How to remove false default by Virgin Media from Experian?

adindas

Mokka wrote: »

Time is of essence here as we might miss the boat with buying our flat- the clock is literally ticking!

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

If you have tried to ask them to remove and they have not which cause you miss the boat and substantial losses, I see a nice lawsuit here.

Capitalize it, take both of them to the court and try earning money. Speak to a lawyer similar to those when people claim PPI misselling who knows they might see a gold mine that make them to do no win no fee basis.

Buzby

Some observations:

The CRA's QC is in their processes - it has nothing to do with accuracy, after all - all they are doing is republishing the information their client company advised them of. If a consumer has a complaint, then they will raise it with the company supplying the data BUT if the firm providing the data confirms it is correct, that's it - what you want is irrelevant.

Do also remember a CRA is not a consumer champion - they can make bold statements to make them feel warm and cuddly, but let's not kid ourselves they are not there for your benefit - quite the opposite!

Who does VM provide this 'proof' to? A CRA is not an arbiter or court appointed sage. If the consumer wants to challenge them, if they do not back down voluntarily, all they can to is force the issue by way of a Small Claims action. The CRA is not involved in this.

As for a lawsuit - who's going to pay for this? Most consumers do not have the funds to pursue this, especially if the losses cannot be formally quantified. In the real world, court action is a lottery that only the rich can afford. For a file that is about to become invisible as the info reaches its maturity, the sensible solution - if the debt is genuine - is to let it expire.

rizla_king

Buzby wrote: »

The CRA's QC is in their processes - it has nothing to do with accuracy, after all - all they are doing is republishing the information their client company advised them of. If a consumer has a complaint, then they will raise it with the company supplying the data BUT if the firm providing the data confirms it is correct, that's it - what you want is irrelevant.

Has plenty to do with accuracy, as previously explained. Designed to show up obvious mistakes in the data supplied etc.

Anoneemoose

Buzby wrote: »

Some observations:

The CRA's QC is in their processes - it has nothing to do with accuracy, after all - all they are doing is republishing the information their client company advised them of. If a consumer has a complaint, then they will raise it with the company supplying the data BUT if the firm providing the data confirms it is correct, that's it - what you want is irrelevant.

Do also remember a CRA is not a consumer champion - they can make bold statements to make them feel warm and cuddly, but let's not kid ourselves they are not there for your benefit - quite the opposite!

Who does VM provide this 'proof' to? A CRA is not an arbiter or court appointed sage. If the consumer wants to challenge them, if they do not back down voluntarily, all they can to is force the issue by way of a Small Claims action. The CRA is not involved in this.

As for a lawsuit - who's going to pay for this? Most consumers do not have the funds to pursue this, especially if the losses cannot be formally quantified. In the real world, court action is a lottery that only the rich can afford. For a file that is about to become invisible as the info reaches its maturity, the sensible solution - if the debt is genuine - is to let it expire.

I always thought that companies had a responsibility and obligation under the Data Protection (?) Act. And if they don't then can the ICO not intervene?

Mokka

Experian_company_representative wrote: »

Mokka - sorry for your trouble. Please send details into our [EMAIL="CustomerRelations@uk.experian.com"]Customer Relations team[/EMAIL] and they will take this up for you. The CreditExpert alerts are weekly so perhaps it's in the pipeline.

Thanks
James

Thanks for your response. We will contact them- again. Maybe it will be the case of 'third time lucky'?

The default was registered on the 22/9, so not a week ago.

Bizarrely I am receiving my alerts (for £1.99 a month) but my OH, who is paying the full whack, did not even receive one.
It is all a huge headache:mad:

Mokka

Buzby wrote: »

Some of your assertions need clarifying:
1) they are allowed to record any information they hold about your partner and pass it to a CRA, as his permission to do this was given. As to whether it is accurate or not, that is a different matter. If they provide evidence to support this, then it stays. If they are unable to, then they have to remove it. There is no 'illegality'.

They cannot provide evidence, unless they've faked it. As it breaches Data Protection Act it surely is unlawful?

2) this is not a debt regulated by the CCA, so there is no requirement for a default notice to be sent. The onus is on him to pay outstanding bills, or prove he was not contracted to them. However, if he did not terminate properly (and with notice) then it is quite possible the debt is correct. Only VM can confirm either way.
How can he prove he was not contracted to them? Sorry but this sounds like a complete nonsense. So I can start a company tomorrow and harass people with false claims that they owe me money and make the victims call my premium line?
He wanted to pay the £27 to avoid all the hassle but it is impossible, as he does not have VM account number. It is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to speak to anyone at VM without giving them an account number. Their Philippines based staff will keep repeating their request for an account number and will not have any conversation with you if you don't have it. If you want to feel like being inside Kafka's novel give them a ring! VM puts the malignantly incompetent bureaucracy of the former Soviet Russia to shame- and trust me I know what I am talking about- I am from the former Eastern Block. One day I will record my conversation with VM staff and post it on YouTube!

3) there is nothing that states a supplier only has 6 months to record a default. The date they decided to record it can have various reasons why it took so long - skip tracing (for example). It may also be incompetence, but that is a matter between you and them.

Experian have not acted unlawfully - they take the data recorded by their client and add the details to the relevant file. WHAT 'quality control' ? They cannot judge - and as for the address, people move. Only the name and DoB has relevance.

People cannot live at 2 addresses at the same time!

Mokka

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

How is the rest of your mortgage application looking? E.g. are you right up to the limit on affordability or loan to value? Is the rest of your credit report clean, or are you just scraping in?

The reason I'm asking is that I can't see a £27 default to a non-financial company over 5 years ago having that much impact on a mortgage application.
I might be wrong, though!

And, either way, it's not a reason not to get it corrected.

The mortgage advisor told me the Credit Check will be done by a computer and will fail, but they will be able to remedy this at a later stage, as LTV is good. But we are FTB and quite nervous- read too many scary stories about failed mortgage applications. The rest of the report is clean

Mokka

I am happy to report that the default has now been removed from my OH's file. Only when Experian contacted Virgin Media to request the proof of the default did they finally respond. VM completely ignored all our communications. This ordeal has put me off Virgin brand for life. It's amazing that these companies can get away with wasting so much of people's time and money due to their incompetence. They save money by not providing adequate customer services and pass the costs onto us!

chanz4

Watch next months file, as they removed my false account and it was back this month

Buzby

Anoneemoose wrote: »

I always thought that companies had a responsibility and obligation under the Data Protection (?) Act. And if they don't then can the ICO not intervene?

It has to be 'accurate' - the records of the service supplier will be taken as accurate unless the complainant can provide something better then simply a complaint - proof is required.

The ICO or CRA is not an arbiter of such proof - the courts are.