Refusal to delete from the Credit Information Bureau (BIK)

A client — an entrepreneur running a business registered in CEIDG — approached the law firm with a problem concerning the refusal to delete information about this entrepreneur’s credit inquiry from BIK (Credit Information Bureau) and the bank’s system. Ultimately, the loan was not granted, but the information about this credit inquiry still appeared in BIK, negatively affecting the entrepreneur’s creditworthiness because other banks, seeing such an inquiry in BIK, refused to grant loans to the entrepreneur. In connection with this, the law firm took steps aimed at deleting this inquiry from BIK and the bank’s system. First, it sent a request to the bank, which refused to remove the information about this inquiry, citing that it still had a legal basis for the information about the inquiry to remain in BIK and the bank’s system. Due to the bank’s negative response, the law firm filed a complaint on behalf of the client to the President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO), pointing out that since the loan agreement was not concluded, there was no legal basis for the bank or BIK to continue storing information about the credit inquiry. After the proceedings before the President of UODO, during which the President contacted the bank and BIK, the law firm managed to obtain a favorable decision for the client from the President of UODO ordering BIK and the bank to delete the client’s personal data regarding the credit inquiry, which may allow the client to obtain a better creditworthiness assessment in future loan applications.

The client, an entrepreneur registered in CEIDG, received an invoice from company X, which claimed that it had concluded a contract with this company over the phone for the provision of services in the form of access to a portal with economic information. The client was very surprised because during a short phone conversation with a representative of company X, he asked for an offer to be sent by email and did not consent to conclude such a contract. On behalf of the client, the law firm prepared a response to company X, indicating the lack of grounds for charging any remuneration since no contract was concluded between the client and company X. The response also included information about the legal consequences related to company X calling the client without prior consent for marketing contact and unlawfully attempting to collect the improperly charged fee. The law firm’s letter had a positive effect for the client because company X responded that it would no longer pursue the previously indicated amount from the client, thus confirming that no contract was concluded by phone.