Experian - Have They Mishandled Your Data Too?

TheSageMan

Spoke to Experian today regarding data that's been associated with my record due to a 'matching error' - which may be the result of some system changes made earlier this year (by the admission of the call handler and the manager I spoke to upon escalation).

Although this error has been 'admitted' by Experian I am subject to the usual routine of a) needing to be the person doing the chasing and b) subject to the 28 days expectation setting and usual routine associated with data management. Meanwhile my credit scoring via Experian has been chopped almost in half (no good when you're trying to deal with Barclaycard for credit services unfortunately )

I'm enquiring to you, MSE Forum Members, have you had recent experience of exactly the same kind of issue? Is the issue resolved? How long have you been waiting? Did you speak with the FCA, FO and ICO?

I suspect this isn't a one off - I've just found a post from 2 days ago remarking on the same issue and responses eluding to others with the issue.

If there are others, I'd be interested in taking this up formally to the FCA, FO and ICO for investigation. Thoughts?

ForeverAwake

Experian are without a doubt the worst of the 3 agencies

KoshB5

Unlike other countries the UK does not use a unique id (social security / national id) to associate accounts to an individual so UK CRA's have to match accounts to an individual. This is done using full name, date of birth and address on an account, so is very much driven by the quality of the data coming from account providers, so mistakes can sometimes happen due to data quality issues that fall outside of their standard quality checks. CRA's do periodically assess their matching algorithms and make changes.

If a CRA has made a change to their processing rules that is causing data to be processed incorrectly consisently then they are in breach of ICO regulations and if this is causing incorrect lending decisions then they would also fall under FCA regulation.

TheSageMan

KoshB5 - thank you for that information that's most helpful

I've spoken to Barclaycard today, they're unable to help as they need an application and even then they've advised it would be declined and the only course of action would be to have the CCJs removed...so back to Experian.

I've spoken to Experian today who confirmed they hadn't logged a complaint but now have. And that the two queries on the account are being processed...in other words subject to 'up to 5 days' for acknowledgement and 'up to 28 days' for resolution.

I then spoke with the Financial Ombudsman and they've advised despite Experian admitting this is a matching error of their doing, as they're working within the guidelines set out by the FCA for complaints handling there's nothing the FO can do. I asked is the only course of action I could take (other than sitting and waiting) speaking to a solicitor, I was advised I am able to seek advice of course.

The lady I spoke to at the FO also stated she wasn't aware of any other cases like this. I find it hard to believe I'm the only one, especially given I found a case just like it on this forum last night.

I think a call to the FCA may be in need based on your response - that is most helpful.

Thanks

Buzby

Having CCJs removed has nothing to do with Experian, they simply buy in the data from another provider (Registry Trust). I'm not clear if you are suggesting that these are phantom judgements but if incorrect, RT has to fix the problem, Experian simply match the data and apply it. If they've added CCJs in error (i.e. They do not show in your RT record) then the incorrect link needs to be corrected, but clearly until they do this, no third party will accept your protestations until the data is removed.

TheSageMan

Buzby wrote: »

Having CCJs removed has nothing to do with Experian, they simply buy in the data from another provider (Registry Trust). I'm not clear if you are suggesting that these are phantom judgements but if incorrect, RT has to fix the problem, Experian simply match the data and apply it. If they've added CCJs in error (i.e. They do not show in your RT record) then the incorrect link needs to be corrected, but clearly until they do this, no third party will accept your protestations until the data is removed.

Hi Buzby

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself so clearly.

The CCJs have everything to do with Experian, they've mismatched data (which they've been supplied, agreed) which belongs to my father, of a different name, living at a different address, to my record.

The CCJs are valid - for him - there's no dispute there.

The source (RT, with whom I have no records by the way, just so we're clear) and court aren't interested as it's a matching issue, as acknowledged by Experian and due to system changes they've made earlier this year.

FO aren't interested, Experian are working within the guidelines agreed by the FCA.

FCA aren't interested either, same as FO, despite raising concerns about data being mishandled in processes that could allow an individual to obtain credit where a CCJ should be present on their file (looking at this from by my fathers and my side of things).

There's clearly flaws with the system, and the time taken to resolve matters isn't appropriate, at all, in todays world where transactions and agreements happen at a moments notice - and records can be tarnished enough to put the kibosh on any credit application using that particular CRA. (don't get me started on the inconsistency of data being used across the CRAs).

My other issue is the way in which Experian deal with those who pay for their CreditExpert service with priority (offering phone based dialogue rather than email) over those who don't use or just use their Statutory Report service.

I trust this helps with your understanding of my predicament; if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

Thanks

adown02

I have a negative against my credit score ..through no fault of my own ..how can I get it removed

[Deleted User]

A negative what?

boo_star

KoshB5 wrote: »

Unlike other countries the UK does not use a unique id (social security / national id) to associate accounts to an individual so UK CRA's have to match accounts to an individual. This is done using full name, date of birth and address on an account, so is very much driven by the quality of the data coming from account providers, so mistakes can sometimes happen due to data quality issues that fall outside of their standard quality checks. CRA's do periodically assess their matching algorithms and make changes.

If a CRA has made a change to their processing rules that is causing data to be processed incorrectly consisently then they are in breach of ICO regulations and if this is causing incorrect lending decisions then they would also fall under FCA regulation.

Even when it's obvious they can get things wrong.

About 10 years ago I got a copy of my Equifax report.

On it was a closed account with a limit for 20k with Barclaycard.

The account opening date was such that I would have been about 9 years old at the time and there was a status of "deceased."

Since Barclaycard seem unlikely to be offering credit cards to 9 year olds and I was not and still am not dead, I could only conclude it was my deceased fathers account, despite not sharing a first name or (obviously) a date of birth.

Since it hadn't affected my ability to obtain a job or credit, I didn't bother pushing it but still, there's no reason why such an obvious mismatch should have occurred.

steve1500

Don't forget that the Data Protection Act requires information to be accurate & up to date.


If it isn't you can seek compensation for damage and or distress

hatzbarts

Hi,

Having the same issue which I have pointed out in a previous thread
Can I ask what steps you ended up taking and whether it got resolved please