Default Notices: time to remedy

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Hi
I wrote to Mr James Jones some while ago he is the customer education officer at Experian and raise the question of DNs( Section 87 notices )and the recording of defaults this is his reply just as a matter of interest.

"Peter

You should usually be made aware of a creditor's intention to file a default on your credit report and be given notice, and therefore time to remedy the situation. There are exceptions however. You can read more about this in the regulator's guidance notes on filing defaults with the credit reference agencies: http://www.experian.co.uk/assets/res...version_v3.pdf

Many organisations that share data aren't covered by the Consumer Credit Act, eg mobile phone contracts, other utility contracts, so a formal Default Notice is not always relevant. But they should still send notice in some other way, eg a final demand.

I would think that compliance with the terms of any notice should be sufficient to avoid default status on a credit report, but it does depend on the situation.

Hope this helps.
James "

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Three months but with some banks six months, Paul.

The industry will mark a credit file with a Default, this is standard industry practice and relates to ones creditworthiness.

Many are confusing the above with S87/88 of the CCA but they not the same!

Defaults as registered with the CRA's fall under the DPA;

The issuing of a Default Notice under s87 falls under the CCA.

The two cross over but they are NOT the same.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Paul, card was lost and replaced in 2008 and card number changed (as is normal with lost cards). xx

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I have already quoted and referred to the ICO Tech Guidance, Peter!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Paul, card was lost and replaced in 2008. xx

Ah, interesting!

A new card number then.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

lol, I dont get why its interesting at all AC sorry.

Maybe, if we're being freakishly techincal and so on, the ''new card'' had a ''new account number'' and the ''old account number'' was marked up as late and defaulted when in fact there was no ''old account number'' because it was being paid on the ''new account number''....still wouldnt explain why it says opened in Aug 05 rather than Jan 06, or why theres no reporting on the ''new account number''. I still think they got the start date wrong as if you shift that ? to January 06 everything works out right.

Only doesnt if you believe that as soon as the remedy date on a DN runs out you get a D on your account.

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I have already quoted and referred to the ICO Tech Guidance, Peter!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



Ah, interesting!

A new card number then.

Indeed you did they confirmed the comments i made earlier, well they would i got them from the same source. I just thought the comments made by MR Jones may be of interest,

Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

For clarity, I found the issue of a new CC interesting. Because, I experienced errors on my credit file in relation to the same situation.

The CRA's often make errors, they are reliant on the information that is provided to them and they do not check the validity of same.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

[quote=peterbard: I just thought the comments made by MR Jones may be of interest,

Peter[/quote]

All information is helpful, Peter. However, I prefer to rely on the ICO's view rather than that of Experian.

I could post up some of the waffle that has been provided by Lee Hancock but it would bore the pants of off members.

Always obtain advice from the ICO, in relation to DPA matters (FOI also)!

[The Debt Star]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

This is the bo11ocks I got from Experian when I complained to them that a creditor was putting wrong info on my credit report. The ICO, BTW, are pathetic and other than 1 letter hese past 3 months I have heard 'owt from them.

