Credit Reference Agencies petition on Downing street website

ltwf1964

just a heads up that someone has started a petition to limit the amount of time a CRA holds and processes your data to 3 years,instead of the self appointed 6 years at present-

there is no legislation to support the 6 years.They have taken this upon themselves for no legitimate reason

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA/

natweststaffmember

ltwf1964 wrote: »

just a heads up that someone has started a petition to limit the amount of time a CRA holds and processes your data to 3 years,instead of the self appointed 6 years at present-

there is no legislation to support the 6 years.They have taken this upon themselves for no legitimate reason

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA/

Crowther Report in 1971 might be a starting point. Tax rules with regards to 6 years. Limiatations Act with regards to 6 years.
Where does the 3 years rule come from?

Goodtimesahead

Yes this is something I fully support, there is no law that states credit reference agencies can hold data on your files for 6 years, they are just mirroring the law on CCJ's & bankcrupcy data.

This is a big con on the public and in these severe global economic times there should be a full review of credit reference agencies, debt collectors etc the whole system is in complete disarray and they are getting away with blue murder to coin a phrase.

Data should only be held for a maximum of 2-3 years, this is more than a fair period to be punished, even CCJ's & bankrupcy data should also mirror this lesser period as you can now be out of bankcrupcy after and even less time so the recording of this data should be in line with those laws.

If a bank/lender can't be bothered to colect your debt and sells it onto a debt collector (the usual amount in the £ is between 5p -20p in the £) then you as the borrower should be given the opportunity to pay the same and have your default and status history cleared, if you then fail to pay this sum then the lender should be entitiled to record the onerous data for a max of 2-3 years on your credit file.

The Banks/major financial institutions caused the near systemic failure of the global financial system through their reckless gambling on various financial instruments that their bosses knew very little about and using our money too, what a god damn cheek! Now they are trying to unfairly punish ordinary citizens who many have got into debt by this global recession through no fault of their own.

These lenders recklessly encouraged many to borrow beyond their means, pumping the credit markets full of cash and seducing people into buying property, when they knew the hot potato couldn't be past for much longer.

The culprits should be dragged to courts to be brought to justice for ruining many peoples lives. Some of whom may never find meaningful employment again.

If you ask the CRA's about this 6 year period all they will let you is "We are governed by the ICO (Information Commisioners Office and we advise you to contact them regarding this matter on 0845 630 6060 or 01625 545745

Basically they cannot confirm this 6 year period as its not lawful.

Everyone who has an interest in this should challenge the CFA's & ICO and if they cannot confirm it is law then they must remove such data form your credit files, the more people do this the more something will be done about it!

Its time Martin Lewis brought this matter up as its very important, as important as unlawful bank charges etc.

natweststaffmember

If you lower the age of processing a debt then you have to lower the limitations act to 3 years to be honest.

Goodtimesahead

Check this out, looks like some action is taking place regarding this matter!

http://www.callcredit.co.uk/industry-news/2009/news-13.aspx

Maybe time to ask Callcredit to clarify if ordinary citizens will benefit from having data removed from their credit file that is more than 3 years old as a result of this proposed new Civil Law Reform Bill?

Goodtimesahead

in full for those who want to just read it on here...

Limitations Act


A person with a civil claim loses their right to action if they do not sue within a specified period of time – the “limitation period”. Current limitation periods are generally 6 years for unsecured debts and 12 years for land and money secured by mortgage. Proposals to change limitation periods and make them more coherent have been around for some time.

The major current law on limitation is within the Limitation Act 1980, which sets out different limitation periods for various rights of action. The Law Commission reviewed the Act including issuing a consultation paper “Limitation of Actions” in January 1998 which described its provisions as “unfair, complex, uncertain and outdated”.

The Law Commission’s final report “Limitation of Actions” printed in July 2001, recommended adoption of a “core regime” featuring an initial limitation period of 3 years with a “long stop” of 10 years running from the event which gives rise to the claim (e.g. default) in most cases. This recommendation remains under consideration and may be presented in a draft Civil Law Reform Bill to be published later this year, at least in respect of unsecured debt.

There is an argument that because communications today are much faster than in the past there is no longer the need for such lengthy periods to enforce claims. Another theory is that there could be general economic benefits from encouraging creditors to pursue debts and recover money more quickly at present. However many participants in the lending industry are naturally concerned at the prospect of reducing limitation periods, especially as it would provide less time to trace the many debtors each year who decide to move on without telling lenders in an attempt to “lose” their debts.

It is concerning especially in the current economic climate that changes could put pressure on lenders to act more quickly to protect their right to action than they might otherwise do. This runs counter to exhortations from government and regulators for lenders to show forbearance to debtors in financial distress, such as the “breathing space” agreements where debtors are suspended from collection activity while they liaise with debt advice agencies to draw up a repayment plan.

Meanwhile, the prospect of less scrupulous debtors evading debts more easily than was formerly the case seems to strike a poor balance next to calls on the industry to lend responsibly and treat customers fairly. Responsibility in lending must be matched with responsibility in borrowing – not just when the credit agreement is signed, but throughout the course of facilities. If this principle is not upheld it risks creating new pockets of financial exclusion amongst those consumers statistically classed as a “flight risk”.

