Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > Credit Reference Agencies
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 19-01-2008, 06:54 PM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default What credit reference agencies rely on - Counter Arguments

Theres some great information in threads relating to tackling the Credit Reference Agencies.

I thought id start this thread so we could post the arguments they use and useful snippets of documents/legislation we can use to counter act them.

From Experian

Quote:
I note your comments and would advise you that the decision to retain financial information such as credit accounts and judgments for six years was agreed between the credit industry, the Office of Fair Trading and the Information Commissioner. Six years is considered a reasonable amount of time for data to be retained as it enables lenders to make responsible lending decisions when processing applications by having access to an individuals credit history over this period.
I read a few threads on another site where a member contacted the ICO and the OFT and they both stated they did not take part in any such decision. Ive since sent off a FOI request to both the ICO and OFT asking for details relating to this so call decision. I should have the details by the 5th Feb.

Equifax

Equifax reply on the below statement to continue to process information once a contract has expired.

Quote:
As regards the revocation of your permission for Equifax to continue to process your data, it is our view, also shared by the Information Commissioner's Office, that we are able to share account data between lenders and the Credit Reference Agencies for the duration of the contract and for 6 years beyond on the basis of paragraph 6 of Sch 2 of the Data Protection Act. This states "“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.
Some publications by the ICO

Information Sharing
Credit Agreements - Data Sharing once contract expired


As I find more interesting bits of data, i'll put them in this thread. Im hoping it will act as some sort of resource where we can discuss the finer points and rip the CRA's apart!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 19-01-2008, 07:27 PM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the Data Controller or the third parties to whom the data is disclosed. The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances where this is applicable.
Its the part highlighted in bold thats bothering me. Is it saying that this clause can only be used once the Secretary of State has made an order?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-01-2008, 09:53 PM
TANZARELLI's Avatar
TANZARELLI TANZARELLI is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: One step ahead of you......
Posts: 2,060
TANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of light
Default

I think the word 'may' is key as it doesn't say he will it says he may
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-01-2008, 10:43 AM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANZARELLI View Post
I think the word 'may' is key as it doesn't say he will it says he may
Thats what I thought when I read it, however why was there a need to add "The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances where this is applicable" if the statement prior to it covered every situation?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-01-2008, 11:44 AM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Whilst searching I found the below post from another site. I think it raises so very valid points and certainly some I will be looking into. I thought id post it for your views and comments.

Quote:
So start off with-
The very first line of the First Principle of the Data Protection Act states that "Personal Data shall be processed fairly and lawfully"......

It is my contention that the processing of my data by T-Mobile has been unfair and unlawful from the start of the contract. And although T-Mobile
may claim that they have a legitimate interest under s6[1] from reading the Information Commissioners Office guidelines on the Data Protection Act I do not believe they can rely on it in my case since
Meeting a Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 condition will not, on its own, guarantee that processing is fair and lawful. The general requirement that data be processed fairly and lawfully must be satisfied in addition to meeting the conditions..
Because their processing was unfair and unlawful, they lose the right to claim legitimate interest.

When I first applied for one of their phones I was only 20 [change that age if
it is wrong] and had no experience of ever having had financial problems.
Accordingly I had no knowledge that Credit Reference Agencies even existed,
let alone the functions they performed for the financial sector.
You will no doubt have noticed that T-Mobile maintain they are a paperless
organisation-so much so that despite asking on numerous occasions over the lifetime of my contract with them, I have never had the opportunity of
seeing a copy of their full Terms and Conditions in writing until this Court case
forced them to supply me with one.

Moreover, their website has proved of little help either since all it discloses there are the following phrases-

"Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time. Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us.”


"Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a
period of time".

"Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us."

"We share information with our parent company and business associates”

I expected that when they talked of "Business Associates"
they would be companies that sold ancillary products for T-Mobile phones-hands free accessories for use in the car for example.


There is not a single mention there that they would supply the CRAs on a
monthly basis with details of my ongoing history. And they certainly did not
mention, as you can see, that in the event of me having several missed
payments, that they would not only place a default on my file, but that it would remain there for six years.

