MSE News: Rent payments on credit files 'should help social housing tenants'

Road_Hog

ahxcjb wrote: »

That is simply not true. An employer has no right to ask you to declare non-recordable offences (ie, the vast majority of motoring offences) as they are immediately 'spent' under the ROA 1974.

I was recently shown a job application form for one of the top four UK supermarkets. They specifically asked for all criminal convictions, INCLUDING motoring offences to be declared.

Of course they have a right, they can ask anything they like. I don't agree with it, but that is the truth, then can and will.

ahxcjb

Road_Hog wrote: »

I was recently shown a job application form for one of the top four UK supermarkets. They specifically asked for all criminal convictions, INCLUDING motoring offences to be declared.

Of course they have a right, they can ask anything they like. I don't agree with it, but that is the truth, then can and will.

They have no legal right to ask for non-recordable offences. I assure you. You are not under any legal compulsion to disclose your driving record to them unless offences noted on your licence are recordable.

Also, be aware, a penalty notice for a motoring offence is NOT a criminal conviction.

dodger1

ahxcjb wrote: »

That is simply not true. An employer has no right to ask you to declare non-recordable offences (ie, the vast majority of motoring offences) as they are immediately 'spent' under the ROA 1974.

However, if you've been convicted of a recordable motoring offence (drink driving, dangerous driving, careless driving etc) then there is no question that these should and need to be declared. These are serious offences, and shouldn't be regarded as 'just' driving offences.

I hope that clarifies.

What about simple speeding offences?

rpc

If you are asked a question like that, you can normally answer as if the spent offence does not exist. It would be a breach of statutory duty to penalise you on the basis of spent offences in most work sectors.

A fine (e.g. speeding conviction) is spent after 5 years. Points don't come into it.

I don't know what the status of FPNs is - they aren't convictions so the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act probably doesn't apply. An enhanced CRB check will not show up any speeding offences dealt with by FPN, it will show up any that went to court.

ahxcjb

dodger1 wrote: »

What about simple speeding offences?

Depends how it was dealt with. If the offence was dealt with by a court, then that is a 'criminal conviction'. However, the offence of 'speeding' is not recordable so it wouldn't appear on a CRB check (or ACRO certificate). That said, you should just simply answer the question as asked taking into account the ROA 1974. So if you were convicted in court of exceeding the speed limit 3 years ago, and you were asked to declare any criminal convictions, you should declare it.

If you were given a FPN for the offence of speeding, that is NOT a criminal conviction and should NOT be declared.

Zorz_2

Company peddling product X claims that product X is amazing...

JuicyJesus

rpc wrote: »

If landlords (social and private) are to be permitted to report to credit agencies then surely they should be regulated as a credit provider and have routes such as the FOS open for adjudication?

This is wrong on a number of levels. Many businesses already report onto credit files (e.g. telecom companies, some utility firms) without actually being providers of credit or being regulated as such, or indeed without many people disputing their ability or right to record defaults and missed payment information on credit files. Moreover, regulation as a credit provider would be massive overkill for a business that does not actually intend to provide any credit, it would lead to massive and unjustified overheads for letting agents and landlords alike and require them to satisfy requirements which simply do not apply to the business of lettings. FOS would also be able to deny jurisdiction over any complaint because the product complained about was not actually a financial one, let alone one of the financial ones they have jurisdiction over. Furthermore, those renting through agents may have access to the Property Ombudsman already, making the FOS (even if it had jurisdiction) redundant.

As I noted above, it costs money to link to a credit reference agency, and there is a lot of overhead and hassle for them for virtually no benefit, meaning that private landlords (who are, in all fairness, more likely to behave in a disreputable fashion) are extremely unlikely to sign up to share rental data. I would also question whether a private individual, as opposed to a company, would be able to sign up to provide data to (and therefore receive it from) Experian in the first place.

BigAunty

Haven't read the full article but does this mean that social housing tenants can get their credit record damaged by rent arrears in the same way that property owners affect their credit record if they miss mortgage payments?

ahxcjb

BigAunty wrote: »

Haven't read the full article but does this mean that social housing tenants can get their credit record damaged by rent arrears in the same way that property owners affect their credit record if they miss mortgage payments?

Depends. IF the landlord is going to bother with buying into Experian's little money making scheme, then yes their credit record could be negatively affected if they miss payments.

JuicyJesus

ahxcjb wrote: »

Depends. IF the landlord is going to bother with buying into Experian's little money making scheme, then yes their credit record could be negatively affected if they miss payments.

The thing is, I don't see why they would. There appears to be very little benefit to them. The really nasty rental stuff, like having to be taken to court for arrears, would show as a CCJ anyway, and you can pull CCJ records for anyone for £4.

Like I say I'm not against rental payment histories per se - as noted above, many agreements which are not strictly credit are listed on credit reports. But due to the obligation to report up to date payment information each month in order to be able to receive it, plus the costs of signing up to Experian, I doubt most landlords will get involved.