Thank you for your email, which we received on X September 2010.
Your query has been brought to my attention in the Customer Relations team to investigate.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you in full the processes we have in place when an individual queries the accuracy of an entry recorded on their credit report.
Under Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you have the right to query information on your credit report that you believe to be inaccurate, once you have received a copy of your report.
You may wish to refer to the relevant legislation below that outlines the process we adhere to when dealing with disputed information.
CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974
159 Correction of wrong information
(1) Any individual (the ?objector?) given-
(a) information under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by a credit reference agency, or
(b) information under section 158,
who considers that an entry in his file is incorrect, and that if it is not corrected he is likely to be prejudiced, may give notice to the agency requiring it either to remove the entry from the file or amend it.
(2) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (1), the agency shall by notice inform the objector that it has-
(a) removed the entry from the file, or
(b) amended the entry, or
(c) taken no action,
and if the notice states that the agency has amended the entry it shall include a copy of the file so far as it comprises the amended entry.
I also draw your attention to the fourth Data Protection Principle, which states that:
Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
Within Schedule 1, Part II (Interpretation of the Data Protection Principles) of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is explained that, as a credit reference agency, we are not considered to have breached the Act by querying the disputed information and adding a Notice of Dispute statement.
7. The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where-
(a) having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and
(b) if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject's view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact.
Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information with the data provider as taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate.
Therefore, we were choosing to take no action with regards to your initial request to remove this information from your report. Should you wish to verify this you can contact our regulator at the following address:
The Information Commissioner's Office: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF
In view of this, I am of the opinion that we have acted correctly throughout this matter and in accordance with the relevant legislation. I remind you that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, each lender that supplies us with information is obligated to ensure that the data is accurate and kept up to date.
I hope this explains why we cannot act unilaterally to remove data from your report, especially when the company concerned has confirmed it to be accurate or has not authorised us to make any amendments, as in your case.
Furthermore, as we also have a responsibility to enable lenders to make informed lending decisions, I am sure that you can appreciate why we cannot amend information simply because the individual concerned claims that the data is incorrect.
If we operated in this way, any individual could claim that all the adverse information on their report was inaccurate purely as a means of improving their credit report. This would put our clients at risk by enabling people to potentially obtain finance that otherwise would not be offered to them.
Because of this, if a consumer disputes information on their report we query this with the data provider. The only instances where we would remove information without direct authorisation from the data provider is if a Court Order is provided that specifically states that an entry should be deleted or a ruling is made from a recognised regulatory body.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of the queries that we raised on your behalf, then I suggest that you take up this matter with the Information Commissioner's Office.
I note that you are considering taking legal action including Experian and I would strongly recommend that you seek independent legal advice before doing so.
We have received several similar court claims and have been successful in having these struck out, as the cases were deemed to have no legal merit with regards to a claim against Experian.
This is because, in each case, we have been able to demonstrate that we have complied with the relevant legislation at all times. Consequently, the claimant has been left to pursue their claim directly against the company with whom they have a dispute regarding the data recorded on their credit report.
I therefore recommend that you review your legal position prior to proceeding with your claim. You may wish to consult with the Information Commissioner's Office in order to obtain an unbiased opinion.
I see that you have stated that you will be sending a DSAR request. So that I may assist you further in this matter, and hopefully save you £10 and from receiving information that is not relevant to this particular matter, please let me know exactly what you are hoping to receive as part of the DSAR as I may be able to send you this anyway without you having to go through the process of obtaining a DSAR which can take up to 40 days.
Kind regards

Customer Relations Consultant
Customer Support Centre
Experian Interactive

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Template letter, Debt Star.

The CRA's will not remove data, what they will do is to write to the Lender and ask them to confirm that the information is accurate;
Lender will write back, saying yes, it is accurate.

However, if the consumer has a valid reason to believe that the data being processed is inaccurate, unjustified or, excessive, that individual should log a complaint with the ICO, providing documentary evidence/proof that the lender has in fact breached the DPA.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Template letter, Debt Star.

The CRA's will not remove data, what they will do is to write to the Lender and ask them to confirm that the information is accurate;
Lender will write back, saying yes, it is accurate.

However, if the consumer has a valid reason to believe that the data being processed is inaccurate, unjustified or, excessive, that individual should log a complaint with the ICO, providing documentary evidence/proof that the lender has in fact breached the DPA.

Hi. We complained to the FOS, not ICO, about a data abuse issue by HSBC. FOS have just ordered HSBC to remove the Default. One of the reasons is that they registered the default with the CRAs during a complaint we had lodged with the bank AFTER the s.78 DN had been received.

Here's the link to the thread nd FOS letter. http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...069#post184069

[postggj]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

ending a DSAR request. So that I may assist you further in this matter, and hopefully save you £10 and from receiving information that is not relevant to this particular matter, please let me know exactly what you are hoping to receive as part of the DSAR as I may be able to send you this anyway without you having to go through the process of obtaining a DSAR which can take up to 40 days.
Kind regards


EXCUSE ME EXPERIAN, NO

A DSAR IS FOR EVBERY THING YOU HOLD ON ME

NOT JUST SELECTED BITS

GOT SOME THING TO HIDE HAVE WE EXPERIAN?

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

ending a DSAR request. So that I may assist you further in this matter, and hopefully save you £10 and from receiving information that is not relevant to this particular matter, please let me know exactly what you are hoping to receive as part of the DSAR as I may be able to send you this anyway without you having to go through the process of obtaining a DSAR which can take up to 40 days.

Kind regards

EXCUSE ME EXPERIAN, NO

A DSAR IS FOR EVBERY THING YOU HOLD ON ME

NOT JUST SELECTED BITS

GOT SOME THING TO HIDE HAVE WE EXPERIAN?

Factually, they only have to provide information that relates to you, as 'an individual'.

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

All information is helpful, Peter. However, I prefer to rely on the ICO's view rather than that of Experian.

I could post up some of the waffle that has been provided by Lee Hancock but it would bore the pants of off members.

Always obtain advice from the ICO, in relation to DPA matters (FOI also)!

Wouldnt want to bore you AC

Actually he is quite a nice chap. had a drink with him last weekend at the conference
Speaks very highly of these forums(not), well not this one never heard of it.


Peter