Helmsman UE Diary

[helmsman]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Did that letter arrive out of the blue or had you made a previous complaint? If it was unsolicited then that's interesting because it suggests that there may have been numerous complaints to the ICO or FOS forcing Barclaycard to make retrospective corrections to all borrowers' CRA files.

I have a Barclaycard which didn't default for nearly two years after my last payment and DN. I haven't said anything because I didn't want to wake them up, but it'll become an issue next year when my six years is up and I want a clean file.

Hi Plan B,
The letter was out of the blue had not heard a thing for 3 years, But I think quite a few of us on here had the same letter.

[PlanB]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Hi Plan B,
The letter was out of the blue had not heard a thing for 3 years, But I think quite a few of us on here had the same letter.

Then it seems my hunch was right. I shall look forward to getting my letter

I shall also resist the temptation to ask Barclaycard what motivated them to correct their error even though I'm dyeing to know if it was prompted by the ICO or FOS and whether there was a fine or some other sanction involved. After all there is a high level legal debate going on at the moment about incorrect default reporting and the potential for damages . . .

[ken100464]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

This is something I have been watching with interest as I have something similar with Halifax at FOS.

Barclaycard for about 8-10 months (And perhaps about the same time Anthony Jenkins started to spout off about trying to win trust again) have been after complaints about this sort of thing more and more likely to amend credit files.

This letter last week was widespread judging by evidence over the forums.

But like Plan B says perhaps its more about the damage to credit files as opposed to a burning bush on the road to Damascus sort of moment.

[PlanB]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

perhaps its more about the damage to credit files as opposed to a burning bush on the road to Damascus sort of moment.

It might also be more cost effective than having to pay £500 to the FOS for every consumer complaint they investigate.

[helmsman]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

It might also be more cost effective than having to pay £500 to the FOS for every consumer complaint they investigate.

In my case I already have a default notice for dec 10 now one for april 2011 can they keep defaulting.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Hi, RE: the incorrect credit file entry. If, the information about the account has already been processed for 6 years, (after the initial default marker was placed on your credit file) that information will fall off the file; the default will expire/disappear. If, same reappears that entry must be removed from your credit files as it would be a breach of the DPA and be considered as excessive processing.
The Data Controller of the account must take the remedial action and remove the entries.

The practical upshot of this is if, the firm will not remove it then the ICO; Regulatory Action Division will ensure that it is removed.

Lastly, it would be worth remembering that the CRA's are joint Data Controllers of the account along with the Creditor, therefore it is also their responsibility to ensure the validity of the individuals data being processed!

[Angry Cat]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

An ineffective DN can be corrected by a new fresh DN. But this issue relates to Defaults registered on an individual's Credit Reference Agency credit files. Therefore, the information can only be processed for six years from the date when the firm first recorded, registered the Default information on the individuals credit files. They can't have their cake and eat it; 6 years maximum punishment!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Or in layman 1 default per account. End of.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Lastly, it would be worth remembering that the CRA's are joint Data Controllers of the account along with the Creditor, therefore it is also their responsibility to ensure the validity of the individuals data being processed!

Technically not anymore; the OC is the Data Controller whilst the CRA is the Data Processor (we are the Data Subject)

The ICO differentiate the processes and treat them as above.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Hi Plan B,
The letter was out of the blue had not heard a thing for 3 years, But I think quite a few of us on here had the same letter.

Correct. Barclays thought it was acceptable to issue a permanent late payment status to accounts instead of (correctly) applying a D status. This resulted in a lot of debtor customers complaining that they'd had a late status 6 for x years then a default would suddenly appear.

So in theory if they added late markers but after 5yrs they then defaulted you; you'd be disadvantaged for 11 years. So Barclays have agreed (I suspect - no evidence) to remedy their mass breaches and remove years of late payment markers and replace them all barring the first 6 (ie month 1-6 of default activity) with a backdated D marker.

They used to hide behind doing this on bank accounts as they'd say they authorised the overdraft so it never defaults per se. As such they can leave trailing 6 markers. They cannot. An OD should be marked D after a year as a bank should now recall and cancel any OD that's been dormant for 12+ months. HSBC are buggers for this. I have an account (niddy v HSBC) that has 30+ "6" markers

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Interestingly --> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...-Acc-Overdraft

[nanna58]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

I also had a letter from Little woods credit card (Barclays) heard nothing for 3yrs have ignored saying about incorrect info .Will wait to hear from them again.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Just to clarify my previous posts regarding this topic.

I had an account that was defaulted in April 2003 and terminated in May 2003. After much wrangling and threats of legal action (mexican stand off on both sides) the account was marked as settled; UE & major PPI issues.
Now, I am a stickler about ensuring that any data that has been/is processed about me must be correct. Therefore, for years I have religiously and regularly audited my 3 CRA credit files.
Due to fact that I had filed ALL my CRA credit reports I could prove in 2009 that said information had been processed for the maximum time permitted under the DPA 1998.

And it came to pass that in 2009, after the entries had fallen off my CRA credit files, the information reappeared. But this time with a default date of September 2006!

Of course, I asked the 3 CRAs to remove the incorrect entry as it was incorrect but they had to check with the Bank regarding the validity of that information prior. The Bank came back with a curt reply stating that the information was correct.

I then called upon the ICO to sort this matter out. The ICO were in fact most helpful because I had provided my proof that the information had already been processed for the maximum time permitted: 6 years.
The upshot was, the Bank took the remedial action and removed the incorrect entry.
Furthermore, the ICO Regulatory & Risk Division if the information reappears that I must let let know.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

They used to hide behind doing this on bank accounts as they'd say they authorised the overdraft so it never defaults per se. As such they can leave trailing 6 markers. They cannot. An OD should be marked D after a year as a bank should now recall and cancel any OD that's been dormant for 12+ months. HSBC are buggers for this. I have an account (niddy v HSBC) that has 30+ "6" markers

I have a similar situation with American Express and MEM Consumer Finance Ltd. Both issuing BB markers with CRA's since 2011. Seeing Angry Cats post I have taken copies of my CRA files and will use these in another 2 years when, in theory, they should drop off my credit file, but will assume they will sneakily try to add a default.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Helmsman UE Diary

Amex & MEM are not bank accounts, they ought to have been defaulted within 6 months so you need to complain to the ICO now about these errors. Pointless waiting, the account needs retrospectively resolving......

It will not affect SB by you complaining to the ICO - point is their own technical guidance sheet for defaults and their issuance states that a default should be applied within 6 months, so why wait - get it sorted now.

the problem with waiting and trying to deal with after the 6years is that it can take months to resolve and throughout those resolution months the data remains so it's always best to try and resolve these errors earlier where possible and where they're not hassling you overly.