Experian Credit score

t_i_g_e_rr

I know someone who had a run in with experion. She was moving house at the time (which, as we know, makes you less credit worthy ???). She applied for a store card (one credit check) and due to an error by a mobile phone company had three more checks done close together. At the advice of the mobile phone company (who were not thinking of the credit checks) these were partly with her old address and partly with her new address. By the time she had the final checks on her mortgage she was refused due to possible false address'. This is not the kind of stress you need when you are moving house just because she bought a new mobile phone and applied for a store card, which tipped her credit score over to 'Bad'. Her credit score was OK once it had been sorted (which took a lot of phone calls) and the mortgage company were quite happy. It seems to me that credit reference agencies can take perfectly honest data about where you live and jump to conclusions that can have serious consequences. Could they not deal with people moving house in a more sophisticated way?

T_i_g_e_rr

mgr1970

CRAs are extremely tightly regulated, do you have a suggestion of how they could be more professional?

Yes for a start they should not have exemption from the European Human Rights act.
They should be made to publish which firms they process and make decissions for, any one who says Experian does not do this is wrong the firm chooses the score model they want to use and Experian process that data if your rejected they even send the letter for the firm asking you to obtain your credit file,there are not many firmswho do not use this service from Experian or Equifax.
They only introduced the projected scores due to the pressure about there Business practices,but even this does not go as far as they have to do in the USA where both Experian and Equifax have to produce your credit scores not just one score but the scores under each score model they also have to explain howyour score was determined stating factors other than what appears on the insight file such as age,income,address,work type all external factors that go into the outcome of your final score.
Then to say they are tightly regulated is a joke the data protection act may be in place but you ask the data protection office if it is of much use and they freely admit they have very little to no power,they can slap a firm on the wrist and issue notification against a firm or credit agency but after that they tell you that if they rule in your favour you then have to take civil action that is of no use to the man in the street.
As a moderator off this board Galstonian seems to be the defender of the credit industry(firms & credit ref agency) and its practices and not the impartial role a moderator should take.

I speak from personal experiance with experian who i have just finished a 2 year battle with over data they where passing on through the reverse data feed to the firms on my insight report which was very adverse but totaly false they admitted this after 2 weeks,there main frame was correct but one of there many back office computers was wrong and in breach of the data protection act which they admitted to, the data protection office said it was a waste of time going for notificattion as they had limited powers and experian had admitted guilt.There best advice was civil action at my own expense, instead i had to go to the chief exec of GUS who went to the chief exec of experian who then got the directors office to make Experians own chief compliance officers put things right which took 18 months from the initial start.(and this was just 1 database in a back office that was incorrect god help anyone with more than this simple problem)
And this is what you call a regulated activity, i would hate to see what you call an unregulated activity.

lisyloo

Orange still had me down at my old address despite sending bills to new address - not only hasn't been carried through, but they are still updating the record at my old address.

I had exactly the same problem with Orange.
Have raised the "notice of dispute" and waiting for it to be corrected.

mrtickle

Indeed. I spotted it back in May, and thought I'd got Orange to sort it out. I even have a letter from Orange stating in writing that they have updated my address with both agencies. Imagine my suprise to see it merrily still there, last updated well over a month AFTER Orange's letter to them, when I got my report again. Perhaps Orange don't read their own letters and continued to update the old information.

Anyway this time I have shouted at Orange and raised a Notice of Dispute as well, so fingers crossed.

Galstonian

Yes for a start they should not have exemption from the European Human Rights act.
They should be made to publish which firms they process and make decissions for, any one who says Experian does not do this is wrong the firm chooses the score model they want to use and Experian process that data if your rejected they even send the letter for the firm asking you to obtain your credit file,there are not many firmswho do not use this service from Experian or Equifax.
They only introduced the projected scores due to the pressure about there Business practices,but even this does not go as far as they have to do in the USA where both Experian and Equifax have to produce your credit scores not just one score but the scores under each score model they also have to explain howyour score was determined stating factors other than what appears on the insight file such as age,income,address,work type all external factors that go into the outcome of your final score.
Then to say they are tightly regulated is a joke the data protection act may be in place but you ask the data protection office if it is of much use and they freely admit they have very little to no power,they can slap a firm on the wrist and issue notification against a firm or credit agency but after that they tell you that if they rule in your favour you then have to take civil action that is of no use to the man in the street.
As a moderator off this board Galstonian seems to be the defender of the credit industry(firms & credit ref agency) and its practices and not the impartial role a moderator should take.

I speak from personal experiance with experian who i have just finished a 2 year battle with over data they where passing on through the reverse data feed to the firms on my insight report which was very adverse but totaly false they admitted this after 2 weeks,there main frame  was correct but one of there many back office computers was wrong and in breach of the data protection act which they admitted to, the data protection office said it was a waste of time going for notificattion as they had limited powers and experian had admitted guilt.There best advice was civil action at my own expense, instead i had to go to the chief exec of GUS who went to the chief exec of experian who then got the directors office to make Experians own chief compliance officers put things right  which took 18 months from the initial start.(and this was just 1 database in a back office that was incorrect god help anyone with more than this simple problem)
And this is what you call a regulated activity, i would hate to see what you call an unregulated activity.

