Exceeding Remit

EdwardB

I know a lot of people will disagree with me but I have a problem with the Credit Reference Agencies.

I was reading on the ICO site how they hold data "on most adults in the UK" and that would be fine for adults that want to apply for credit but after reading online it seems that the CRA's have far exceeded their remit and it has become a kind of "1984" scenario.

First off there is the voters role, YOU MUST COMPLY with providing data on who lives at your address or face a fine, I tell you this is THE most efficient part of my local authority. Letters, visits, threats, in the end I just put a name down, will not be voting so no big deal. I would rather have my privacy than give up my data, even if I can't vote. That applies to local authority who sell it on for fractions of a penny as much as it does websites like Facebook.

It seems to me (and others it seems) that the foundation of the Data Protection Act is something called PURPOSE.

The NHS store your data for the PURPOSE of healthcare and every organisation is only supposed to use your data for the purpose for which you consent to.

The DVLA is the same and MOST private companies are subject to the same rules. You have to consent and Opt IN.

Yet the CRA seem to be the self appointed Big Brother, it does not matter whether you take credit, they store data about your whether you consent or not. If you do not maintain the data the way they like it you become a non citizen.

There are customers of the CRA's who provide data on millions of their customers in order to gain free access to the databases, this includes giving them data about you that the CRA then sell and use for others. Again this is done without your consent, there is no OPT out.

I have worked for some public sector organisations and they have to be so careful about the data they hold. but these CRA's seem to get a free ride as far as the ICO is concerned.

There is no way to see your data unless you prove who you are and then they store the fact that you looked at your data and use any data you provide to prove your ID and address, then share it with others.

I can hears some people bleating "no matter if nothing to hide" but it is the abuse of data that can lead to so many State and other abuses.

Your data at your GP surgery is shared unless you OPT OUT of the Spine, then they WANTED to share your private medical data, they say do not worry because we will make it anonymous. However, when added to the data available from the CRA's you can be identified, plus all future data is added to the record. They stopped this just in time but again it was auto opt in unless you opt out.

Insurance companies abuse your data, for example in the UK if you leave your car parked and another car hits it while parked they will put up your premiums. Yet in the EU the same companies are not allowed to do this unless you make a claim and are found to be at fault.

I do not mind people having a credit check and not having credit if they have bad credit, what I object to is that there is no way to Opt Out, your data is shared without your permission to people you do not consent to it being provided to WHETHER YOU TAKE CREDIT OR NOT.

I think it would be better to have an OptOut even if it meant that with that status you were not given credit. There are people who do not want credit because it goes against their religion and others who just do not want it, is bad enough if you go to university you get saddled with debt.

Does anyone else thing that it is time the ICO started applying all the rules that apply to data protection to the CRA's, things like Opt-In, Purpose, Restrictions on sharing unless explicitly authorised per diem etc?

shortcrust

I'm confused. Electoral role info is public and all the rest is already 'opt in'. You agree to the sharing of info with the agencies when you agree to the T&Cs of credit products. As for purpose, data are held to support decision making for credit products and ID verification. Seems valid to me.

JuicyJesus

Yeah, the electoral roll info is public information. Everything else is governed by T&Cs.

Don't want CRAs knowing about you? Don't do anything that involves the CRAs. Life will suck but at least you'll have gained... something.

pmartin86

You opt to have credit, its a choice, not a right, thus you opt in. Simples.

GingerBob_3

OP - I'm in agreement with most of your assertions. However, I'm in very small minority here (as you can see). The prevailing view is the "nothing to hide, you agreed anyway" guff. The attitude is peculiar to the British psyche, or so it would appear, and of course it's quite a dangerous attitude. Moving on from the philosophy, it is a fact that a lot of the data harvested by the CRAs is in the public domain, although they have a special exemption to hoover up the restricted version of the electoral register.


You may well be familiar with some of this, but here's a list of the worst cases of CRA data raping and system gaming - these are what you should be reminding the ICO about:


Indefinite retention of address data, including - we were informed yesterday - links to addresses at which you may have "had a product delivered" or at which you may be the landlord (non-credit stuff ...)


Maintenance of non-valid financial links - the CRAs maintain links even in the absence of any joint accounts being reported. This one is a particularly egregious abuse.


Non-categorisation of so-called hard searches and the permitting of hard searches for non-credit matters (e.g. Eon mugging their customers with a hard search if they go to DD payments).


