Any grounds to take legal action ?

FireWyrm

DaveTheMus wrote: »

You no doubt agreed to them sharing your information when you accepted the T&C's......

Sharing information does not authorise all and sundry to clean out the target account! Really, this is becoming too common for it to be coincidence. Clearly, these companies are not just sharing names and addresses which is bad enough, but credit/debit card numbers as well. There have been a bunch of these same stories where people have been dealing with one company (probably erroneously) and before they know it, their account has been raided multiple times by multiple companies. It is all well and good for the FCA to get it's collective knickers in a twist about PDLs, but what are they doing about this new scourge?

BillJones

LSinclair wrote: »

the fact that they shared my privet information

Sounds like a hedge fund, that could do with root and branch reform...

FireWyrm

BillJones wrote: »

Sounds like a hedge fund, that could do with root and branch reform...

:rotfl:

saw a similarly amusing misspelling the other day....

'overdraught' : that whistling sound that the wind makes through ones' empty bank account.

Gaz83

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I appreciate some people are not great at reading T&Cs and happily enter their card details on various websites but surely having a clause saying once we have your bank details we can pass these to all our friends and rivals who can charge what they like when like unless you track them down and convince them to stop, is totally unfair as a contract term.

We see a lot of threads on here where a person naively entered there card details on one brokers site and suddenly they are hit with various charges from companies that they have never heard of.

Loan broker fees are bad enough but what's to stop one of these companies setting up a whole load of 'sister' companies and charging over and over again for every new punter they snare?

Just because it is in the T&Cs does not mean that it is legal.

Thing is, is this really happening though? I've looked through a few T&Cs of these companies in response to people's queries on here and I've yet to find a clause that says they can share financial information with other similar companies, leading to take multiple payments.

It seems to me that either we've got a situation where this is happening, OR that desperate people are looking for money, entering their details into several websites, then either not realising they've done so or being in denial about doing so and claiming that they've only entered it into one.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I know what I find more likely.

FireWyrm

Gaz83 wrote: »

Thing is, is this really happening though? I've looked through a few T&Cs of these companies in response to people's queries on here and I've yet to find a clause that says they can share financial information with other similar companies, leading to take multiple payments.

Terms and conditions may be, but this is happening too often to be misadventure or confusion. Clearly, they are sharing payment information and if that is the case, then it is probably illegal....but try proving it.

Gaz83 wrote: »

It seems to me that either we've got a situation where this is happening, OR that desperate people are looking for money, entering their details into several websites, then either not realising they've done so or being in denial about doing so and claiming that they've only entered it into one.

Some perhaps, but we have had well worded and coherent accounts of this happening now. These people are adamant that they did not give their information to more than one company and yet, there are multiple debits from multiple companies they have never heard of. I think this is the financial equivalent of an STI.

BillJones

Gaz83 wrote: »

It seems to me that either we've got a situation where this is happening, OR that desperate people are looking for money, entering their details into several websites.

My money would be on the second of those two options. What's strange (if I'm right) is that they then come on here saying that they didn't do this, as though they'll get better advice that way.

It's like the guy upset that he'd been stopped for shoplifting, telling us that he just happened to have a tag-removal magnet in his pocket at the time (which he definitely wasn't using for shop lifting..)

FireWyrm

BillJones wrote: »

My money would be on the second of those two options. What's strange (if I'm right) is that they then come on here saying that they didn't do this, as though they'll get better advice that way.

or perhaps Occams' razor applies and they really didnt give their details to more than one site (stupid enough granted) but still....somehow they end up with lots of charges often to the same company, just trading under different names (if you look at the companies house). My money is on these companies trading on the fact that people like you simply dismiss these tales as fiction.

BillJones

FireWyrm wrote: »

or perhaps Occams' razor applies and they really didnt give their details to more than one site.

In what possible way could you think that Ockham's razor favours your preferred explanation?

It says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions but which fits the facts is generally to be preferred. You are assuming a criminal conspiracy, I am just assuming incompetence on the part of people who are clearly incompetent.

FireWyrm

BillJones wrote: »

In what possible way could you think that Ockham's razor favours your preferred explanation?

How about, this is what people are starting to report? Why would they make it up? They say, that they have only given their details to one company and yet suddenly, out of the blue, come many more debits for similar amounts. One or two can be put down to stupidity or misadventure, but this is becoming a veritable torrent of similar stories along the same theme...searching for a loan, put details into one site, then bam!, lots of transactions from companies they dont recognise.

BillJones wrote: »

It says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions but which fits the facts is generally to be preferred. You are assuming a criminal conspiracy, I am just assuming incompetence on the part of people who are clearly incompetent.

It is only criminal if it is explicitly illegal, and especially in finance which is such a grey area. These companies are clearly sharing not only names and addresses, but bank details as well. Since most are interconnected, then you can end up with 5 or 6 unauthorised transactions from what is effectively the same company, but with different trading names. Unless someone actually investigates and catches them at it, you cant stop it or clamp down with the relevant legislation. Add to that the general air of disbelief you are exhibiting and no wonder nothing is being done. When the FCA wakes up and does something, then they'll stop, until then, the good times are a'rollin' because no one believes the people who are experiencing this.

BillJones

FireWyrm wrote: »

How about, this is what people are starting to report? Why would they make it up?

Cognitive dissonance would likely be a good starting point. They want to believe that they've been conned, so match the "facts" to the internal dialogue.

Much like the man with the magnet who was detained for shoplifting. He clearly had the magnet to remove tags, yet told us otherwise. Why do you think he gave us a false story, and why do you not believe that others do?

This next bit of yours is very wooly thinking,

One or two can be put down to stupidity or misadventure, but this is becoming a veritable torrent of similar stories along the same theme

It's a logical fallacy to believe that there is no smoke without fire, as you are implying. Compare it with alien abductions, they aren't happening, yet people claim that they are. Your argument would suggest that we must take them as being real because many are reported. That's simply not the case.