Goodtimesahead

http://www.dti.gov.uk/Policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/consumer-credit-regulation/ec-consumer-credit-directive

Jamesf81

While i agree that the limit should be lowered they refer you to the Information Commissioners Office as it is them that have set the 6 year limit.

It is an industry agreed standard and as the ICO is a government backed organisation then it is as good as legislation. The ICO are responsible for data protection and the regulations they set are government backed.

A draft Civil Law Reform Bill is set to be published later this year as originally announced in the Queen’s Speech. It is expected one fundamental part of the Bill may propose changes to limitation periods on legal action to recover debts. Currently the standard limitation period for unsecured personal debt is 6 years. Proposals are set to look at reducing this to 3 years, with a 10 year “long stop” although other changes are intended to result in a balanced effect rather than just cutting the period down.

If this bill was passed it only affects the time limit of which debts can be claimed. It would hold no bearing on how long information is kept as that fulls under the data protection act.

natweststaffmember

Jamesf81 wrote: »

While i agree that the limit should be lowered they refer you to the Information Commissioners Office as it is them that have set the 6 year limit.

It is an industry agreed standard and as the ICO is a government backed organisation then it is as good as legislation.
This time limit was based on a 1971 report called the Crowther report. It did not envisage the passing of time and the mass useage of computers. I don't agree with you with regards to it being as good as legislation since many organisations keep data longer than 6 years. I did a SAR last year on NatWest and asked for my HR File which contained info back to 1999 when I was contracted to them.
The ICO are responsible for data protection and the regulations they set are government backed.

A draft Civil Law Reform Bill is set to be published later this year as originally announced in the Queen’s Speech. It is expected one fundamental part of the Bill may propose changes to limitation periods on legal action to recover debts. Currently the standard limitation period for unsecured personal debt is 6 years. Proposals are set to look at reducing this to 3 years, with a 10 year “long stop” although other changes are intended to result in a balanced effect rather than just cutting the period down.

If this bill was passed it only affects the time limit of which debts can be claimed. It would hold no bearing on how long information is kept as that fulls under the data protection act.

Under the Data Protection Act there is no time limits within the act. I have looked for a limit but it is technically an unwritten rule that has no bearing whatsoever on how long data is kept which is normally longer than 6 years industry standard.

rebmac

I totally agree. i also think that there should be some control over what information is recorded against an individual and some help to have it amended if necessary.

I have an account with a catalogue company and the deal was by now pay nothing until 2011. so i forgot about it. i received a statement to say my account was overdue and it turned out that you had to pay the delivery charge of £6.95 upfront. I didn't know this and it is not explained in their offer. I paid it immediately but they recorded a missed payment on my credit file and it was their fault not mine.

I still have not been able to get it removed despite complaining. so it now looks like i cannot afford £7.00.

there should be something that an individual can do and not just have a comment on their file as lenders dont even look at this. it is too easy for companies to just slap it on when they should be querying it first before jumping in!.:mad:

Goodtimesahead wrote: »

Yes this is something I fully support, there is no law that states credit reference agencies can hold data on your files for 6 years, they are just mirroring the law on CCJ's & bankcrupcy data.

This is a big con on the public and in these severe global economic times there should be a full review of credit reference agencies, debt collectors etc the whole system is in complete disarray and they are getting away with blue murder to coin a phrase.

Data should only be held for a maximum of 2-3 years, this is more than a fair period to be punished, even CCJ's & bankrupcy data should also mirror this lesser period as you can now be out of bankcrupcy after and even less time so the recording of this data should be in line with those laws.

If a bank/lender can't be bothered to colect your debt and sells it onto a debt collector (the usual amount in the £ is between 5p -20p in the £) then you as the borrower should be given the opportunity to pay the same and have your default and status history cleared, if you then fail to pay this sum then the lender should be entitiled to record the onerous data for a max of 2-3 years on your credit file.

The Banks/major financial institutions caused the near systemic failure of the global financial system through their reckless gambling on various financial instruments that their bosses knew very little about and using our money too, what a god damn cheek! Now they are trying to unfairly punish ordinary citizens who many have got into debt by this global recession through no fault of their own.

These lenders recklessly encouraged many to borrow beyond their means, pumping the credit markets full of cash and seducing people into buying property, when they knew the hot potato couldn't be past for much longer.

The culprits should be dragged to courts to be brought to justice for ruining many peoples lives. Some of whom may never find meaningful employment again.

If you ask the CRA's about this 6 year period all they will let you is "We are governed by the ICO (Information Commisioners Office and we advise you to contact them regarding this matter on 0845 630 6060 or 01625 545745

Basically they cannot confirm this 6 year period as its not lawful.

Everyone who has an interest in this should challenge the CFA's & ICO and if they cannot confirm it is law then they must remove such data form your credit files, the more people do this the more something will be done about it!

Its time Martin Lewis brought this matter up as its very important, as important as unlawful bank charges etc.