Candid Collections & Experian : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

My Experian credit reference file printout this month shows a strange linked address entry created by Candid Collections, from my present address to my present address? The date of the linked address data is April 2001, but in previous Experian reports that I get every month this entry has not appeared before?

I discussed this with Experian, who were very helpful.

They advised me that Candid Collections must have issued a credit search against me in the last month, but with a search date of April 2001. (This would be an unauthorised illegal credit search because we have not applied for credit from Candid Collections) This illegal credit search automatically created a linked address record because it was so old, but the address data had not been completed correctly to match our previous address history so the linked address record data was corrupted.

Then Candid Collections must have immediately deleted the footprint of their illegal credit search. Experian said that this was really shocking, but some companies evidently do this type of thing.... (And Experian have never experienced this before I bet).

This deletion of the illegal credit search would have normally deleted the associated linked address record as well, but because the linked address record data was corrupted, the deletion failed. Maybe Experian would have deleted it when the database was cleaned up at a later date.

Experian advised that the linked address record was in fact a sort of "sideways footprint" of the illegal credit search by Candid Collections. Experian offered to delete it for me, but I asked them not to since I wanted to complain to the Information Commissioner in an Assessment Request that an illegal credit searches had been performed by Candid Collections.

I personally think that the illegal credit search has been performed by some enterprising private detective type, or for a private detective type, by someone at Candid Collections. If the Information Commissioner is able to connect this illegal credit check with my mortgage provider that I am currently in a major legal dispute with, then I shall certainly bring these activities to the attention of the High Court Master.

So, if anybody sees an unexplained, out of date, invalid, linked address entry on their credit reference you know what it is.

Happy New Year to everybody.

regards, MLJ

-- Michael (, January 01, 2003


Michael this is standard practice - Lenders, debt collectors, skip tracers do this all the time, usually after April when the new electoral roll lists go online. Best of luck with the court but my guess is that they and the IC will do what it did to me - i.e. express total disinterest in this infringement of your rights.

-- Too scared to say (, January 01, 2003.

Yes, I quite agree, I also think it is indeed standard practice for banks and others to perform unauthorised credit checks, and then immediatly delete them.

But that does not mean they are allowed to do so.

And the IC will not support them. The IC will be forced to issue an Assessment confirming that the credit search was not authorised. And I'm nasty enough to take Candid Collections to court.

I have a growing list of unauthorised credit searches against my wife and myself from Barclaycard, investigators, and now Candid Collections, whoever they are. Each and every one will eventually face court action for violations of the Data Protection Act.

What I find interesting about this latest credit check is the way that they were able to issue a credit check dated from 20 months before, and anything over 18 months is automaticly dropped from the credit reference printout list of credit searches. I suspect that the IC will be forced to block this type of pre-dated credit check at Experian and other credit reference agencies. It might also increase presure for a meaningful audit trail of all activity. Now that would be interetsing.

Regards, MLJ

-- Michael (, January 01, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