Telephone security - is there a competent UK bank?

Presumably they will say that as they only wanted a portion of it, that was OK, but it narrows the randomness, and with a 4-digit code, it only needs another to phone and ask for nos 1 and 4 to have it all. I suppose the only answer is to phone them back, on a number you know to be genuine, and at their expense.

Putrid poetry, dismal doggerel, extrava-stanzas...

I've pointed out the this stupidity to several organisations, only one took it seriously.

Mark.

I bank with Smile, and on the first occasion they did the above, I flatly refused. So they let me call back in via their main number, after which all they wanted to do was to offer me a credit card. These days I have a codeword on my account that they have to supply to me if they call. Not that it's ever happened---I guess they have `awkward old git' on my account as well.

It's obvious, large organisations are staff by idiots who rarely think.

Egg calls me and asks for security information and when I complain they say that it's ok to call them back. I explain that they are doing wrong by even calling and asking for security information and they say they understand and I can call them back! They have a set phrase in their brain and they are incapable of thinking.

O2 sent a letter to my address which was for a tenant who'd left over a year ago. The tenant had informed O2 of the change of address promptly and after a while the letters stopped so when I received another after an extended break I knew there was a problem and opened it. It contained threats that would affect my credit rating yet when I phoned O2 to complain they said they couldn't talk to me because of the Data Protection Act. I said I didn't want to discuss my ex-tenants account I wanted to discuss O2 planning to do something that would affect my credit rating. They were unable to disagree with what I said but they kept refusing to talk to me because of the Data Protection Act despite me showing them it was irrelevant to my phone call. The funny thing is that they were blatently breaking most of the Data Protection Principles by using out of date and inaccurate data for an unreasonable purpose!

The Information Commissioner says that if a data controller phones a private phone and asks to speak to the correct person and they have no reason to think it is not the correct person then it is reasonable to disclose data to a reasonable extent. Most organisations ignore this advice and encourage the disclose of security information wrecklessly.

It all boils down to these organisations being run by idiots.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

It would be linked to me by reference to my address.

When I used to live at 10 Lancaster House, 71 Brathway Road I was linked to the people at 10 Brathway Road by the idiots at the credit reference agency.

Unless the previous tennant had the same name as you it would not effect your credit rating.

an irrelevant aside.

Not according to this link

Sorry, you were wrong on your first point and you're wrong on your second point.

That page is at least one year out of date. It also says 8 million people are blacklisted, which is complete bollocks.

An out of date page (and badly writen) which does not reflect the current situation. The only person who will show up on your credit report is you (or someone using the same name and DoB as you) and those you have a financial relationship with, the previous occupier is irrelevant.

I am correct on both points.

Maybe so but it is correct about attaching other people's credit rating affecting your own if they are shown as living at the same address.

So why were the people at a different ddress even linked to my credit report. My statement that you said was an "irrelevant aside".

"Peter Saxton" wrote

NO - it is *not*! That is only true if you have a financial association (eg joint mortgage etc) with the third party.

That page actually has a number of errors. For instance, a classic sentence is: "There will also be a record of all your past and present applications for loans and credit (and whether or not they were successful)..."

Firstly, only applications in the last 6 months / 1 year / 2 years are shown (not "all past ... applications" by any means).

Secondly, the record does not show (explicitly) whether the applications were successful - if the credit a/c subsequently appears on the file then the application *was* successful, but if it doesn't appear then the application might have been successful, but either not taken up by the consumer, or not subsequently reported by the lender - *or* it may have been unsuccessful.

So why were people at a completely different location linked with my credit record? It was an error but it would have done me no favours. Same with O2 and my address.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I presume this was pre-November 2004?

Credit files hold details of "linked addresses" - these are usually just your previous address being linked to your current address, or may be different ways of writing the same address -- eg with/without the county, or slight spelling mistakes held by some lenders.

Perhaps one lender had "10 Lancaster House, 71 Brathway Road" mistakenly entered on their file as "10 Brathway Road" -- and then, when it was corrected, it may have been "linked" on the credit file.

The people at "10 Brathway Road" may then have been shown on your credit file, just as easily as other people who lived at your real address ("10 Lancaster House, 71 Brathway Road") -- but this would only have happened prior to November 2004.

Since November 2004, as long as people don't have any financial associations, their credit records will now not show each other's details. If they do, complain to the CRA concerned!

In article , Tim writes

Why though should you have to pay to see your credit record in order to correct mistakes?...

I did complain but they didn't care! I could have forced the issue but seeing as the address would drop off my credit record soon I wasn't going to waste my time.

It was before 2004.

It's not just important to be concerned with what should happen. That very rarely happens nowadays. Big organisations are usually full of incompetent idiots who don't know what they are doing.

"tony sayer" wrote

Answer1 : You *see* your record before correcting it, because you don't know that there's been a mistake until you see your record! [Presumably, if you could show that your record is incorrect without actually having seen it, you should be able to get them to correct it without paying. But how would you show it's incorrect?]

Answer2 : You *pay* to see your record because the law says data controllers can charge upto 10 to show data they hold on you, unless they are a CRA when the maximum is 2 instead.

In article , Tim writes

Well why should I have to pay to see the mistakes others have made?. Doesn't seem fair to me;)...