One of the conditions in deciding whether data is being processed lawfully is
that the data subject should have legitimate expectations of how his data
will be used.
I had no idea, and nor was there any indication from T-Mobile, either in writing
or on their website [which by the way, I had no access to in those days]
how my data was going to be treated. I was shocked when I finally found
out what they had done. I could not believe that they could do this without my permission. And as I have already said ,there is nothing on their contract
or website that indicates that they would inform CRAs.
Therefore I would respectfully submit that they their processing has been
unlawful from day one of my contract with them, and plead that it should no longer be displayed.
Another form of unlawful processing occurs when a company acts ultra vires
and T-Mobile have acted in this manner twice in relation to my processing.
First, they have arranged a contract between themselves and the CRAs
whereby CRAs are expressly forbidden from altering, amending or blocking
my data without the permission of T-Mobile. This is in direct contravention
of both the Data Protection Act and the Consumer Credit [Credit Reference Agency] Regulations 2000. In both laws, I have a statutory right to ask the CRA to
alter, amend or delete certain personal data should they believe merits such
action. This contract prevents them from doing so, and is a flagrant abuse of their power over the CRAs and a denial of my legal rights. And as a result,
while the CRAs sympathise with my plight, they are unable to stop
processing my data as T-mobile refuses to allow it.

Second. Although my contract has terminated, they insist that they are
within their rights to continue processing my personal data, namely a default
on my account when I was having financial problems. Defaults have no legal
standing, and yet T-Mobile are insisting that they are within their rights to
process this information. As a result, I am paying a higher interest rate on my
current overdraft, it is virtually impossible to arrange finance of any kind, and
I will be unable to start in a better job unless the default is removed. I will
leave it to your own good judgement, should you decide to have the default
removed, whether to add any compensation to my claim for the harm that I have suffered.


In addition to their processing being unlawful I submit that it is unfair too.
As at no time have I ever been supplied with the "Fair Processing" information
as indicated in the Information Commissioners Office guidelines. And I notice that they have not supplied me with a copy even now with this Court case in progress.
These are some of the details that are included in the information, and it was only recently that I discovered I should have been furnished with them at the outset and so I should have been told
the purpose or purposes for which the data were intended to be processed, and
(d) any further information which is necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.
In deciding whether, and if so, what, further information is “necessary” to satisfy (d) above, data controllers should consider what processing of personal data they will be carrying out once the data have been obtained and consider whether or not data subjects are likely to understand the following:-
(a) the purposes for which their personal data are going to be processed;
(b) the likely consequences of such processing such that the data subject is able to make a judgement as to the nature and extent of the processing; and
(c) whether particular disclosures can reasonably be envisaged.
It would be expected that the more unforeseen the consequences of processing the more likely it is that the data controller will be expected to provide further information. This aspect also has a bearing on the question of what amounts to consent (see specific consideration of this issue at paragraph 3.1.5 above); in the same way that consent must be “informed”, so data subjects themselves must be fully aware of the ways in which their personal data may be processed in order for that processing to be considered fair.
In the context of the 1984 Act, the Data Protection Tribunal has supported the Commissioner’s view that personal information will not be fairly obtained unless the individual has been informed of the non-obvious purpose or purposes for which it is required, before the information is obtained. (Innovations (Mail Order) Limited v The Data Protection Registrar (September 1993)).

Where companies do provide full details of reporting to CRAs and how their customers mayl be affected by missed and late
payments, the absence of the fair reporting schedule might not be so
serious, but with T-Mobile providing such a dearth of information on
those vital topics, one would expect that it should be virtually
mandatory that the fair reporting booklet be supplied with all their contracts to avoid charges that their processing is unfair from the very
outset.


You will notice that I was not even informed of the obvious purposes for the
use of my information , let alone the non obvious purposes. If you bear in mind my age at the time I took out the contract, the complete lack of any
relevant information as to how my data would be processed surely makes
the processing unfair and therefore should not be processed any longer

Returning to the lack of information concerning notification
of missed payments etc to CRAs. I have alraedy submitted that the
omission of any indication of their use came within the unlawful
processing condition, but I believe it comes within the unfair processig too.

The fair processing requirements (Schedule 1, Part II, paragraphs 1 to 4) - Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1 provides that in deciding whether or not processing is fair, the way in which personal data are obtained will be considered.
This will include particular reference to whether any person from whom the personal data are obtained is deceived or misled as to the purpose or purposes for which the personal data are to be processed. As has been explained previously, this may also have a bearing on the validity of any consent given by the data subject to the processing, which in turn may remove the basis for processing which was being relied upon by the data controller.

The use of "Business Associates" which T-Mobile may
believe encompasses CRAs is so misleading and reinforces my belief
that their processing of my data was, and still is , unfair and should ceaseMoving on to the question of whether T-Mobile ever had my consent to process my data, A Eu directive defines it this way Consent by a data subject is defined as
.." any freely
given and specific
informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed."
Claimant therefore maintains that consent to process
personal data has not been consented to by reason of insufficient information supplied by Defendant.
Once again there is a huge question over the legitimacy of processing data.

Should you fail to accept that the processing was unlawful, unfair and
did have my consent, then the legitimate interest of the Defendant
must be examined.
For a start, the contract has ended. And with it should die any interest
of the Defendant in my affairs. There is no statutory right conferred
on companies to process data on their ex customers. Nor is there any
specific right alluded to on the Defendants website.
"Some information will be held after you have closed your account with us." gives no indication of the type of information that would be
retained. Obviously there would need to be data held for Inland
Revenue purposes and from their own accounting procedure requirements, but that is a far cry from passing data to a CRA which
would then be available to all and every one of their members who
wished access to the Claimants credit file. And the same argument can be used for the other statement-"Your personal details are not held indefinitely, but are destroyed after a period of time". No one could
possibly envisage from those two statements, that the Defendant
was pointing out that they would contnue to process data for six years
after the account terminated.


Source
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23-01-2008, 09:20 PM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Going by some of the statements above, and the below taken fromt eh DPA:

Quote:
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless— (a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.
Quote:
Subject to paragraph 3, for the purposes of the first principle personal data are not to be treated as processed fairly unless— (a) in the case of data obtained from the data subject, the data controller ensures so far as practicable that the data subject has, is provided with, or has made readily available to him, the information specified in sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) in any other case, the data controller ensures so far as practicable that, before the relevant time or as soon as practicable after that time, the data subject has, is provided with, or has made readily available to him, the information specified in sub-paragraph (3)
Quote:
The information referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is as follows, namely— (a) the identity of the data controller,
(b) if he has nominated a representative for the purposes of this Act, the identity of that representative,
(c) the purpose or purposes for which the data are intended to be processed, and
(d) any further information which is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are or are to be processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be fair.
So in theory, if your not told in the terms and conditions your data would be processed for six years, it could be stated that your information is being processed un fairly?
Could this also be the reason why terms and conditions are now stating the fact that info will be processed for six years?

Would also be interested to find out what the mean by "lawfully"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-01-2008, 04:09 AM
Lefty Lefty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here there & everywhere
Posts: 1,531
Lefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Excellent thread
__________________
Regards
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28-01-2008, 01:09 PM
powerful_rogue powerful_rogue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 128
powerful_rogue is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks Lefty.

Would be interesting to hear others thoughts and views on this.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28-01-2008, 04:23 PM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Notice of Correction
A Notice of Correction is a piece of text, written by you, that you can request to have added to your Credit File. You may wish to do this if there is an item of information on your Credit File, which is factually correct, but you believe it creates a misleading impression. Your Notice of Correction should give a clear and accurate explanation of why you consider a piece of data to be incorrect or misleading. Your Notice of Correction text must not be longer than 200 words. You can prepare this text yourself or with the help of, for example, a Citizens Advice Bureau, a Consumer Advice Centre, or a Solicitor. Please note that the Notice of Correction should not be, defamatory (affecting someone's good name or reputation), frivolous or scandalous, or for any other reason unsuitable for publication.I have just copied the above from Equifax’s web site


Question? the bits I have highlighted in red.

How is it that the CRA’s can publish incorrect information which in a lot of cases is untrue default information and defamatory not expect to be sued for a defamatory statement if what they have placed on a persons credit file, IS incorrect and untrue.

I say what is “Good for the Goose is good for the Gander”

sparkie
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 28-01-2008, 04:30 PM
tbern123 tbern123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 629
tbern123 will become famous soon enoughtbern123 will become famous soon enough
Default

As far as the CRA's are concerned, you are guilty untill proven innocent...

At least if you kill someone, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Default on a credit agreement and there are no if's and not but's you are guilty

Just shows, how mixed up things are getting these days...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support