CAG CRA S.A.R Club

[maybelline]

reply from cra -

standard letter 'we can share account data between lenders and credit reference agencies for the length of our contract, plus another six years'

even if there is no contract and is in legal dispute???

[citizenB]

They certainly have become far too big for their boots and have far too much power over us.

 

reply from cra -

standard letter 'we can share account data between lenders and credit reference agencies for the length of our contract, plus another six years'

 

even if there is no contract and is in legal dispute???

 

At the moment this does seem to be the case.

 

Unfortunately we have given these people licence to process our information by giving so much of it freely in exchange for credit cards etc.

[maybelline]

but the template info from ICO states that they must take into account facts such as -

whether the lender has pursued a CCJ or taken legal action to enforce an agreement without delay

-so how can a lender keep marking a file for 18 months say while in dispute, surely they do not pass the test for taking action if they believe they are correct

 

The Information Commissioner clearly states in regard to unresolved disputes that consideration must be taken of certain factors, including –

 

‘If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly. We will take into account these factors ‘-

 

If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer, if not, why not?

Edited May 27, 2009 by maybelline
ICO

[citizenB]

but the template info from ICO states that they must take into account facts such as -

whether the lender has pursued a CCJ or taken legal action to enforce an agreement without delay

-so how can a lender keep marking a file for 18 months say while in dispute, surely they do not pass the test for taking action if they believe they are correct

 

The Information Commissioner clearly states in regard to unresolved disputes that consideration must be taken of certain factors, including –

 

‘If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly. We will take into account these factors ‘-

 

If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer, if not, why not?

 

 

Then I guess these are the questions that need to be asked of both the creditor and the ICO

[pinky123]

Can someone look at a letter I received from RBS regarding a Subject Access Request request as I am at a loss to what it means:

 

"Unfortunatley in this instance, documentation for this said loan cannot be provided.

For the Data Protection Act to apply, information which is not stored electronically needs to be held in a certain structured format which is easily accesible. An example of this would be if information was filed in alphabetical order, referring to the name of the customer and then the file itself was broken down into different topics. Information held in such a structured format is known as a Relevant Filing Sysytem.

Part of your Subject Access Request, the CCA would not generally be held by the bank in a relevant filing system and as such would fall out with the scope of the Act-this would mean that you would not be entitled to it under the Data Protection Act".

 

Any ideas to what this means or are they trying to blind me with science, I have been chasing my C/A since Nov 08.

 

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act.

There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for.

There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes.

Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort".

This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act.

If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes.

Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it.

If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now.

There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled.

Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995.

If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[Sparkie1723]

HI Pinky123,

 

This is RBS giving you the run around, write back to them and tell them unless they supply you with he data under your subject access request.

There are other statutes that they can be forced to supply the information under namely the New Fraud Act 2006....failing that you will make an application under CPR31.6 for an order for them to supply that information.

 

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

4 Fraud by abuse of position

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

sparkie

[maybelline]

so - preparing to make a complaint to ICO re 'is the lender prepared to test their claim' will keep you posted:)

[pinky123]

Thanks for the help Sparkie, just noticed even though I requested my direct debit to be cancelled as my account was now in dispute, they still continue to add take payments and continue with interest etc.

 

Whats my next move? They seem to be completely blanking me.

[going_mad]

Def. a bigger picture Lolly. Credit Reference Agencies advertise their services to consumers, as a means for consumers to become better informed about their credit status, and what information is recorded on their credit file. But when you take up the 'offer', the credit file is 'flagged' that you've just accessed your own information, thereby letting all the types that you've just mentioned have a good look at your credit file, send you all the stuff you've also just mentioned. Catch-22. Debt buyers and sellers are particularly keen... potential custom! Ack!

 

 

 

 

oooooops big oooops think i should have read this a half hour ago before i accessed my credit report well im going for bankruptcy asap but id merely logged on to try and find out all my debt for filling out my forms so i can be as accurate as possible and not misleading, and it seems an awful lot of it just isnt there??? the old stuff i can understand why not but these sites say that no one can see you have accessed your own file!!!! cant understand why the newer debt isnt registered and my c.tax etc where does it get logged??? anyone

[going_mad]

I do agree - we need to look at how to try stop this stuff - my own telephone number is ex directory and you'd never believe the calls we get - and nobody ever seems to give a straight answer when I ask "how did you get my number. I ask to speak to managers and supervisors and nobody seems to know where the lists come from - amazing ? It really annoys me!!

