CRA authority or advertiser

[julian]

Do CRAs have any authority to confirm the data they publish is correct or are they merely collecting and distributing it, like a newspaper provides a means of advertising?

So if there are errors on the reports and the subject chooses not to correct, are the CRAs (or anybody else) able to 'blame' the subject for not correcting the errors?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CRA authority or advertiser

I've had lengthy discussions with all 3 CRA's & the ICO regards this and the actual legal duties of a CRA.

They (& the ICO) believe that the onus is firmly placed on the data CONTROLLER (ie the lender or assignee DCA) to provide an accurate data feed to the CRA. Therefore if data is incorrect the CRA's always refer you (or do it for you) to the data controller for correction. It's not the CRA's duty to ensure accuracy (as they're only a data PROCESSOR) unless they're aware of a clear error which supersedes the controllers actions, for instance a duplicate default appearing for the same debt. The CRA (upon being told of the duplication, by the data SUBJECT (ie the customer) ) must then amend the data at the earliest point without seeking permission from the data controller, as their duty as data PROCESSOR.

My argument is that they are the data CONTROLLER (the data owner) AND the data PROCESSOR and thus upon a data subject querying incorrect data, that the subject can sue the CONTROLLER & the PROCESSOR (or at least demand the CRA remedy errors without asking the controller). It boils down, in my view, that they should be liable for the data they publish. If it's incorrect we should be able to sue both them as processor and the controller. Akin to a reporter at the daily planet saying Mr X is a paedo. Mr X can sue the reporter for libel / slander & the paper (for publishing it).

However I've lost every time. They all stick together and say it's the data subjects responsibility to ensure data is accurate and that it's the data controllers responsibility to report accurate data so they can process it (ie provide feeds to lenders as part of credit search).

Basically, in a nutshell the CRA should fix any errors that's brought to their attention and is evidenced, like I say, a duplicate default. Anything else, their responsibility ends upon notifying the controller of the error.

nobody can ever blame a data subject. Naivity is rife within the industry and if you don't check how would you know?

[julian]

Re: CRA authority or advertiser

Ta. That is what I would have thought.

The CRAs appear to take the raw data from the credit providers and format into a report. They do not seem to do any internal cross-validation e.g. addresses. I have noticed the CRAs ask you to report any errors, but why should you, especially I the error apparently works in one's favour.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CRA authority or advertiser

Ta. That is what I would have thought.

The CRAs appear to take the raw data from the credit providers and format into a report. They do not seem to do any internal cross-validation e.g. addresses. I have noticed the CRAs ask you to report any errors, but why should you, especially I the error apparently works in one's favour.

They are not the owner of the info so they cannot verify anything - that's what I explained above. All they do is process it. Address links are created by, yet again, a Data Controller - the CRA don't create links - only a creditor can when you either move or when you apply and use a previous address. The CRA cannot edit the data as technically, the Controller could argue that they have no right editing their factual data.

It's a bit one sided - for sure. As I say, I still firmly believe that whoever writes / publishes any personal data should be liable for it's accuracy. Simples.

[julian]

Re: CRA authority or advertiser

I do comprehend. It is GIGO, and don't want to go existentialist but somebody is not doing their job in integrating the systems. I'm free!

In a past life, as part of the due diligence, before publishing or passing on data from external sources, we had internal checks and balances. So if the data did not pass/ differed from the agreed checks, it would be sent back. I do not comprehend why this is not done by somebody of such responsibility as the likes of the CRAs who are considered a public service.

At present the laxity suits on some scores. No contact is currently the best choice, as long as there is no ' you saw it was wrong, but did not give us the opportunity to change it, so tough' . Advising to keep quite until advantageous to change.