Default still showing from 2 years ago :0

0_0_2

I have noticed a error on my credit report that was settled two years ago. I didnt notice until last month when i checked my credit report due to being turned down for credit, i contacted the company concerned and asked for this to be removed, to which they replied it will be off within a week! but this is still on my report :mad: I have tried to get credit in the past with no luck, i now think this must be part to blame. I do have another default on there which is being paid off.

I am looking to pursue this further and try to claim some kind of compensation from the company, can this be done?

Any advice appreciated

Thanks

The_Boss

It can take up to 6 weeks to come through. What is the 'updated to period' date?

No chance at compensation.

Thrugelmir

0_0 wrote: »

I do have another default on there which is being paid off.

And then wonder why you've been declined for further credit.

Don't waste your time seeking compensation. Spend it instead clearing the debts you already have.

matttye

The_Boss wrote: »

It can take up to 6 weeks to come through. What is the 'updated to period' date?

No chance at compensation.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And then wonder why you've been declined for further credit.

Don't waste your time seeking compensation. Spend it instead clearing the debts you already have.

I respectfully disagree with the above two posters.

If the company agreed to remove a default (hopefully in writing?) then they've pretty much admitted it shouldn't be on there. If that's the case, and they haven't done so, then they are continuing to report false information to the CRA's, unless they have already asked for it to be removed and the CRA's are dragging their heels.

If the company is reporting false info then compensation is in order.

willLeeds

If it was an error on their part compensation is an option.

The_Boss

matttye wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with the above two posters.

If the company is reporting false info then compensation is in order.

But why? The report only is seen by a limited audience How can the OP prove they have lost out because of that, especially when they have another default on record?

Beyond that there is no scope for compensation.

matttye

The_Boss wrote: »

But why? The report only is seen by a limited audience How can the OP prove they have lost out because of that, especially when they have another default on record?

Beyond that there is no scope for compensation.

Companies often pay out compensation when there isn't strictly grounds for doing so - at least in the legal sense.

Probably because it's cheaper for them than being investigated by the ombudsman.

Even if no financial loss can be proven, he could make a complaint about defamation of character and how any company he has applied for credit with might have formed a negative opinion of him based on incorrect information.

The_Boss

matttye wrote: »

Companies often pay out compensation when there isn't strictly grounds for doing so - at least in the legal sense.

Probably because it's cheaper for them than being investigated by the ombudsman.

Even if no financial loss can be proven, he could make a complaint about defamation of character and how any company he has applied for credit with might have formed a negative opinion of him based on incorrect information.

But the other default is correct - what's to say this wasn't ample reason to form a negative opinion? Nice trump card for them.

I doubt it is an ombudsman issue at present. It will be if they do not fix it, but probably not at present. And there's no precedent for this. All it would do is give someone a laugh. Compensation cultire is ridiculous.

matttye

The_Boss wrote: »

But the other default is correct - what's to say this wasn't ample reason to form a negative opinion? Nice trump card for them.

I doubt it is an ombudsman issue at present. It will be if they do not fix it, but probably not at present. And there's no precedent for this. All it would do is give someone a laugh. Compensation cultire is ridiculous.

Compensation culture when your spilt coffee burns you but isn't marked as hot is ridiculous, but not when someone is deliberately and wilfully reporting false information about you. Compensation is entirely warranted in that case IMO.

Clearly companies would have a better opinion of someone who has only one default.

Thrugelmir

matttye wrote: »

Clearly companies would have a better opinion of someone who has only one default.

I would beg to differ. A default isn't so much about the money but the attitude / personal responsibility of the individual concerned. With better customers to lend to, far easier simply to decline the application.

matttye

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I would beg to differ. A default isn't so much about the money but the attitude / personal responsibility of the individual concerned. With better customers to lend to, far easier simply to decline the application.

One default could be cash flow issues, but multiple is more likely to indicate a flagrant inability to manage finances properly.

Or unemployment -- but that's what a notice of correction is for