We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Campaign Against CRA's Enough is Enough
Options
Jamesf81
Posts: 125 Forumite
I really feel the following matter needs to be addressed and is just as important to hundreds of thousands of consumers as the bank charges case.
At the moment it is possible for creditors to add defaults to your credit file as they please even if it turns out they are breaking the data protection act in doing so. This can have severe financial consequences on the individual and is very often unjust. This is just not acceptable.
Although credit reference agencies allow you to raise a dispute, in doing so many consumers are met with responses such as, 'we have contacted the company in question and they have advised us the default is to stay on file'. Of course they will say this. What is wrong with this situation is that the CRA's do not even ask the creditor to provide them with proof that the default is legitimate. They simply say all their clients sign up to strict conditions and agree the information they provide to them will be legal and accurate. If this is the case when a consumer raises a dispute the CRA should then challenge the creditor and if it is found the creditor has abused the system like so many do then they should be held liable by the CRA's and legal action taken against them for breaking these conditions.
The ICO's own publication states,
41 Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.
Why is this not done by the credit agencies and why are the governing bodies who control them not making them follow these guidelines? Even if you are succesful in having defaults removed due to the fact they should never have been there, nothing is done against the creditor after causing you many months even years of stress.
As previously said i feel this is a matter that affects thousands of consumers and the CRA's need to take responsibilty for what information the process and offer just as much protection to the consumer as they do the creditors. Sadly at the moment this is not the case and many people including myself are suffering unjustly at the hands of these organisations.
Maybe now the bank charges situation looks like it is going to be down to individuals maybe Martin could start such a campaign as it is just as if not more important when it comes to thousands of peoples financial situation.
At the moment it is possible for creditors to add defaults to your credit file as they please even if it turns out they are breaking the data protection act in doing so. This can have severe financial consequences on the individual and is very often unjust. This is just not acceptable.
Although credit reference agencies allow you to raise a dispute, in doing so many consumers are met with responses such as, 'we have contacted the company in question and they have advised us the default is to stay on file'. Of course they will say this. What is wrong with this situation is that the CRA's do not even ask the creditor to provide them with proof that the default is legitimate. They simply say all their clients sign up to strict conditions and agree the information they provide to them will be legal and accurate. If this is the case when a consumer raises a dispute the CRA should then challenge the creditor and if it is found the creditor has abused the system like so many do then they should be held liable by the CRA's and legal action taken against them for breaking these conditions.
The ICO's own publication states,
41 Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.
Why is this not done by the credit agencies and why are the governing bodies who control them not making them follow these guidelines? Even if you are succesful in having defaults removed due to the fact they should never have been there, nothing is done against the creditor after causing you many months even years of stress.
As previously said i feel this is a matter that affects thousands of consumers and the CRA's need to take responsibilty for what information the process and offer just as much protection to the consumer as they do the creditors. Sadly at the moment this is not the case and many people including myself are suffering unjustly at the hands of these organisations.
Maybe now the bank charges situation looks like it is going to be down to individuals maybe Martin could start such a campaign as it is just as if not more important when it comes to thousands of peoples financial situation.
0
Comments
-
I think Martin has already suggested something along those lines
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2010/01/credit-agencies?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=boxDFW Nerd #025DFW no more! Officially debt free 2017 - now joining the MFW's!
My DFW Diary - blah- mildly funny stuff about my journey0 -
If you declared IN PUBLIC that X owed you money, hasn't repaid it and therefore is untrustworthy...X could,quite rightly, successfully sue you if it was proven to be an incorrect statement.
Is the only difference here the IN PUBLIC bit?
:D stay wonky :D
....one-way ticket to Portugal booked !0 -
All the ICO is doing is urging people to check their files for accuaracy of data, they have not actaully said they are going to punish the CRA's for holding it.
When people do check their file and complaint to the CRA's over incorrect data they are met with the responses detailed in the original post.
They need to be regulated and strict guidelines imposed on them and the creditors who place the data on file by the likes of OFT and FSA. Maybe huge fines would deter DCA's and the likes from sending data that shouldnt be on file and what they cannot substantiate. Inaccurate data is a clear breach of the DPA and adds un-neccessary stress and worry to peoples lifes.