 

 

whenever my friend gets unsolicited phonecalls and u cant tell it is she try the policewoman at a crime scene and ask for their details and what relationship they have to miss XXXXX heard it on youtube and found it really amusing or if shes really bored and its on her mobileshe will get them to try sell her something and when they ask for bank details etc say i dont know the details its only the staff that have access to my finances blah blah till i get round to the fact that oh im not at home anymore im in hospital ive got issues. shes a hoot (and she goes to drama school probably helps her act all serious) but me when i get them i usually end up roaring and greetin and feeling blooming miserable and then end up on ebay buying random crap to cheer me up a bit booooo

[iddles10]

whenever my friend gets unsolicited phonecalls and u cant tell it is she try the policewoman at a crime scene and ask for their details and what relationship they have to miss XXXXX heard it on youtube and found it really amusing or if shes really bored and its on her mobileshe will get them to try sell her something and when they ask for bank details etc say i dont know the details its only the staff that have access to my finances blah blah till i get round to the fact that oh im not at home anymore im in hospital ive got issues. shes a hoot (and she goes to drama school probably helps her act all serious) but me when i get them i usually end up roaring and greetin and feeling blooming miserable and then end up on ebay buying random crap to cheer me up a bit booooo

 

Loosely related:

 

If you are having nuisance calls to your home number: trueCall, or to your mobile: BlackBaller (from killermobile.com)

Edited July 8, 2009 by iddles10

[maybelline]

so - preparing to make a complaint to ICO re 'is the lender prepared to test their claim' will keep you posted:)

 

update, no reply from anyone yet??????? how frustrating, on the warpath now.

[Sparkie1723]

At the moment this does seem to be the case.

 

Unfortunately we have given these people licence to process our information by giving so much of it freely in exchange for credit cards etc.

 

I have been looking where I can post this for discussion , ...thought this was the best place

 

sparkie

 

Questions about section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act

Credit Reference Agencies are supposedly to be “impartial”, I have questioned Experian previously on this exact subject before wherein I claimed that Agencies take the word of a data supplier over the word of a data subject.

Of course they disputed this fact.

I had reason to claim this because The Royal Bank of Scotland applied detrimental incorrect information on my Credit File.

On informing Experian that this information was untrue, and that I wanted this information removed.

Experian contacted the R.B.o.S who stated to Experian that it was correct and true.

It is at this point we have the situation that…….

One side……. i.e. Me….. State…The information is untrue.

The other Side … i.e.The Royal Bank of Scotland ...State it is true.

Experian then went on to say “They cannot remove the information without the consent of the Royal Bank of Scotland.”

I finally forced the Bank to remove this information because it was in fact untrue and incorrect.

Here is the ambiguity… section 159 of The Consumer Credit Act states that “A Credit agency can refuse to attach a notice of correction made by a Data subject because it is incorrect etc, etc etc..”

If and when they refuse a notice of correction because it is “allegedly” untrue………… who decides it is untrue?.....The Credit Reference agency.

Yet they say they cannot refuse information supplied to them by a data controller.

Question I ask is why not ?....if the supplier does not/cannot prove the info is correct to them

They are therefore not impartial they are on the side of the Data supplier / Data Proccessor /Lender.

The Consumer Credit Act gives them that power.

They therefore consider themselves all powerful.

I then took RBS to Court under the DPA and 15 minutes before the trial RBS admitted it had been incorrect all along.....RBS lied to the CRA's and they believed them, when I had told them it was incorrect and unlawful for over 2 years.

[patrickq1]

On informing Experian that this information was untrue, and that I wanted this information removed.

Experian contacted the R.B.o.S who stated to Experian that it was correct and true.

It is at this point we have the situation that…….

One side……. i.e. Me….. State…The information is untrue.

The other Side … i.e.The Royal Bank of Scotland ...State it is true.

