Petition to No.10 Downing Street

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

cosmic_girl wrote: »

It really is quite sad when people feel the need to get personal during a debate or discussion. So you don't have the same opinions as others, that is fine, but absolutely no need to get personal.

From what I have read on this forum, there seem to be numerous people who have had problems and issues with Credit Reference Agencies and the like and N-I-D has helped a great many people sort out those problems. Whilst I have never had any issues with CRA's myself, I don't believe that their practices leave a lot to be desired based on the problems that others have had - they can't all be wrong.

Thanks cosmic, similarly I think that clearly states that my knowledge over both CRA's and DCA's far outweigh that of tiddley!

Whilst we are entitled to an opinion, my 'rant' is not a rant but fact! Not opinionated but simple facts which tiddley is trying to guise with opinion thus their post got no reply.

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Comments in red text above..... The CRAs only report based on the information provided by third parties - if data is incorrect then go to the financial institution.

BTW, no need for formalities (as in Ms Tiddlywinks), you can call me Tiddly:p

Wrong wrong wrong...... the data can be incorrect and the financial institution refuses to budge. I then tell the CRA to remove the libellous data and they refuse - you tell me then smarty pants, who has broken the DPA is it the OC or the DCA?

Think carefully before you answer....... :rotfl::rotfl:

Brian1966

After 3 years

Tiddlywinks

Totally disagree... In the scenario described above
Why should I WASTE MY TIME responding to any mail from a DCA which is simply fishing for info.
I have an arrangement with BT..I make a call they charge me for it.
Same with Royal Mail...I post a letter...they charge me
The ONUS is on the said DCA to prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the person is indeed responsible for the debt to which they refer not just base responsibility on the fact that they write a letter out of the blue to hundreds of people sharing same or similar names and out of those who do not respond they pick a name out of a hat.
In these days of ID fraud do you think that it is responsible to ring some 'chancer' who has written to you then give out sensitive information such as date of birth and previous addresses etc as without this info they will not engage further with you.
Now we move on to the roles of the precious CRA's which are obviously so close to your heart :mad:
They as you say record this info from the DCA's without questioning the said info and refuse to remove unless the DCA in question says so.
Even if an individual were to write to your precious CRA with address details and other info supporting the fact that they COULDN'T have been responsible for the debt in question it doesn't matter..it is again just referred back to the scumbags who placed the default.
In my own particular case....I have a default registered from nearly 5 years ago from Cabot a DCA.
Equifax...the LAWFUL CRA that they are reported this information month by month..THEN allowed CABOT to record the exact same same default again...2 defaults...one debt...NOT LAWFUL...A clear breach of DPA laws yet there it is in black and white....doesn't take a genius to work out that it is the SAME account...start dates...default date..amount all recorded twice..
They do a great job don't they :mad:

cosmic_girl

After 3 years

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Thanks cosmic, similarly I think that clearly states that my knowledge over both CRA's and DCA's far outweigh that of tiddley!

Whilst we are entitled to an opinion, my 'rant' is not a rant but fact! Not opinionated but simple facts which tiddley is trying to guise with opinion thus their post got no reply.

I do feel that you back you're opinions with fact and not just that, but if people have a look about over the forums there a too many people who have had the same issues and problems - there are obviously serious failures somewhere within a system that does appear to be grossly unfair and I don't understand why people don't seem to be able to see that.

I work in sw criminal justice and there are offenders (and I am not badmouthing any service users I work with because I love my job) that are able to get back on track quicker than someone who has a blip with their finances. Six years is a very long time and as I have said in previous posts, in my opinion unfair. I guess there are just some folk who just can't see past their own perfect noses.

I personally can't be doing with people who it would appear are trying to antagonise others with petty comments and personal insults, which I felt were being posted by the other poster (lose all credibility in my book) and that was my main beef with the post.

