why do we have to pay to see our credit scores?

mo786uk

NeverEnough wrote: »

I don't agree that CRAs "are a good thing". Credit was available long before the advent of CRAs, so the notion that the ability to obtain credit should rest entirely on the dubious information held by profit-making companies who profiteer off holding our personal data, is just wrong. In the past I tried to have factually completely incorrect info held by the CRAs corrected to no avail - one of the issues involved no less than around 30 searches, all made in a very short space of time, by the same lender, with whom I never had any connection at all and certainly never authorised. After months of trying to have the info corrected, the lender consistently refused to amend their rubbish stating it was accurate. Yes of course, I made some 30 applications to the same lender, who I'd not even heard of, all within the space of an hour or so, when I hadn't applied for any credit from anyone at all. They vanished off the CRA report after 6-12 months so became irrelevant in the big scheme of things. But the "Linked Associations" from that time remain - 22 "links" all with the same date and the same lender. It was around 2006, so maybe they'll vanish sometime, too.

Multiple searches all on the same date and same time have happened since then too, from bona fide lenders to whom I made a single application but they entered up to 6 or 7 searches - some were removed when challenged, others not.

The CRAs it seems have the best of all worlds - they milk us for cash to access our own data and they charge companies a fat rate to perform "searches" which "prove" whether I'm creditworthy or not, all without knowing my salary etc. Plus they "are not responsible for the accuracy of any info" they hold. Nice little earner with no responsibility attached and no effort to resolve issues- if millions of people pay £2 a day for a statutory report, that represents a massive income for little effort.

CRAs are disgusting. They are not "value for money" at all.

If we didnt have CRAs the incorrect data would still be held, just by the original creditor - all it mean sis that things would take more time when applying for credit.

savagej

I think in the end the only real way to have problems like this fixed, when you know the CRA data is wrong and you are getting passed from pillar to post and going around in circles with no one taking responsibility (including the ICO), is to stop, or now you know what they do, don't get caught up in it in the first place.

Start off by raising an action against them for defamation. In the first instance this can be done by applying for an interim injuction or interdict (depending on the jurisdiction) and then acting as a party litigant and taking the case yourself to the High Court / Court of Session. If you are on any social security benefit certainly in Scotland you can lodge all of the papers for free and the court has provisions for assisting those representing themselves to complete the required forms.

CRA's act as both data processors and data controllers under the DPA 1998 and they would have no defence in law against publishing defamatory material, "I did not know it was wrong I trusted my friend Jonny who said it was right" (and paid me handsomely to take the information) is not a defence. They can and they will move fast enough to fix the problem when they are served a writ. They can't act as party litigant for free, it would cost them thousands if not tens of thousands to attempt to completely defend a case and that would make them fix the problem.

It is easier than spending months trying to fix something that can be done in days and when enough people learn how to do it they might stop pi**ing people about with the same tired old cliches (as in "we are not responsible", which is exactly what they are in fact and in law)and help the very people who they are living off of the backs of; as who does our personal data really belong to?

As for paying for the information £2 is not that much for a printout of the paper report and is the amount stipulated in law, however, the calculated score they can charge what they like for they are a commerical organisation but they should also make it very clear exactly what the score is not as well as what it is.

I also believe the relevant legislation should be updated in order that they are also required to supply all of the data they hold for £2 and explain exactly what they use it for, how they do this and who they have given it to, after all they are making a profit out of what is information about people and they make the profit if it is good or it is bad or it is somewhere in between.

savagej

What would probably help is the same as what happened with bank charges, people got hold of a template of how to take action and through the internet millions did.

If one was easily available and easy for the consumer to understand they could take legal action against the CRA immediately and if they had to pay the cost of doing it they can claim it back. This could be for defamation, or under the DPA 1998 to stop data processing (easier to do) or both.

However, it would only be something to do when you know for a fact the data is wrong, this would force the CRA's into taking much more care and proper action when the accuracy of data is queried rather than using you as the ball in a game of table tennis. The original creditor could also be added to the action so that in future they take far more care over the data they actually provide to the CRA's.

Edit: the order would not be seek damages where little or anything was due as a result of the wrong data, simply to enforce the CRA to stop publishing material that is wrong and has a determintal effect on the persons life.

izools

spaceboy wrote: »

Because why should they be able to hold data on you that may not be correct, and which could affect your ability to get credit?

I think the law should be changed on this.

Use my system with Equifax:

Take out a pre-paid Mastercard. Top it up with £1 (or £10 and spend £8-9).

Use it to sign up with the Equifax free trial Via Quidco.

You will get £5 cashback. When Equifax try to take payment for the next months subscription it will fail as you won't have the funds on your prepaid mastercard.

A few days after Equifax failed to take the membership fee from your prepaid card the "Free trial" will cancel.

You can then use the same £1 on your card (which is never taken, just pre-authed) to sign up for another free trial. Equifax allow unlimited free trials if your previous one cancelled due to declined membership fee transactions.

Each time you sign up go via Quidco.

I haven't ever paid to see my Equifax file and have bagged £15 via Quidco already this year.

Get Equifax to pay you to see your file

savagej

izools wrote: »

Use my system with Equifax:

Take out a pre-paid Mastercard. Top it up with £1 (or £10 and spend £8-9).

Use it to sign up with the Equifax free trial Via Quidco.

You will get £5 cashback. When Equifax try to take payment for the next months subscription it will fail as you won't have the funds on your prepaid mastercard.

A few days after Equifax failed to take the membership fee from your prepaid card the "Free trial" will cancel.

You can then use the same £1 on your card (which is never taken, just pre-authed) to sign up for another free trial. Equifax allow unlimited free trials if your previous one cancelled due to declined membership fee transactions.

Each time you sign up go via Quidco.

I haven't ever paid to see my Equifax file and have bagged £15 via Quidco already this year.

Get Equifax to pay you to see your file

That is a good one! Thank you.