Tweet
Smeaton v Equifax appeal - is it no sooooo bad?
Looking through the Smeaton v Equifax appeal, I have to say I'm surprised that I find myself with a degree of sympathy for the judgment in that the appeal Judge's findings actually seem to have a high degree of common sense
However, I'm wondering if cases can be made against the CRA's when decent evidence has been given to them, but they do not give it proper consideration and accept the creditors line of "we believe it is correct and should stay as is"
From what I've read of the ICO's technical guidance on default, they suggest merely stating the data is correct is not enough, and that the creditor should keep accurate records that they can provide upon request to show the data is correct and therefore in line with the DPA.
My own experience mirrors the issue above, I have provided firm evidence to a CRA (I have thus far only contacted the one) that entries on my file are incorrect and either already are, or in the near future will be, damaging to my ability to gain credit.
They take the creditor's side every time and just state I should contact the creditor (no s*** Sherlock! - wish I'd thought of that!!), which of course I have already done either to no response whatsoever, or to some throw away comments.
In short, my situation is very similar to many on here that have reported the creditors and CRA's seem to think they are perfectly at liberty to attack credit files at will, with no (or little) rhyme or reason to the data reporting whatsoever.
I waited patiently until I knew my data was due to get cleaned up, and I gathered all evidence in advance to make sure I had a good case for the amendments I was requesting, but this has fallen on deaf ears (bar one actually, and that one was a company I least expected to address my concerns!)
So, I'm now wondering whether after I get finished with the creditors I should have a go at the CRA's?
However, I'm wondering if cases can be made against the CRA's when decent evidence has been given to them, but they do not give it proper consideration and accept the creditors line of "we believe it is correct and should stay as is"
From what I've read of the ICO's technical guidance on default, they suggest merely stating the data is correct is not enough, and that the creditor should keep accurate records that they can provide upon request to show the data is correct and therefore in line with the DPA.
My own experience mirrors the issue above, I have provided firm evidence to a CRA (I have thus far only contacted the one) that entries on my file are incorrect and either already are, or in the near future will be, damaging to my ability to gain credit.
They take the creditor's side every time and just state I should contact the creditor (no s*** Sherlock! - wish I'd thought of that!!), which of course I have already done either to no response whatsoever, or to some throw away comments.
In short, my situation is very similar to many on here that have reported the creditors and CRA's seem to think they are perfectly at liberty to attack credit files at will, with no (or little) rhyme or reason to the data reporting whatsoever.
I waited patiently until I knew my data was due to get cleaned up, and I gathered all evidence in advance to make sure I had a good case for the amendments I was requesting, but this has fallen on deaf ears (bar one actually, and that one was a company I least expected to address my concerns!)
So, I'm now wondering whether after I get finished with the creditors I should have a go at the CRA's?