I really hope that you manage to get enough names to help make a difference to the system and keep up the good work, you seem to make the world of difference to folks who need help x

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Brian1966 wrote:

OP - Comments in black text

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Comments in red text

N-i-D_in_reply wrote:

Comments in blue text

Jist of the letter..we believe that you owe ABC credit card £2000, please phone us on 01234 56789 if you are not the person in question. Like most you think SCAM and bin the letter. First mistake - why not call the DCA or respond in writing?

- Why? Under MoJ rules you are under no obligation to respond. If it does not refer to you then bin it. If the DCA continue to harass then you send them a letter advising of such. (CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it is unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question)

10 days later another one arrives...because you didn't get in touch basically they now ASSUME that you are the debtor. Again...you know that you are totally innocent so bin the letters...why should you contact them after all if you owe nothing. Eh, because there is clearly a problem which you should want to sort out rather than ignore it and let it escalate.

- Again, it is the DCA's responsibility to ensure they have the correct person. If they act too hastily and add defaults/links before ensuring this then guess what? They've broken the law.Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 helps to protect us.

A few weeks later you apply for credit and get declined so decide to check your credit report as you are and always have been responsible. Horror of horrors...SCUMBAG DCA has placed a default on your report. The CRA's are only TOO HAPPY to record this info on their say so..FACTUAL or NOT. They are recording a feed from a financial institution - it is not feasible for them to check that each feed is correct.

- Yes, it it also part of their obligation to hold and maintain a licence and also part of their sales pitch that they conduct a 120 point check on each entry. I thought you knew how CRA's worked :rotfl::rotfl: The point Brian is making is that they always believe the lender and never the consumer - my argument to this is that is unlawful as they are siding with their fee payers! Of course they will take the side of the company that supports their wages! Can you really not see the conflict of interest here?

Now...comes the hard part...cleaning up your credit file...write to the CRA's they refer to perso marking the default quite correctly who insist it is correct.

- Not so. The data processor can be held liable to legal action for posting libellous data as they are making public data they have not verified as being factual.

THE CRA's take is..'the DCA's say it must stand so we cannot remove' I can understand this stance - otherwise some would try writing to them to deny responsibility for their debts even though the details held were correct

- See above answer to this. Conflict of Interest or rather, not cutting off the hand that feeds you comes to mind! Stop being so bloody naive.

You then have to go through months of hassle to enforce removal despite the fact that it shouldn't have been there in the first place But if you'd engaged with the DCA in the first place then this would not have reached such a stage anyway

- Why? He would be under no obligation to deal with a dca unless the dca proves legal execution of assignment. If not then he can by rights ignore them. Also, if it is not related to him or has a typo in address then he can lawfully bin it!

So Ms Tiddlywinks...tell me and the others...how can this be LAWFUL? It IS lawful - get used to it

- Please tell me the specific act or law? I think you'll be struggling to provide this dear

Trashing a persons credit file on the say so of a DCA who merely makes assumptions? Your beef should be with the DCA and NOT the CRA they are only reflecting the feed from the financial institution

- see my whole answers above - the CRA is still publishing inaccurate data unlawfully breaching the 6th and 7th principles of the DPA.....................................FACT!

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

cosmic_girl wrote: »

I really hope that you manage to get enough names to help make a difference to the system and keep up the good work, you seem to make the world of difference to folks who need help x

Thanks cosmic - nice to know some people appreciate the work some of us do on these forums! :beer:

cosmic_girl

After 3 years

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Thanks cosmic - nice to know some people appreciate the work some of us do on these forums! :beer:

I'm sure there are many that appreciate your help and advice :A x

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

cosmic_girl wrote: »

I'm sure there are many that appreciate your help and advice :A x

will you shake your tic-tacs at me :grouphug::grouphug:

cosmic_girl

After 3 years

never-in-doubt wrote: »

will you shake your tic-tacs at me :grouphug::grouphug:

Ooh er missus, lol! x

claire6hy

After 6 yeards

goodness there is some crabby fookers on here