Arrow Global / Mail Order - Experian

littlehe1per

chanz4 wrote: »

its to stop people removing correct defaults from their files

So what's the resolution given Arrow Global failed to respond to the following (sent recorded 2nd August 2012 and again 04th October 2012)?

Data Controller
Arrow Global
Belvedere
12 Booth Street
Manchester
M2 4AW

2nd August 2012

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Entry on Credit Reference Files Held By Experian (creditexpert.co.uk) Credit Reference Agency.

Entry Details:
Name: MRS XXXX XXXXXX
Address: XX, XXXXX XXXX, XXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXX, XXX XXX
DOB: 28/09/1976
Default balance: £161
Default date: 03/04/2008
Account type: Mail order

Please Take Note I do not acknowledge any debt to Arrrow Global or any company you make claim to represent.

I have checked my credit file and have discovered an entry made by Arrow Global which has a default date of 03/04/2008.

I have no knowledge of any liability to Arrow Global and require a full detailed explanation for this entry forthwith.

I also note that the date of birth associated with this entry is 28/09/1976 which is not my date of birth (mine is xx/xx/xxxx).

At no time have I received any default notice or notice of assignment of any account to your company.

I require your response within 7 days.

Regards

rizla_king

The problem here is Experian matching the obviously wrong account and personal information against your sister. If the name and date of birth were identical they might possibly have an excuse. Here Experian have clearly ballsed up big style. They never should have allowed this to go on her report if the date of birth etc were not hers.

No excuse for that. They should not be passing the buck. If something is obviously incorrect like this they do have the ability to remove the entry from your report.

Experian_company_representative

I've asked someone to look at this tomorrow for you to see what we can do.

James Jones

littlehe1per

rizla_king wrote: »

The problem here is Experian matching the obviously wrong account and personal information against your sister. If the name and date of birth were identical they might possibly have an excuse. Here Experian have clearly ballsed up big style. They never should have allowed this to go on her report if the date of birth etc were not hers.

No excuse for that. They should not be passing the buck. If something is obviously incorrect like this they do have the ability to remove the entry from your report.

Couldn't agree more.

It's inexcusable that (upon being made aware of a mistake) any CRA would continue to report data which uses a completely different date of birth to that of the subject of the report.

littlehe1per

Experian_company_representative wrote: »

I've asked someone to look at this tomorrow for you to see what we can do.

James Jones

Thanks for the response James. Let's hope we can resolve this soon.

Experian_company_representative

littlehe1per wrote: »

Thanks for the response James. Let's hope we can resolve this soon.

Arrow says it wrote with a full explanation on 14 September. I guess this letter wasn't received so we've asked them to send a further copy. We'll also write explaining why we're including it on your sister's credit report at the moment.

James Jones

FireWyrm

Experian_company_representative wrote: »

Arrow says it wrote with a full explanation on 14 September. I guess this letter wasn't received so we've asked them to send a further copy. We'll also write explaining why we're including it on your sister's credit report at the moment.

James Jones

I'm sorry, but this is really quite unnacceptable. The OP has provided to you (the credit reference agency) proof of her correct name, address and date of birth. The default clearly applies to another person with another date of birth. This sort of screw up is exactly why people get so angry with CRAs who set themselves up as gatekeepers of credit but cannot even keep their records properly. This is defamation and impacts on someone's credit worthiness. To leave it with the creditor to sort out is ridiculous, especially when it isnt even in their interests to resolve the issue. It's 'your' information which is wrong. Frankly, I advise the OP to write to the FOS and also Watchdog highlighting the shoddy behaviour of Experian.

littlehe1per

Thanks James for getting one step further than I've yet achieved with Arrow.

Whilst I'll eagerly await both responses I would like to know whether whatever Arrow told you gave you (as a CRA) enough confidence to continue reporting the data you are being given by them?

The fact that you know my sisters DOB, can see the DOB associated with the default doesn't come anywhere close to her DOB, yet continue to report it suggests you are willingly continuing to report data that you know to be incorrect?

rizla_king

I'm sure BBC Watchdog would be very interested to hear about such disgraceful excuses.

littlehe1per

FireWyrm wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is really quite unnacceptable. The OP has provided to you (the credit reference agency) proof of her correct name, address and date of birth. The default clearly applies to another person with another date of birth. This sort of screw up is exactly why people get so angry with CRAs who set themselves up as gatekeepers of credit but cannot even keep their records properly. This is defamation and impacts on someone's credit worthiness. To leave it with the creditor to sort out is ridiculous, especially when it isnt even in their interests to resolve the issue. It's 'your' information which is wrong. Frankly, I advise the OP to write to the FOS and also Watchdog highlighting the shoddy behaviour of Experian.

Thanks for the support.

The onus still appears to be clearly on my sister to prove this incorrect data is...incorrect!

Whilst I haven't yet made an official request under s77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the agreement alongside a deed of assignment I am happy to do so. I just don't feel as though I should have to go to such lengths to prove this debt doesn't belong to my sister when its clear to any sighted person that the data doesn't match. I will initiate a request under s77-79 but this will just add a minimum timescale of an additional 28 days to the process, which will inevitably impact our mortgage plans in the new year.

That said I may just set that ball rolling as well as launching a new FOS complaint at the same time (given I've had zero response to previous correspondence).