I take great exception to your accusations which seem to me unfounded.

I simply stated that CRAs are tightly regulated, they are. They are governed by the concumer credit act, the data protection act, the enterprise act even the representation of the people act to name just a few. Individuals have a statutory right to a copy of the data held by CRAs to be delivered to them within 7 days for a maximum charge of £2. There are statutory processes which govern complaints and errors.

You may have found examples of where this tight regulation has been in error or ineffective but that is hardly the same as being unregulated. I take it your refernece to the European Human Rights Act is actually about the European Convention on Human Rights and the protocols which are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998? The only thing I can think of in relation to this was the sale of electoral registration information, could you expand on your allegations at all?


For your information, I have a voluntary moderating role only as a frequent poster, if you believe that my posts are in any way biased please feel free to point out that bias and argue against them, I will happily respond.
If you resort to unfounded accusations and insults I will be forced to remove your posts.
If you are unhappy with this then please feel free to contact Martin Lewis.

Joe_Bloggs

@Mgr1978
Galstonian can't change the credit reference agency situation we have. He can only comment on how it works, affecting himself and other consumers, from personal research and experience. If you mess up your own rating with bad advice then it appears just as bad as if they messed it up for you.

Clearly your situation is different from that encountered in this forum, in that you took a CRAs on and experienced a lot of delay, hypocracy and back office bungling to put it right.

I hope you can see that Galstonian's posts seem reasonable and appropriate in his position given the information at his disposal.
J_B.

mgr1970

I take great exception to your accusations which seem to me unfounded.  

I simply stated that CRAs are tightly regulated, they are.  They are governed by the concumer credit act, the data protection act,  the enterprise act even the representation of the people act to name just a few.  Individuals have a statutory right to a copy of the data held by CRAs to be delivered to them within 7 days for a maximum charge of £2.  There are statutory processes which govern complaints and errors.

You may have found examples of where this tight regulation has been in error or ineffective but that is hardly the same as being unregulated. .

This is what i mean these different act's you refer to time after time only help if at the end you have the means and time to take civil action.
What is the piont in regulation if at the end of the day you can only use the out come of the legislation to take civil action.
Mine was a straight forward case where Experian admitted fault in writting paid compensation within 2 weeks , but they continued to breach all this tight regulation for nearly 2 years.
The bodies who regulate this industry did not want to know they had an open and shut case but all they wanted was for me to take civil action, that is of no use to anyone thats not regulation thats passing the buck back to the consumer.

As far as an Insult if i think you have a Bias towards the indusrty side this is no more an insult than you thinking i have a bias against the Industry and it's Regulators.

You say "If you resort to unfounded accusations and insults I will be forced to remove your posts" this is not an unfounded accusation it is a piont of view, if a board member cannot have a piont of view about another that is not an insult then why have a board.
To use your position as you say as a moderator to stop people saying they think you or anyone else may have a bias to one side is wrong just let other board members say i am wrong and may have a bias towards the other side as Joe has just done i have no problem with Joe,yourself or anyone doing that.

Joe_Bloggs

@Mgr1978
It is clear that this topic has struck a nerve and has caused you pain in recollecting your experience. I doubt that anyone on the forum had been aware of the crap that  goes on. I would have been more supportive        had I known but then, who would not?

I never meant or said that you were biased but I should have said that that you had a unique viewpoint and your experiences are or great interest to those wishing to hear the practical interpretatation of the laws of this land.
The CRAs can say 'Go sue yourself'.
J_B.

Galstonian

This is what i mean these different act's you refer to time after time only help if at the end you have the means and time to take civil action.

Time after time? Try "once".

As far as an Insult if i think you have a Bias towards the indusrty side this is no more an insult than you thinking i have a bias against the Industry and it's Regulators.

And if you can quote that bias and ask me to justify it then I will try. To be perfectly frank I think it is a somewhat ludicrous argument since I advocate never ever paying any money to the industry and, if you ever do, make sure it is as little as possible. Just how this can be perceived as being on "their side" I'm not sure.

You say "If you resort to unfounded accusations and insults I will be forced to remove your posts" this is not an unfounded accusation it is a piont of view, if a board member cannot have a piont of view about another that is not an insult then why have a board.

To use your position as you say as a moderator to stop people saying they think you or anyone else may have a bias to one side is wrong just let other board members say i am wrong and may have a bias towards the other side as Joe has just done i have no problem with Joe,yourself or anyone doing that.

I will remove posts which state that I am using my role as moderator to support any bias because, quite simply, I am not. I do consider this accusation insulting.

If you would like to discuss credit cards then please continue to do so. If you want to argue about the role of moderator or any other non-credit-card issue please take it to Discussion Time.

Joe_Bloggs

I stand by my ignored comments.
Does aliasojo know of more juicy comments ?
For Galstonian to have to write the obvious is a measure of how forum members are not helping each other out.
In my own view, too much time spent in the arms and the discussion forum.
J_B.