Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

[nemesis45]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Hi nemesis,

I get the points you stated above but where do we place a case like mine where nothing was done. The reporting continued for 4 years as if there was no order to set aside the CCJ. One interesting point is that this debt (paid or not) would have been more than 6 years. Therefore, reporting after the Set aside prolonged it. The Original CCJ was obtained just before it was statute barred. It my assumption that setting it aside would reset the clock to pre-litigation stage. I could be wrong but in my opinion, this amount to processing incorrect data.
From what you stated above, they should have adjusted it to set aside or to reflect that. On this when I spoke to the CRA, they said when a judgement is set aside, they do remove them completely from ones file. That is what they did eventually.

I hope I am making sense but in my opinion, which ever way I look at it there has been incorrect reporting which unfortunately, the CRA can not be held responsible for.

Is this really fair?

Thanks TB

Hi TB,
The issue of a court claim stops the 6 year clock, and setting the judgement in reality just leaves you the fact that there is a debt bot it cannot given the reason given in the set aside app cannot be enforced.
The underlying debt still remains.

The clock restarts from the date of the set aside as far as I know.

All that said it still appears that there is no tangible loss.

Fair ?? If someone has the time and money to pursue a class action we might get the situation a least clarified and at best a change to parts of the DPA.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Make of this what you will.
This is what a CRA's role is under Section 145(8) the Consumer credit Act 1974.
"A credit reference agency is a person carrying on a business comprising the furnishing of persons with information relevant to the financial standing of individuals, being information collected by the agency for that purpose"

The emphasised bits have been done by me, as is the note below

A business is in business to make a profit and CRA's make a profit from the information they have collected by selling it whether it is accurate or inaccurate.......they have made a profit from your information....... and if you pursued a claim under section 140 of the CCA , coupled with the Misrepresentation Act and the Data Protection Act 1998 along with the ruling obtained by us via PT in Grace & another v Black Horse Ltd, you could form a claim of some merit

Just my view which carries no legal weight BUT our ruling does>

Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Have a read of this
http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.co.uk/2...nd-credit.html


Para 38 from our judgement.3

8. As for the second submission, I have not been persuaded that the shortcomings in the CRAs’ registration systems can excuse a registration which is in substance inaccurate because of an omission (namely that the ‘default’ related to an unenforceable agreement). If an accurate registration cannot be accommodated, then the answer is for the industry to change its registration systems, and in the meantime for inaccurate registrations not to be made.




Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

This is what the legal guidance says on compensation
* compensation for damage and /or distress is only available in limited circumstances namely as a result of;

--a contravention of the Fourth Principle ( accurate and up to date):
--a disclosure made without the consent of the data controller; loss or destruction of data without the consent of the data controller; or processing for the special purposes.

Take special note that it says damage and/ OR distress.

This means in my view that you CAN claim for mere distress under the Fourth Principle ....you do not have to suffer loss.
Lord Nicholls in Wilson v First Counties confirmed this that injury to a persons credit status causes immediate DAMAGE and he did not mean loss by saying this.

Again my view,

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

This is what the legal guidance says on compensation
* compensation for damage and /or distress is only available in limited circumstances namely as a result of;

--a contravention of the Fourth Principle ( accurate and up to date):
--a disclosure made without the consent of the data controller; loss or destruction of data without the consent of the data controller; or processing for the special purposes.

Take special note that it says damage and/ OR distress.

This means in my view that you CAN claim for mere distress under the Fourth Principle ....you do not have to suffer loss.
Lord Nicholls in Wilson v First Counties confirmed this that injury to a persons credit status causes immediate DAMAGE and he did not mean loss by saying this.

Again my view,

Sparkie

There is case law in the Haliday appeal.

The initial case was thrown out because there was no damages, and as said distress has to be proceeded by a damages claim. In the appeal there was a distress payment made but only after the court made a token damages award of £1 to enable the award.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Really I do not understand why anyone would think there should be a general damages award for a misplaced marker.
If I wrote something about someone in my diary and put it on a shelf for four years, there would be no action, just because the data was recorded does not mean that there is any detriment.
If the diary is retrieved and read by someone who acts on the information to the subjects detriment, then there is damage, but it only occurs from the time it has been read, there can be no claim for the previous four years.
Same with CRA's if the data is recorded and no one is aware of it there can be no damages, just because the entry exists on a computer file somewhere does not make for a successful damages claim. The firs time that there is a possible claim would be when the subject tries to get credit and the data is mentioned, at this point the subject would make complaint the CRA would have chance to remedy, if not they would be liable for suit.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

(see [1920] AC 102 at 112, [1918-19] All ER Rep 1035 at 1037 per Lord Birkenhead LC).
" The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

[wales01man]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

I would expect there to be many thousands of incorrect entries on CRAs records difficult to see that any large payouts would be made without a Court order they exist to make a profit and no doubt .don't check much .
only when a record is checked would a false report be found.
£100 quid is probably the best offer without further action or even a court case/

[Rico]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

The firs time that there is a possible claim would be when the subject tries to get credit and the data is mentioned, at this point the subject would make complaint the CRA would have chance to remedy, if not they would be liable for suit.

I believe this is where the OP is at.

However it's possible to be turned down for cheaper insurance, energy or even employment without the victim knowing that it is the CRA doing the damage.

It would seem unlikely in the current system that a victim would be the first to know that their credit rating has been unknowingly annihilated.

[Rico]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Wouldn't it be nice if CRA's were to check data that will annihilate a victims creditworthiness rather than just publish it?

£100 punishment for not doing so, seems tame.

£10K might shake things up....

[wales01man]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

(It would seem unlikely in the current system that a victim would be the first to know that their credit rating has been unknowingly annihilated.?)

How would anyone else know that the info is incorrect unlikely that any creditor or DCA would check once the information is on a file no one except the Debtor would be affected by false entries.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

I think that if someone makes a purchase, whatever it is it is upto them to ensure they get it at the price they expected, if not they would surely question why.

Regarding "punishment", I am sure you know that civil law is not about punishment, only remuneration for loss.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

(It would seem unlikely in the current system that a victim would be the first to know that their credit rating has been unknowingly annihilated.?)

How would anyone else know that the info is incorrect unlikely that any creditor or DCA would check once the information is on a file no one except the Debtor would be affected by false entries.

The whole point walses and the one raised in smeaton, if no one knows then what does it matter(in a legal sense).

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

This really should not be a shock to anyone, as well as being common law it is what section 13 says.

The idea that the data controller can be liable for damages for simply placing an erroneous marker on a file has no basis in law and is an invention of these forums.

[nemesis45]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Wouldn't it be nice if CRA's were to check data that will annihilate a victims creditworthiness rather than just publish it?

£100 punishment for not doing so, seems tame.

£10K might shake things up....

The CRA's have to rely on the data supplied by their subscribers it would be an impossible task to check every single piece of data they receive.

However if an individual claims there is an error it is " checked " out quickly but yet again the CRA's have to rely on data /explanations provided by their corporate subscribers and indeed that supplied by the individual data subject.

I have recently experienced a " billing " problem with a CRA and one 10 minute phone call the overpayment (considerable) the problem was solved and repayment made within 24 hours.