Smeaton v Equifax

[Paul.]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/108.html

In a nutshell, an inaccurate entry on your credit file by a credit reference agency means knob all

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/108.html

In a nutshell, an inaccurate entry on your credit file by a credit reference agency means knob all

Isn't this similar to what Kate was fighting on LB...?

[Paul.]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

Isn't this similar to what Kate was fighting on LB...?

nah Smeaton won in the High Court but they appealed to the Court of Appeal and won.

The facts were that Smeaton was made bankrupt but the bankruptcy was rescinded. Years later Equifax were calling him a bankrupt. He could not get credit and accordingly he sued.

The Court of Appeal ruled against him, i wonder if he is now off to the Supreme Court

[Riz]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

So skimming that, in the absence of an automated feed/update by the IS/IIR regarding rescissions, it was reasonable that Equifax continued to record the bankruptcy as they had no info to the contrary?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

But reading that, the reason for failure was the original judge made an arse of it - I mean how can he blame equifax when there were other adverse entries affecting him so no matter what the BR entry alone had only a small percentage of the declination from Natwest. There were many more entries.

I dunno, seems to me the claimant was rather deluded, like McGrath.....

This says it all

In addition to the bankruptcy order before that was deleted, Mr Smeaton's credit file showed an unsatisfied county court judgment for £218.00 entered on 10 January 2005, together with details of eleven credit agreements which had gone into default, nine before and two since the making of the bankruptcy order.

So sorry, I agree - Equifax cannot be blamed for one erroneous entry when the claimant's file was already fucked!

[Riz]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

Very true....

I think the more fundamental point was that Equifax did all that was "reasonable" under the DPA to check correctness of information. Just happens that at the time a recession would not have been reported automatically to the CRA or be reported via a source like the Gazette, so Equifax would not "reasonably" know of it.

In other words, even if the BR had been the only negative thing on file and could be said to the direct cause of the rejection, Equifax would not have breached their obligations under the DPA or be liable for the rejection.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

In other words, even if the BR had been the only negative thing on file and could be said to the direct cause of the rejection, Equifax would not have breached their obligations under the DPA or be liable for the rejection.

Quite, that's how I interpreted things but the fact his file was already trashed, I would say any attempt to go higher with this will result in another slap in the face.

I would love it if he did have an arguable case, but this lacks all merit in my humble opinion.

[Riz]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

Agreed. I think the case falls over on several levels and points. Can see why it was appealed.

More interesting types of circumstances are where the CRA has been given evidence that the info is wrong, but then refuses to do anything about it. They don't the the defence of "we didn't know guv" on those, but they still routinely refuse to correct things that are clearly wrong.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

A bit like this you mean....? This is as recent as my reply an hour ago

I complained about incorrect data showing....

2012-09-13 10:10:31
Dear Mr Niddy

Thank you for your message.

Unfortunately, we cannot amend data on your credit report without the authority of the lender as the information belongs to them. Any changes made on our system would result in the information being amended back to how it was originally held as the lender does provide updates every 4-6 weeks. Any amendment must be authorised by the lender as it should be changed on their system to ensure that regular updates received are correct and accurate.

If you would like us to dispute an address link again on your behalf, please advise by return and provide the full address link details.

Once we have received your response we will contact the organisation who supplied us with the information.

We trust that this is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Customer Care

My reply....

Hi

As I say, there is an address linked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for me that I have NEVER lived at nor have I ever held accounts with these firms.

I suggest you remove these erroneous entries immediately as I am speaking to my contact at the ICO & OFT later today and will bring this matter to their attention.

As this now reports defaults, I will be suing for libel based on the fact you know full well (from my continued pleas) that I have never lived at that address. I am sick of repeating myself. As data processor the ICO makes it clear that;

s.54 "Where the purchaser of the debt does not agree to take control of the record, the original lender, and at least in part the credit reference agency, will remain responsible if the original record is kept on the file."

Niddy

Their reply.....

Dear Mr Niddy

Thank you for your message.

Your correspondence has now been passed onto our disputes team. In accordance with statutory procedures, you will receive a response no later than 28 days from the date on which it was received.

We trust that this information is explanatory.

Yours sincerely

Customer Care

And todays reply....

2013-02-01 09:34:34
Dear Mr Niddy

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the address link to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

After investigation, we can confirm that we are now making arrangements for the disputed entry to be removed from your credit report. This will be completed within seven days.

If you would like to view an updated copy of your credit report after this time, you can do so through your Callcredit Check account.

We trust that this outcome is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Smeaton v Equifax

oops just noticed it is from 1st Feb but I just seen it today lol

All erroneous entries are now gone, a whole 2 years after I started arguing with them - so would you say I have a case?