR'ing CRA's, as the title suggests.

 

Do you have your own thread, AA99?

[AA99]

Yes, I have about 8 separate threads (AA99 v ....) for each of my creditors but my point was SAR'ing their relevant DCA's that they are using, ie, Freds, Mercers, Shoosmiths, etc......

[patrickq1]

"Whatever happens, there has been a shift in emphasis inside Experian. The glory days of helping banks lend money to new customers are over."

the glory days have just begun when you consider the fact that lord taylor gets paid £120,000 a year from Experian and the same lord has already admited to helping them change the LAW ......need we say anymore on the subjet of MR BROWN'S GRAVY TRAIN CRONIES...NUFF SAID HUH!

[lil old me]

This adds more fuel to the fire to reclaim all payments made under an unenforceable agreement.

 

Should you be able to show that those payments were made in err of judgment against the belief that the payments were "due" rightly and correctly under an unenforceable agreement, you could easily use the ICO's view here against them - should the payments be recoverable in Court, then payments have never been "made" in good faith and the data cannot be said to be within the principles under the DPA.

 

In fact, challenging this view on this basis is probably a way to go - but I think we'll all knwo what the outcome of that will be, don't we...

 

car2403, you are a legend, why I didnt think of it like that. I too had a reply from CreditExpert/Experian saying that my data can still be processed without a signed credit agreement. Consectutive payments to the account are proof that an agreement exists, plus, the fact that a credit account would be set up for me means that the consumer 'must' have agreed and entered into that agreement. I have since replied saying that this is outrageous and that there are instances other than fraud that accounts are set up without credit agreements. I know this because I did not sign one.

 

I have also drafted a letter to Mint my credit card supplier who have me in default, saying that due to the change in the 'rules' of the ICO, that I insist that the default be removed in return for full payment of my account in one lump sum. I'll have to find the money but i'll worry about that later, right now getting that default removed is paramount.

 

Like you said with the payments already made, you could easily use the ICO new guidelines against the banks. It cant be one rule for one, one for another. I only owe Mint about £550 now but I have easily paid triple that in the time I have banked with them. Cut off nose despite face springs to mind - just remove the damn default eh?

[tifo]

This adds more fuel to the fire to reclaim all payments made under an unenforceable agreement.

 

you could easily use the ICO's view here against them - should the payments be recoverable in Court, then payments have never been "made" in good faith and the data cannot be said to be within the principles under the DPA.

 

Where can i see the ICO's view in this matter?

[lil old me]

Where can i see the ICO's view in this matter?

 

I dont have the entire quidelines, just an extraction from Experian quoted from the ICO. I have not seen any of this on headed paper from the ICO mind. The part I have on my letter reads:

 

• The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor.
  
• Where a legal liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable.
  
• Responsible lending decisions are dependant upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals’ ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts.
  

Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor, but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable agreement

 

I would be interested to see these new guidelines from the horses mouth...

[tifo]

I dont have the entire quidelines, just an extraction from Experian quoted from the ICO. I have not seen any of this on headed paper from the ICO mind.

 

Thanks for the info ...

[car2403]

Where can i see the ICO's view in this matter?

 

I dont have the entire quidelines, just an extraction from Experian quoted from the ICO. I have not seen any of this on headed paper from the ICO mind. The part I have on my letter reads:

 

• The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor.
  
• Where a legal liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable.
  
• Responsible lending decisions are dependant upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals’ ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts.
  

Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor, but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable agreement

 

I would be interested to see these new guidelines from the horses mouth...

 

Thanks for the info ...

 

Here's the link from the thread discussed above, to which I was referring to;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/177986-unenforceable-loan-3.html#post1953881