 

 

**EDITED** IN BOTH CASES do not allow experian 1 inch of lee way sparkie this can and will cause them so many problems and should in the long term force change that if experian want to show or collate data the subject beleonging to the data must have notification from experian in order to clarify the truthfullness of the data ...you now need to find out from experian ..who no doubt will not comply without court action as to who they have shared your data with who has had access as it is experian have also spread the **EDITED** without your knowledge...

imo

patrickq1

i should nt mention **EDITED** i keep getting cag botted yet i have my barristers report that the banks admitted **EDITED**

Edited July 19, 2009 by car2403
Potentially libel

[JonCris]

partick I'm interested you can send it to me via PM please

[maybelline]

One side……. i.e. Me….. State…The information is untrue.

The other Side … i.e.The Royal Bank of Scotland ...State it is true.

 

this is an interesting position is it not, the bank is now owned by us isnt it?

[maybelline]

ok, cant get to next page? but Ideas to Cut Bureaucracy & Red Tape - Better Regulation Executive

 

not sure if allowed to do a link, a question here about why the cra's have this power seems one of very few options for the ordinary folk?

[maybelline]

stuck at page 62 then, has anyone successfully stopped the cra's from processing their data when the provider of that data is still saying to do so against best evidence from other party??

[car2403]

ok, cant get to next page?

 

stuck at page 62 then

 

There are unapproved posts in the thread, that push the page number up by one, but you can't access these posts, which is why you can't get past page 62.

 

Only site team can see those posts/pages, then.

[maybelline]

thanks for that, thought I was going mad, or maybe its that I just finished the night shift!

[Nduru]

From here:

 

:mad:

 

I was thinking of sending SARs to the CRAs and have just read the posting by Sosumi 23/feb/2009.

 

In that case perhaps an SAR to Experian should specifically request :

 

---------------------------------------------------

All information obtained from corroborative sources, including telephone records, gone away indicators and deceased flags

 

All up-to-date contact information for oneself, including mobile, work and home telephone numbers, and any forwarding addresses

 

All information used to provide key elements from the customer’s credit file, including public data such as bankruptcy, IVA and CCJ information, as well as shared credit performance data for eligible organisations

 

All information used to profile demographic and behavioural data to provide a better understanding of a customer’s lifestyle, income, wealth, household composition and predicted patterns of behaviour

 

All information that would be used to provide an indication of the customer’s asset base, including an estimated value for any vehicles or property they might own

-------------------------------

CRAs gain data from many sources. Each source may have your data under a different agreement for passing on to 3rd parties.

 

For example I have an old CC application form here I see that it that states (without any option of opting out).

 

You are authorised to share information about me and my account with other lenders through credit reference agencies in order to make credit decisions, trace debtors, and prevent fraud.

 

1. It says to other lenders. So for example it would exclude the CRA from passing my data to say a mobile phone provider or to a DCA who is not a lender and is acting on their own accord for a debt they have purchased.

 

2. It would also exclude the information from being passed on to a lender say for marketing reasons.

 

If your personal data is releasable to a 3rd party with contractual conditions, then is it not the responsibility of the 2nd Party to show diligence in making certain that these conditions are met.

 

For example

It appears from previous posts that Experian does not keep copies of the data sharing agreements of the 2nd parties.

 

As it receives your data from a variety of sources, then all individual pieces of data should be referenced to their source along with details of any restrictions on the use of that data, otherwise none of the 2nd parties can be certain that Experian is using the data properly.

 

Experian should be showing due diligence by keeping up to date with the rights of the sources to provide such data, or to have provided past data, for what specific purposes it is permitted to be used and to whom it may be released.

 

If this is the case then it should be evidenced by an SAR. If it is not, and the 2nd parties are informed of this and they continue to provide data to Experian or they do not demand the removal of exisiting data, then could there could be an argument for negligence or breach of contract?

[maybelline]

so - preparing to make a complaint to ICO re 'is the lender prepared to test their claim' will keep you posted:)

 

ICO reply - very long winded reference to European Directive 95/46/EC also 'the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate intrests.....' and the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit (1971) re six years... and the Younger Committee on Privacy re no necessity for statutory recommendations.... and the fifth principle.

the main point being - we cannot look at the valiidity of any agreement' the CCA is regulated by the OFT but 'you had a credit agreement with XXX and that there was financial activity on that account..........

