CIFAS director (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) asserts that our coverage of his organisation is incorrect. We encourage readers to visit CIFAS's web-site to see CIFAS's own description of itself. Don't just read what we print!

Timeline of CIFAS threats:

• September 1998  We discover that the "CIFAS records" in your credit reference files are more than just a database heading. CIFAS is a privately-owned company that circulates lender suspicions about anyone that lenders think might be a fraudster.
• October 1998:  We try to serve a Subject Access Rights notice on CIFAS. Its staff refuse to accept it. We complain about their refusal to the Data Protection Registrar. The DPR investigates and responds that CIFAS says it keeps no personal information of its own.
• November 1998:  We publish details of CIFAS's refusal to accept our notice on The Home Repossession Page.
• June 1999:  An individual emails us claiming he is CIFAS director (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) . He tells us we have inaccurately reported events involving CIFAS. He asks for our address.
   Our response: we make slight adjustments to our coverage to clarify exactly what we are saying. We refute most of 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) claims and ask him to show that his other claims are true. We point out that he is free to use the "Add your own comments" link at the bottom of the page of information about CIFAS.
• Mid-June 1999:  Angry comments about this site and its main author start to appear in the CIFAS page's "Add your own comments" link. CIFAS director (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) sends us information that claims CIFAS does wonderful things.
   Our response: We start to research 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) claim that CIFAS is only a force for good.
• July 1999:  We publish our first piece of evidence that CIFAS has damaged innocent people. We also summarise the criticisms and refute them point-by-point.
• 1 September 1999:   CIFAS directory (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) emails us telling us to remove his name from the site. Says our publishing his letter of complaint led to telephone harassment. Says he is emailing us because our Web company refused to get involved. He says we are in breach of the Data Protection Act.
   Our response: we remove his name and ask him some pertinent questions about the harassment and his response to it. We request a meeting with (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) . We encourage him to contact the Data Protection Registrar.
• 1 September 1999 (evening):  We publish 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) complaint in our newsletter. We point out the irony of the director of an organisation that collects and publishes people's personal details objecting to us publishing his personal details. Like, er, well... his name.
• 2 September 1999:   (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) responds to our questions. He tells us his own office probably gave the harasser his home phone number and that he has done nothing to trace the harasser.
   Our response: we consider our position and conclude that we are being threatened by a man who told us his own staff probably gave out his home telephone number.
• Mid October 1999:  We put 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) name back on the site.
• 22 October 1999 (Morning):  Top London lawyer Paisner & Co emails Lee Kimber privately giving Lee until 3pm to supply the lawyer with his own address. Lawyer Ian De Freitas also emails the Home Repossession Page asking for its address and demands confidentiality.
   Our response: we give the lawyer our email address. We tell him that all correspondence with us is public.
• 22 October 1999 (Afternoon):  Paisner & Co emails us telling us that we may be reckless and irresponsible for publishing 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) name and that it is encouraging people to harass him, causing him distress. (Home Repossession Page note: We encourage readers to read this email.)
   Our response: We show why we think Paisner's logic is dubious and question the extent of Mr 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) distress.
• 25 October 1999  We write to both the Metropolitan Police and to BT, asking them to investigate Mr 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) claims.
• 26 October 1999 (Morning):  Paisner & Co appear to back off from linking us with the calls. They say (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) has gone to BT and the Police about them and that we're inexplicably singling him out.
   Our response: We applaud Mr (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) for doing what, in our opinion, he should have done in the first place and point out that the only reason he was mentioned on this site is because he mentioned himself - in a letter that tried to sway our coverage of real events. We repeat our request for an explanation of Mr 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) claims.
• 29 October 1999:   Paisner & Co's response implies that our asking for explanations shows we cannot "act reasonably".
  "We will not dignify them with a response," says Mr de Freitas.
• 1 November 1999:  Paisner & Co say we forgot to remove one of the references to (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) and demand that we remove evidence of CIFAS complaints to us.
   Our response: We warn our ISP to expect an injunction and remove 's (Censored due to CIFAS's legal threats) name while we await our ISP's response.
• 8 November 1999  The Data Protection Registrar confirms to us that its own support for CIFAS has turned to concern. It says it's worried about the same practices we have discovered. It says it is also worried that CIFAS is not telling the public the full story. The DPR is open about this in its June 1999 report. You should read this yourself at http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/dpc5.pdf. You'll need to click on the binoculars that appear in your web software's toolbar when the file loads and then search for "CIFAS".
• 11 November 1999  Credit industry sources tell us that CIFAS employed Paisner & Co to deal with questions about CIFAS from the Data Protection Registrar. So Paisner & Co had known all along that we weren't the only ones with concerns about CIFAS.
• 20 January 2000  A CIFAS source tells us that CIFAS spent around £4,000 in fees for lawyer Paisner's threats against the site.

Home Page	Receive free news and updates
	Tell a friend about this site
Last modified: 28 Sep 2002
© The Home Repossession Page 1997-2000