Allowing scum to have write access to the database if they buy a debt (there's also an issue of consent with this one).


Allowing water companies to report accounts and smack a hard search on customers without any form of consent. Again, this is an important one, and a particularly bad one.


The absence of meaningful QA being applied to data uploads.


And away from credit files - the compilation of current account turnover data without consent, and the selling on of this data.


There are many more issues, but these are the main ones that should raise a red flag.

EdwardB

shortcrust wrote: »

I'm confused. Electoral role info is public and all the rest is already 'opt in'. You agree to the sharing of info with the agencies when you agree to the T&Cs of credit products. As for purpose, data are held to support decision making for credit products and ID verification. Seems valid to me.

I am sorry you are confused, I will try to clarify.

You are forced to provide Electoral role info, although now they first write to you to ask that you list the occupants whether they can vote or not, then they do pass two. This is the foundation of the 1984 system.

I did not have any credit product and that is my point, the system has exceeded it's remit because it is being used for non credit products. The non-credit products include things like broadband and energy, even if you prepay a year upfront, they share your data monthly. No consent, no mention on sign up, no mention in terms and conditions, if you complaint they send you to a very vague page on their website which has been copied from CRA site.

I agree with you that IF you take credit then it is entirely reasonable to have a search done, but these days you are judged on whether you can take a cheap energy deal. That has to be wrong.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Yeah, the electoral roll info is public information. Everything else is governed by T&Cs.

Don't want CRAs knowing about you? Don't do anything that involves the CRAs. Life will suck but at least you'll have gained... something.

I only wish it that WAS the case, if you do not take credit your data is still shared with the CRA's and that was my point. It should not be.

pmartin86 wrote: »

You opt to have credit, its a choice, not a right, thus you opt in. Simples.

No I did not opt to have credit, that is my point, if I had credit, a card, bought a phone over 2 years, etc then fine, but just for using energy or broadband with no credit, pay montly on presentation of invoice or even prepay for a year and your data is still shared.

No agreements, no opt out, no mention in terms not even told it is done, there is a vague web page that is copied from CRA webpage that basically says "CRA's are good for you, but really it is saying COMPLY OR DIE.

EdwardB

GingerBob wrote: »

OP - I'm in agreement with most of your assertions. However, I'm in very small minority here (as you can see). The prevailing view is the "nothing to hide, you agreed anyway" guff. The attitude is peculiar to the British psyche, or so it would appear, and of course it's quite a dangerous attitude. Moving on from the philosophy, it is a fact that a lot of the data harvested by the CRAs is in the public domain, although they have a special exemption to hoover up the restricted version of the electoral register.

You may well be familiar with some of this, but here's a list of the worst cases of CRA data raping and system gaming - these are what you should be reminding the ICO about:

Indefinite retention of address data, including - we were informed yesterday - links to addresses at which you may have "had a product delivered" or at which you may be the landlord (non-credit stuff ...)

Maintenance of non-valid financial links - the CRAs maintain links even in the absence of any joint accounts being reported. This one is a particularly egregious abuse.

Non-categorisation of so-called hard searches and the permitting of hard searches for non-credit matters (e.g. Eon mugging their customers with a hard search if they go to DD payments).

Allowing scum to have write access to the database if they buy a debt (there's also an issue of consent with this one).

Allowing water companies to report accounts and smack a hard search on customers without any form of consent. Again, this is an important one, and a particularly bad one.

The absence of meaningful QA being applied to data uploads.

And away from credit files - the compilation of current account turnover data without consent, and the selling on of this data.

There are many more issues, but these are the main ones that should raise a red flag.

Wow that is worse than I thought and it is just another example of how this system is poorly regulated.

It seems we need a name and shame on the people that share this information.

BTW I also noticed a company that has been setup for Landlords to record their tenants rent payments, very dodgy consent, as usual with tenants, terms added to tenancy agreement but when you are desperate for a place to live you pretty much sign anything.

[Deleted User]

EdwardB wrote: »

CRA webpage that basically says "CRA's are good for you, but really it is saying COMPLY OR DIE.

Wow. My grandmother didn't believe in credit, and she's dead. But it's the first time I'm wondered if it could have been murder.

Candyapple

Deleted_User wrote: »

Wow. My grandmother didn't believe in credit, and she's dead. But it's the first time I'm wondered if it could have been murder.

Genuinely LOL'd :rotfl: