Not content with falsely alleging that the people whose data it feeds into the computers of Synectic Solutions are 'claiming' to be entitled on the basis of Section 11(1)(b), Kevin Boon of the NFI also claimed, in an internal note dated 2006 that in four Lancashire 'Audits' this meta data was compared against 'credit applications'. This is seriously misleading. In fact the algorithms use information derived from 'credit reference' information which includes and may be limited to the full electoral register. No marks again for the NFI.
This irresponsible piece of misinformation mirrors distressing and incorrect assertions made by Lancaster City Council staff to discount recipients at the time. Persons who honestly and correctly stated that there were no other 'credit applications' made from their address were told that they must be the subject of attempted identity fraud and told to contact Experian Ltd to sort it out. Presumably the badly informed council staff simply thought that they were lying. However, Experian would not provide the names of the person believed to be attempting this crime, nor would they pass it on to the police for investigation. They were abusive to callers, to the extent that the Council, following complaints, decided to review the way in which Experian dealt with callers. It should be noted that minors cannot obtain credit, and, therefore, that in the case of a newly adult young person, such as a person still at school, the chance of any credit application having been made is very small.
The fact of the matter appears to be that Experian uses 'credit reference' information, which does include the full electoral register. This is why Experian obtains the full electoral register in the first place, because it was decided that using it to vet credit applications prevented people from falsely claiming to live at an address where they were not actually resident. It is, of course, possible to obtain credit if you are not on the electoral register at the address given on the application, though it may be more difficult and costly.
A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO officer visited Experian and confirmed that it was perfectly possible for a 'case' to be thrown up solely on the basis of electoral register information. The fact that a household was flagged up by Experian did not mean that there was a credit application by a second adult. Thus, in the case of a young adult newly turned 18, the suspicion of fraud very probably arose purely on the basis of electoral register information.
NB Unlike the Audit Commission, which hedges and fudges on this question, Lancaster City Council staff were clear that people to whom review letters were sent were suspected of fraud on the basis of a 'discrepancy'.
Therefore, the distress and anxiety caused to residents worried that they were victims of attempted identity theft had been caused by incorrect information provided by Lancaster City Council telephone operatives. It would appear that the Council was so confused that it also provided incorrect information to the NFI, which then compounded the mistake by reporting it as fact in internal meetings.
This example demonstrates that the NFI does not check information before passing it on, and that it does not understand the practices of Experian or of councils which use Experian. One explanation of the reason that the NFI has persistently put out legally false information about this data processing is that it has taken incorrect advice from other bodies and has not troubled itself to check the information independently.