 

so clearly one point contradicts another, so the usual reply then. since only a court can decide what is a lawful agreement

[spark1]

stuck at page 62 then, has anyone successfully stopped the cra's from processing their data when the provider of that data is still saying to do so against best evidence from other party??

 

Ive only just realised this thread existed. Lee Hanock in the Directors office at Experian removed searches from my wifes Experian credit file, even though the company which put them there never authorised him to do so, he made the decision himself.

 

This is what p!sses me off, the ICO always state that Experian only hold and process the data information supplied to then and can not remove it.

 

Its a no win situation imo, the ICO will always protect the CRAs. Ive had six assessments back from the ICO and all of companies complained about, apart from Experian complaint were found to have been in Breach of the DPA.

 

Now bare in mind in one of those complaints Experian displayed incorrect information for approx 10 months, the ICO still stated they did not Breach the DPA, only the companies which supplied it did. The information being displayed was incorrect linked addresses, now it was blatantly obvious my wife could have not lived at those addresses in question because in the public records which Experian have access to it clearly shows how long she has lived at how current address.

 

Now another bit what p!sses me off is, in carrying out their assessments the ICO used the public records in so much that the companies which carried out searches should clearly see the person they were looking for was clearly not my wife because records showed my wife had lived at her current address for x amount years and therefore she could not be the person they were searching.

 

To sum it up, Experian should have clearly seen that all the incorrect linked addresses on the wife file were that INCORRECT. WHY? because public records the ones Experian have access to clearly showed my wife had lived at her current address for x amount of years and therefore Experian should of realised this when we challanged her credit file, but they never, they came out with the same old story, but on the other hand Lee Hancock removed the Searches.

 

So there you have it, the ICO will always protect the CRAs, because it only takes one person to get a decision and the flood gates will open.

 

Spark

[maybelline]

ICO reply - very long winded reference to European Directive 95/46/EC also 'the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate intrests.....' and the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit (1971) re six years... and the Younger Committee on Privacy re no necessity for statutory recommendations.... and the fifth principle.

the main point being - we cannot look at the valiidity of any agreement' the CCA is regulated by the OFT but 'you had a credit agreement with XXX and that there was financial activity on that account..........

 

so clearly one point contradicts another, so the usual reply then. since only a court can decide what is a lawful agreement

 

ergo - financial activity give the right to process even if the 'activity' is unlawful and the behaviour of the creditor suggests this is so - what does 'legitimate interest' mean in this context? and what is a 'wide view' of same?

 

'the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual does not necessarily render the whole proecessing operation prejudicial to all individuals' ??? gobbledigook or what!

[car2403]

So there you have it, the ICO will always protect the CRAs, because it only takes one person to get a decision and the flood gates will open.

 

I've had a similar issue with my CRA file. Someone with the same name, but a different address and date of birth as me had a "financial association" which appeared on my credit file at a previous address some 12 months ago - I raised a dispute with all 3 CRA's and all 3 contacted the company that provided the information. That company confirmed the details were correct and the CRA's all refused to remove the incorrect information. When I challenged the CRA's, they stated the ICO's opinion, that they had checked the data with the data controller, who had confirmed it's accuracy, so they - as a data controller, now, themselves - felt it sufficient to leave the data showing on my file.

 

After this, I challenged the company that had supplied the data - and, after 12 months of to-ing and fro-ing, involving me providing documentary evidence that I a) have never been involved in a financial association with this person and b) that I haven't lived at the address I was alledged to have done so when this association took place, the company capitulated and admitted clerical errors in recording of their data against my name. They have since instructed all CRA's to remove the data, as it is inaccurate.

 

This just shows what a mockery this system is - it's taken me 12 months to "clear" my name from someone with a dodgy credit history, of which I was considered involved in his history and all the time I wasn't. Despite following the advice of the CRA to request a copy of my credit file, at cost to me, them use their dispute console to raise my concerns and "gain their help in getting my credit file corrected", the whole process failed and I had to revert to a good old fight with the company concerned to show them they were wrong.

 

So long as the ICO thinks the CRA's can rely on this process, this will be the system we have to live with, kids.

 

I feel a petition coming on...