Late payment markers v Default markers

[ncf355]

OK,

Here's a strange one for you knowledgable types



I have an account that I believe defaulted by April 2007, meaning that ordinarily it would have been marked as such at that time and dissapeared a few months ago.

However, the account instead shows at CRA's as "5" from June 2007, then "6" from May - June 2010, then "Settled" (with a £0 balance) from July 2010 (last entry)

I have taken issue with this via Equifax, but the lender has just come back stating "We have no defaulted you, data will remain on fiile for 6 years"

So,

As it is marked as settled at £0, but on their information it only ever reached "6" and not "D" is this preferable to pushing them to mark it as "D" from April 2007 and thus wipe it, or is better that it shows as £0 settled as it shows I paid of the balance without actually hitting "D"

For clarity, I have made absolutely NO payments on the account since 2006!

?

Thanks for your help folks

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Late payment markers v Default markers

As it is marked as settled at £0, but on their information it only ever reached "6" and not "D" is this preferable to pushing them to mark it as "D" from April 2007 and thus wipe it, or is better that it shows as £0 settled as it shows I paid of the balance without actually hitting "D"

For clarity, I have made absolutely NO payments on the account since 2006!

The best thing is for the default to disappear completely as it should have done by now, leaving you with a clean file, rather than a fictitious 'settlement' entry in 2010!

[ncf355]

Re: Late payment markers v Default markers

Hi,

that's my thoughts exactly!

I've forwarded a complaint to the ICO about this as its quite obviously inaccurate processing, guess I just have to sit and wait now

The CRA line of "we cannot change data without the banks premission is just SUCH a load of bull!

[ncf355]

Re: Late payment markers v Default markers

Hi,

Update from my other collective thread -


This one has been the biggest pain in the a*se of the lot of them

When I contacted the lender stating my position that they were working outside of the ICO guidelines, they investigated and ended up placing the default from June 2010 !!

They state their reasons for this as the fact I took them to court over the enforceability of the agreement (lost this one unfortunately - though won a few others....) and they placed the reporting on hold until that had been resolved.

So I currently have :

Jan - April 2007 - "1" through to "4"
May 2007 - Jan 2007 - "5"
Feb - May 2010 - "6"
June 2010 - "D" (Default)

Obviously the above cannot possibly be regarded as accurate so they are in clear breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part 1, 4. -

"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."

So, back at the end of June I commenced a complaint about this to the ICO

This sat around for 2 months and then the first person to look at it just stated that due to the content of the complaint and the evidence I had shown (various letters/emails from Lender A) that the complaint needed to be dealt with by a senior officer.

The senior officer was then assigned in the last week of August and upon calling in the first week of September it appeared he agreed with my general line of thought that Lender A weren't adhering to the DPA, but he had wriitten to them to ask for an explanation of their side of things.

I called on Monday 30th September, as at that point he had not received a full response as the people that were dealing with it at "Lender A" were "on holiday" (how convenient! - to be clear that is a slight against "Lender A", not the ICO who I feel are doing everything they can with limited resources!)