Petition to No.10 Downing Street

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by soul619
holding data for 6 years help to prevent fraud, so making them change it to 3 years will only increase the risk of fraud being done agenst you!

Please could you explain why YOU think Soul619 is "totally incorrect" and give YOUR basis of proof for your opinion that he is wrong?

Of course. It will not affect you simple! That is what protective registration is for. Whether 3, 6 or 100 years it will not and cannot affect any fraud being done against you! The CRA's only post 'accurate' info given by the data processer, i.e. lender, so unless I defrauded the lender what difference would it make, and in the case I did defraud the lender then cifas would become involved and i'd get a 13mth cifas warning. Not 6yrs, not 3yrs! ?

Thats my answer - its called knowledge and a vast knowledge at that

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK wrote: »

Would this 3 year rule apply to those who file for bankruptcy also. My concern is for the serial bankrupts, those who take out more and more credit when they are free just to bankrupt again. I know of someone who does this.

Also how would this fair with the re claiming of bank charges etc?

It seems from the current discussions that it will retain all data for 3yrs regardless of public/private

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

savagej wrote: »

N-I-D, Teletrack is a fourth CRA in the UK and I dont think you will enjoy reading their website.

Mate, they are not a 4th CRA - there is no such thing. What they purport to be and what they actually are is two different things.

Forget them, they have nothing to do with mainstream UK credit. I have previously listed the 3 CRA's and 4 FPA's and these are the recognised standards - Teletrack is not listed nor is it recognised as anything other than a tracing agent.

I haven't looked at their site because they are not classified and certainly not recognised as a CRA. Trust me on that one..... there are 3 CRA's in the UK however there are several businesses that offer a similar service to the CRA's for lease financing and non standard lending and also tracing agents, as this is, but they cannot be called a Credit Reference Agency - Teletrack, from memory is US Based and came here a couple of years ago - they are nobody and nothing to worry about. Try SARing them and watch your tenner go to waste! They will not have anything because the mainstream lenders we all apply to are not subscribed to them - they use the main 3 CRA's and main 4 FPA's.. not these third party organisations that think they can make it big.

A good example is CallCredit - did you know they have a 0.078% share of the market? They have one fully subscribed member (Monument Card) and that member no longer issues credit anyway! I think it speaks volumes that only in the last few months have more lenders started to use CallCredit as a back-up data provider, i.e. they still use EX or EQ as their main but then perform follow up's using CalCredit cos it is cheaper!

Call Credit been here a while and still minute - Teletrack been here 2 years and unheard of. That will remain the case for the forseeable future. Teletrack are NOT a CRA in the traditional sense, i.e. they will never compete with the main 3 and no mainstream lender currently reports to them.

dealer_wins

After 6 yeards

Maybe they could delete minor missed/late payments after 3 years, but serious defaults/written off debts stay on for 10+ years.

Everyone is upset at "the banks irresponsible lending" but one of the main ways to lend responsibly, is to lend to people that pay back their debts on time.

savagej

Ok. thanks for putting me straight. They do claim to be a CRA and state you can send off your £2 to get a copy of your file. But I agree they look like a tracing agent from the website.

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

savagej wrote: »

Ok. thanks for putting me straight. They do claim to be a CRA and state you can send off your £2 to get a copy of your file. But I agree they look like a tracing agent from the website.

Mate I think they call themselves it cos they calssify themselves one in the USA so will have a CRA licence maybe, but saying that they need custom (i.e. banks) and they still don't like CallCredit so will take years upon years to use a US branded firm that think they can do better - that's what i'm trying to point out.

They may well become big, but from past experience it's unlikely...... I agree they do look more like a tracing agent tbh :eek:

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

dealer_wins wrote: »

Maybe they could delete minor missed/late payments after 3 years, but serious defaults/written off debts stay on for 10+ years.

Everyone is upset at "the banks irresponsible lending" but one of the main ways to lend responsibly, is to lend to people that pay back their debts on time.

Why? 10 years is in no way a true reflection of how you handle money! 10 years ago I was a totally different person to what I am now and like has been said several times, if I go and kill someone i'll be out in 3 so why should a CCJ stay for 10 years?

Also written off debts as you call them simply mean the lender issued an unlawful agreement which can not be enforced therefore no record should exist - no agreement = no debt = no right of provision to supply a CRA with my personal data because no agreement = no account and no account = no right to report! This is something we are all fighting for on CAG! This is a separate issue altogether!

You telling me that a missed loan due to financial hardship is worse than murder by 3x? Thats how it reads to me......

ILW

After 6 yeards

never-in-doubt wrote: »

ILW - we all know you're just perfect and probably a spy for the CRA's as you're totally anti consumer rights (just out of curiosity why even bother with these forums?).....

The reason that 3 years is suffice and the norm, everywhere except the UK, is because it is tighter regulated (unlike the UK) and the lenders realise that 3 years is a long time and cannot be a true reflection of a persons credit worthiness - proven.

What this means is that lets say I am a 60 year old man who has worked for 45 years. I was then made redundant and reduced my payments to the lenders for a year until I got myself back on track, they'd be posting information that is factually inaccurate because in all my working life I had one bad spell and immediately rectified it by getting another job, granted it took a year but I did have an arrangement with my creditors.

Why then is it right for them to suggest that I had missed payments/arrangement to pay that will show for 5yrs after the event? It is just wrong, immoral and totally useless information that gives the lenders a false image of a persons creditworthiness.

So please ILW, get down from your high horse and look at the bigger picture. For the record, you'll find the poll will win unanimously with 3yrs because the majority of people believe that 6 is just unecessary which it is and which trading standards are also in agreement with (they are waiting to pounce and when they do, the law will change wait and see).

In the example you have given, surely a much longer history would have been more favourable showing years of good conduct and a few blips near th end. On that logic, the longer the records are kept, the fairer the system.

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

ILW wrote: »

In the example you have given, surely a much longer history would have been more favourable showing years of good conduct and a few blips near th end. On that logic, the longer the records are kept, the fairer the system.

I see your point but it's not right, as i've just said in my last post on this you get less for murder so something isn't right......

On my example, thats all very well but lenders never look at the circumstances why you missed payments - they simply decline after seeing the record in the first place. As I say, they do not give 2nd chances.

Good conduct doesn't matter, a year of payment is suffice - thats all that matters because everyones finances change annually so annual assessments should be made like overdrafts - not silly 6years of account history cos 6 years ago I could have been 18 and unemployed but now a director on £100k + per annum. Its too long - it needs to be lessened to even 1 year - I feel three years is too long but i'll settle for it over the current 6!

ILW

After 6 yeards

I agree with much of what you say, but I think it is not a matter of how long the data is kept, but how it is used.

Paul_Herring

After 6 yeards

never-in-doubt wrote: »

A consultation is to be released this week on government plans to change the time civil debts can be chased from six years to three.

Isn't the current time limit from 'last contact,' not when the debt defaulted/was taken out? So a debt taken out (say) 12 years ago can still legitimatly(sp?) appear on a credit record if the debt has been acknowledged in the past six years.

Is that changing?