It is wrong the consumer has to go through all the effort and sometimes court just to prove data should not be on their credit file while companies get away with what they want.0 -
No. In the case of a credit reference, the fact that it is confidential does not absolve the CRA from being accurate.If you declared IN PUBLIC that X owed you money, hasn't repaid it and therefore is untrustworthy...X could,quite rightly, successfully sue you if it was proven to be an incorrect statement.
Is the only difference here the IN PUBLIC bit?Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Well done to the op for trying to highlight this i have experienced the same thing myself and it is very wrong.
i had a dispute with a company a couple of years ago over an amount they claimed was outstanding on an hp agreement, i challenged them on it via the ombudsman and as it looked like they were going to loose they sold the account but right after selling the account registered a default for £5,000 which was not even the amount being disputed, the amount we were in dispute over was much less but i feel they did this as a malicious act to ruin my credit file.
The upshot was that the ombudsman upheld part of my case but failed to make a decision on the remainder of the dispute stating it was a "legal argument" which he could not adjudicate on.
Two years on no one is still chasing me for the disputed debt, but it remains on my file, i have disputed it through all the right channels and the company has never proven that the debt exists yet the default remains and i feel powerless to remove it, something needs to be done.
i was actually refused a mortgage because of this default and it is definately not a true reflection of the account, but what can i do?0 -
When I worked for a Bank, we never ever signed a reference as we could leave the door open for all sorts of Legal Action.
and if it was a bad Ref all we said was ' we cannot speak for your figures'. That way we could not be done for Defamation (?help).
Surely, if a creditor has made an entry onto a CRA File that they know to be incorrect ( either at the time or after an enquiry ) then they should be open to Legal Action n the same way??:D stay wonky :D
....one-way ticket to Portugal booked !0 -
That is exactly the situation i refer to and one familiar to myself.
It goes back to the point i mentioned about the consumer having to go to all the hassle to prove it is wrong without anyone listening.
The only way at the moment is to take them to court for breach of the DPA but why should people have to go to such lengths, stress and costs just because companies are malliciously and incorrectly adding data to peoples files. All the CRA's do is side with them unless ordered to remove it.
It is wrong a needs a relevant campaign to be brought with the likes of Martin backing it and been involved.0 -
Agreed, any new accounts added need to have prove they are accurate before adding it to the record to prevent companies incorrectly registered data.
Its like they throw a hissy fit when you are trying to be reasonable and just try to damage your credit file and cost you more money. The data needs to be properly regulated and controlled from rogue creditor actions.
Much liek the rude, threatening behaviour of DCAs need to stop.Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies0 -
the recording of negative information on peoples credit file is actively being used as a weapon by creditors and this should surely be clamped down on.
i was directly threatened by barclaycard recently when i raised a dispute with them over the balance of an old credit card i wanted to settle up.
Barclaycard told me directly that if i pursued in my complain it would result in a default being recorded on my file whether i won my dispute or not and surely enough i have proven my case, i am currently reclaiming more than £750 which they took from me wrongly, (by mistake of course...:rolleyes:) but because i stopped paying them once i found out they were taking more money than they should have been i get a default, how did i default on the account? i paid my bills, they took money they had no right to and since that equated to more money owed to me than the balance of the account i stopped paying them as if i had made any more payments i would have had to claim them back too.
so basically barclaycard have defaulted me for not paying them money i didn't even owe them.....THIS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!0 -
They cannot do that, do you have any record of them saying that. I would make a full complaint against them and then to the FOS for breach of DPA, Banking Code and using threatening tactics.
This is a prime example of my point. The CRA's have allowed them to do this when they obviously dont have any substantiating evidence. Experian for example state that all clients sign up to strict conditions, basically meaning they take anyones word for it. When consumers successfully challenge incorrect information what happens to the creditors for breaking these conditions? Nothing! Thats why it happens as they have nothing to lose, where as we end up with our credit in tatters.
As previously mentioned if the CRA's and DCA's were hit with massive fines for each entry they incorrectly added how many false/inaccurate entry do you think would be added then?
We all know the answer!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards