FAO: James Jones, Experian Rep

chattychappy

lisyloo wrote: »

<playing devils advocate>

So as usual lots of complainging - rip off, scam - but no-one prepared to take a case to the authorities or willing to put together a template letter.
The usual loan of moaning with absolutely no basis or teeth.

</note deliberately deigned to throw down the gauntlet</>

There are repeated references to "misselling". I think something needs clarifying. In contract law there is the concept of "misrepresentation". Put simply, you have a remedy if someone lies to you about something in order to get you to buy something. This applies to all kinds of contracts - whether or not for financial services. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 and endless case law addresses misrepresentation.

Then there is "misselling". This is more associated with financial services - where typically the provider has a higher duty to the consumer. This is imposed by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), secondary legislation, FSA regulation etc. As I say, this only really applies to the regulated sector. If something goes wrong here, then you can go to the FOS.

The famous "misselling" scandals (eg PPI) were within the scope of FSMA. Eg if someone wrongly advises you to buy a financial product and it is unsuitable for your needs, you might have a remedy. For non-regulated products, this isn't the case. The onus with these is on the consumer to determine suitability.

In the case of selling credit scores, "misselling" isn't sufficient to achieve a legal remedy because it is not a regulated product. You must show misrepresentation. Certainly the advertising suggests you are getting the score that lenders base decisions on - but if you read the detail, this isn't what is promised.

Finally - there is of course the ASA, the OFT and perhaps other bodies that might take an interest in something that though legally sound falls short of what consumers expect.

IMHO now the ASA covers web advertising, this might be the best course for the disgruntled. Personally I don't see any "hard" legal problem from what I've seen. (Willing to be persuaded.)

izools

I notice James Jones still hasn't responded to my question -

"Why isn't a discharged bankruptcy order under six years old flagged as a negative factor?"

EDIT: I just spoke to an Experian CreditExpert rep who told me

"That's right, your creditworthiness would be no better if the bankruptcy order wasn't there"

He qualified this by claiming that because the order is discharged it isn't an issue, and that they "have been told by creditors that their models have changed so reflect this". Really? :rotfl:

Now I feel mis-sold. I didn't until now but I am currently in the process of raising a formal complaint in regards to this because they don't have the authority to talk on behalf of 3rd party scoring models.

Experian_company_representative

I'd say you have a very good chance of getting the second card - perhaps you could let us know how you get on. Fingers crossed.

James Jones