Default Recorded on My credit file, Did they need consent

not_qwes

Hi,

This may be a strange question, but was wondering if anyone would know the answer to this. I held a bank account with Lloyds since I was born in the 80s. When I was older I agreed an overdraft facility with them. At points I was living in the overdraft and other times I didnt need it but still had it on my account. More recently the last few years I lost my job and things became difficult and there were times when I went over my limit and got charged. I closed the account and opened a new account with another bank. Lloyds have now sold the outstanding overdraft to Link who have recorded this as a default on my credit file.

During my previous job I found out that my bank account was classed as non-consented (not sure if this is the correct term), due to it being opened prior to sometime in the 90s this meant there was never any consent provided for it to be reported to credit reference agencies. It has never appeared on my credit report even when I was outisde of my overdraft.

My question is are Link allowed to share this information with credit reference agencies when there was no consent provided by me to share this info or do they have some sort of implied consent?

sourcrates

Whether they have permission to share your information or not, it appears they have done so regardless.

If you feel they should not be reporting this default, then make a complaint to Link, otherwise you`ll just have to accept matters as they are.

Woodstok2000

• Assuming you're not disputing the accuracy of the information, organizations can process and share credit data without explicit consent if a valid legal basis like legitimate interest applies. If your account was opened before terms and conditions referenced this, they will have been subject to updating terms when the Data Protection Act and subsequent laws came into force, transitioning data rights automatically.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6677419/default-recorded-on-my-credit-file-did-they-need-consent

You would only have been able to apply for the overdraft facility when you became an adult and almost certainly will have had to agree to the terms and conditions which will include reporting.

Any vestige markings from when the account was opened as a junior are probably just a legacy and should be updated if it made a blind bit of difference.

surreysaver

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82079951#Comment_82079951

No, there was a time before Credit Reference Agencies existed, which meant terms and conditions wouldn't have included reporting, as there was no such thing.

I used to have a credit card which wasn't reported as it was opened prior to CRAs existing.

There would be nothing preventing organisations updating T&Cs to include reporting; but again nothing requiring them to report. There are still probably people with some such accounts.

But once an organisation has sold a debt on to another organisation, any such agreements are probably in the bin anyway

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82123868#Comment_82123868

The first modern credit rating agency started in 1899 with Retail Credit Company which we now call Equifax, even before that you had the likes of the Manchester Guardian Gazette that started a monthly newsletter in 1826 of people who had failed to pay their bills.

Agree not all accounts do report but they dont technically need T&Cs, its more of a data privacy issue and companies can change their policies without needing consent unless the T&Cs say otherwise

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82123948#Comment_82123948

It was the introduction of the Data Protection Act in 1998 that created the split between "non-consented" and "consented" accounts.

I imagine prior to this that they were providing this information but a lack of consent (at least in so far as it wouldn't result in the bank falling foul of the DPA) meant that they simply chose to stop reporting rather than either issuing a broad "our terms have updated and if you don't like them then leave otherwise you consent" were considered risky, and trying to obtain consent from every account holder was likely considered too expensive for essentially no gain to the institution itself (as it was information from other banks that was valuable to them, passing information to other banks only benefitted the other banks.)