Experian's Fundamental Breach of Data Protection Act 1998

goonarmy · 30 December 2013 at 2:17PM

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

Oh - limited attention span?yep, that tends to happen when posts are too long, rambling and not succinctI think you mean my sentence was too long and your patience was by then thin. partly, and the fact that questions are generally followed by a question markOK, if you aren't interested you can take a horse to water, but not make it drink and all that!Oh dear back to put-downs again ... sigh
a statement of fact actually, do you know what put down means?
Oh well, bloke, bloke-ette - Sorr-eee! appology accepted, lesson learnt I think.I must admit I don't know many women who use !!!!!!. get out more Can't say I didn't try to adjust my style a bit though, to see if you might engage.yeah.......no that aint gonna happen

So, as I was saying, I don't think the 80s and 90s were a good period for developing the kind of enquiring minds that question bad practice - they are more likely to turn on or question anyone amongst them who is a bit different and dares to draw attention to himself above the parapet and try to knock their block off.
so now we are assuming the age of posters?? Lesson not learnt then
However, some of us baby boomers do question bad practice, sometimes with terrier-like tenacity, especially those of us who didn't use our great state educations just to get filthy rich and pull up the drawbridges behind us.

So here I am today, and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, until the CRAs get it fixed.erm, ok. Good luck with that... pretty sure thats not the way to sort this but keep us informed

Answers in red, again your reply to Danny that rambles on along far too long might not get the responses you hope for. Try to be more concise and maybe listen to advice given, this forum has some thats quite good, on occasion.

VictimOfImpersonation · 30 December 2013 at 2:27PM

goonarmy wrote: »

Answers in red, again your reply to Danny that rambles on along far too long might not get the responses you hope for. Try to be more concise and maybe listen to advice given, this forum has some thats quite good, on occasion.

I am not sure I started the thread to get advice, but I seem to be getting some anyway.

I think patanne has got the swing of it, and so might a good number of the almost exactly 95% of viewers of this thread who haven't felt the need to add more in a post yet

I mean look at the situation for goodness sakes dear people - a CRA that allows obviously false entries to stand on your records and allows whoever caused them to be put on file to use them again to try to access details of ALL your credit agreements (and by the law of numbers, they will succeed if not on yours, then maybe on mine or the next victims' ...)

Tiddlywinks · 30 December 2013 at 3:16PM

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I think patanne has got the swing of it, and so might a good number of the almost exactly 95% of viewers of this thread who haven't felt the need to add more in a post yet

How sweet - you think those 95% of readers (strange that you felt compelled to work the figures out and then quote them here) that haven't posted actually agree with you? More likely that they can't be bothered to wade through the rantings.

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I mean look at the situation for goodness sakes dear people - a CRA that allows obviously false entries to stand on your records and allows whoever caused them to be put on file to use them again to try to access details of ALL your credit agreements (and by the law of numbers, they will succeed if not on yours, then maybe on mine or the next victims' ...)

The CRAs report the information provided by the financial institutions... they purely report, they are not decision makers.

It is the financial institution that facilitates the crime by providing access to your accounts.

You cannot simply match and then amend a data set of personal data the way you would suggest... there are many occasions where someone of the same name, will live at the same address and have a slightly different DOB. In some cultures, the order of the names will be switched depending on circumstances. Cousins born within weeks or months of each other may share the same name.

In order to consider whether a file contains incorrect data, it is quite reasonable to expect that the individual reports this to the CRA as soon as it comes to his attention. The CRA can then review its records accordingly.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

VictimOfImpersonation · 30 December 2013 at 3:52PM

Glad to see you engaged and started thinking about it, Tiddlewinks.

Anyway, the debate is running over on another thread under the Compare The Market security discussion at the moment as I think James perhaps didn't want it on the Credit File Forum with Experian in the heading.

1 Negative factors

You have recently opened 1 or more new credit accounts.

» See more

0 changes since last report

goonarmy · 30 December 2013 at 4:32PM

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

I am not sure I started the thread to get advice, but I seem to be getting some anyway.

I think patanne has got the swing of it, and so might a good number of the almost exactly 95% of viewers of this thread who haven't felt the need to add more in a post yet

I mean look at the situation for goodness sakes dear people - a CRA that allows obviously false entries to stand on your records and allows whoever caused them to be put on file to use them again to try to access details of ALL your credit agreements (and by the law of numbers, they will succeed if not on yours, then maybe on mine or the next victims' ...)

So you started the thread for attention? The attention your getting probbably isnt the attention you require, the advice given, wanted or otherwise, tells you how to achieve this.

Tiddlywinks · 30 December 2013 at 10:16PM

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

Glad to see you engaged and started thinking about it, Tiddlewinks.

Don't be so patronising... you don't know me or what I do as a day job... I don't need you to start me thinking about these issues.

My actual thoughts about your input are probably best left unsaid.

Suffice to say I feel it is you that shows a distinct lack of coherent thought in this matter.

VictimOfImpersonation · 30 December 2013 at 10:44PM

1 Negative factors

You have recently opened 1 or more new credit accounts. No I didn't. A fraudster did. With an incorrect date of birth. My bank of umpteen years and umpteen products issued it and told my CRA of umpteen years that I am 8½ years younger than they thought I was. They swallowed it and for good measure gave me this negative factor for recently opening a new credit agreement.

0 changes since last report (despite issuing the clean-up invitation to Experian). We live in hope.

» See more ? Tomorrow then.

goonarmy · 30 December 2013 at 11:07PM

VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »

1 Negative factors
You have recently opened 1 or more new credit accounts. No I didn't. A fraudster did. With an incorrect date of birth. My bank of umpteen years and umpteen products issued it and told my CRA of umpteen years that I am 8½ years younger than they thought I was. They swallowed it and for good measure gave me this negative factor for recently opening a new credit agreement.

0 changes since last report (despite issuing the clean-up invitation to Experian). We live in hope.

» See more ? Tomorrow then.

Why not? Its worked really well so far.

Dovah_diva · 31 December 2013 at 9:12AM

Lord, I suspect the OP is retired with a long and empty road ahead of him. If not, maybe he'll go back to work soon and give his rantings a rest.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

More likely that they can't be bothered to wade through the rantings.

You got that right. The OP is a man on a mission, there is little point in trying to engage with him. He will patronise and ignore good advice till the sky turns green. Makes for amusing reading though.

Joe_Bloggs · 31 December 2013 at 10:54AM

For those who have too much time on their hands I suggest Genealogy.
With the online tools it is possible to see date of birth and mothers maiden name.

Given these are easily memorable but openly researchable facts they should not form a part of any rigorous security check for identity.

If the fraudsters can't get your date of birth correct then they are probably guessing from a photo or behaviour. (online media)

I suspect that there is a tolerance for banking fraud within financial institutions. Some losses are acceptable given the time an effort and cost to change to a more secure but possibly unpopular means of consumer interface.

J_B.

Experian's Fundamental Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 - Page 4

MSE Newsflash 2/3

Experian's Fundamental Breach of Data Protection Act 1998

Replies

Quick links