Hey Martin

Joe_Bloggs

What is to stop their being five credit reference agencies in two years time or even ten in five years time ?
Government laws are often re-interpreted/thrown out when heard in a court of law. The decisions of ministers are cast aside if they break the law, as is it interpreted/re-interperated, by those in power.
J_B.

davidgmmafan

I agree with thunderbird of course there are individuals to blame if they get into trouble but I've long been puzzled by the approach of banks both in terms of lending and how they deal with customers who are in difficulty.

The current approach if you are in difficulty seems to be keep slapping on the charges and interest, sell to DCA.

Yes individuals are to blame, but so are the banks, they are the ones lending the money so it is poor business indeed if they lend it to people who cannot afford it.

I would've thought the government could pass a law in relation to the charges sinc no Parliament can bind its successor. The banks could probably appeal on some kind of European Law, but Pariliament COULD repeal whatever made us part of Europe. At least in theory, in theory they could repeal the USA's independence but it wouldn't achieve much

I do recall concerns being expressed before about CRA's. Some even say on thier website we have a legal right to keep this information. That sounds a lot different to yeah its based on the contracts you sign with banks and the like...

ThunderBird_3

Cheers mate - i'd hav thought it was more the banks fault if you were going to tip the scales so to speak - they do have all the clout

hicskis

By esmerellda:

The changes can only be acheived by a change in legislation/regulation so lobbying parliament using the big consumer groups like Which? and CAB and putting pressure on the OFT to take up the treasury committees recommendations for an investigation is going to be the best starting point.

This is indeed one way - the other is through the courts i.e getting the Law changed and to do that you have to prove that the Law as written (to a particular case) is not working.

Lobbying is good but we cannot forget that the banks do it to, have far greater resources at their disposal, and are heavily incentivised to win (profit).

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

This is indeed one way - the other is through the courts i.e getting the Law changed and to do that you have to prove that the Law as written (to a particular case) is not working.

Lobbying is good but we cannot forget that the banks do it to, have far greater resources at their disposal, and are heavily incentivised to win (profit).

But any new law will not act retrospectively so it will not help those who have already been charged. Furthermore, there would be a transitional period of any new law which is the same as any country in the world.

MarkyMarkD

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Yes individuals are to blame, but so are the banks, they are the ones lending the money so it is poor business indeed if they lend it to people who cannot afford it.

I'm sorry, but this is a very naive view of how banking (or lending in general) works.

Banks (and other lenders) could, in theory, restrict their lending to individuals who are 100% certain to repay.

But in practice, that would mean only lending to those who already have the money, or an asset over which security can be obtained. It would mean no unsecured lending. And even if you relax the criteria a bit "those who are very likely to repay" it would mean greatly increased up-front verification of all information provided by the customer. And that is very expensive indeed, and would end up being paid for by borrowers.

The current situation is that lender perform a reasonable analysis of both the information provided by the borrower, and publicly-available (e.g. credit reference agency) data. Different lenders will do different amounts of verification on this data, depending in part on their attitude to risk and in part to the type of person they are lending to.

But, at the end of the day, some borrowers will always default. And a default is NOT a sign of a bad loan. "Perfect" (according to any independent assessment of income and affordability) borrowers may default because their relationship breaks down, or they lose their job, or they get sick, or a multitude of reasons.

None of those are signs of bad lending - they are just part of the "luck" that a lender reaps the consequence of.

And then, there are cases where the borrower commits fraud to get the loan, by lying on their application form. IMHO that is 100% the borrower's fault, and accusing the lender of negligence because they didn't verify every single "fact" provided is, IMHO, passing the buck.

hicskis

By MarkyMarkD:

The current situation is that lender perform a reasonable analysis of both the information provided by the borrower, and publicly-available (e.g. credit reference agency)data. Different lenders will do different amounts of verification on this data, depending in part on their attitude to risk and in part to the type of person they are lending to.

But this is precisely my point - they have and are not. Let's focus back on what this thread is about - it's because lenders have and are not reporting peoples borrowings with the CRAs.

This is well known, published, and talked about. My point is that this is illegal as we all have a right under UK Law to accurate credit files with the CRAs and if lenders had been declaring what they should - then they would have been able at least in part to perform sound verifications in risk analysis.

When lenders are made to declare true borrowings - i'm guessing it will open up a black hole in irresponsible lending practices.

That is actionable under UK Law - and would mean those affected would get their monies back.

noh

My point is that this is illegal

But it is not illegal.
The data reported to the CRAs has to be accurate.
There is no requirement for it to be reported or to be complete.

You say as much in the first line of the op

I would like to see a change in the Law where lenders are obliged to report a person’s true borrowings with all of the CRAs

natweststaffmember

Can we get back to UK law and name the law and when it was passed and quote the passage you talk about to get people's monies back?

Which bit specifically allows for a refund of fees charged because of this law and is there any case law to support your case?

hicskis

By noh:
But it is not illegal.
The data reported to the CRAs has to be accurate.
There is no requirement for it to be reported or to be complete.

But this is precisely my point - lenders are claiming there is no requirement - however you have a right to an accurate credit file which means that all the data contained within that file whether reported or not must be accurate and relevant for the purpose under the Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended), and you have a right to an accurate credit file under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (as amended) - as you have the right to challenge inaccuracies in that credit file.

This must be tested in the courts to show the banks that their position is wrong. This will create the Case Law required to get people's monies back becuase when lender's are made to report true borrowings it will open up a black-hole of irresponsible lending practices and will prove that the manner that most of these Unfair Charges have been applied - was and is Unfair.

This will be a huge kick in the teeth for banks as they have colluded by use of the British Bankers Association (The Lending Code - formally The Banking Code) - which is anti-competitive by nature and which i'm sure will be in breach of the Competion Act.

This creates redress which means the banks ought to be fined.