Sueing CRAs?

the_worm_that_turned

a4a wrote: »

I wish this too. I'm am hoping to lobby for this soon although in trying to build my case I find a lot of people on here don't want change, they just want to sit and complain rather than do anything.

I have tried to argue one particular point about CRA's but I've found a lot of people have their minds set on believing something they once learn't or heard and now stubbonly refuse to listen to an alternative point of view even though ultimately it may be to their benefit.

I too have met with some strange points of view too. My intentions are to help fellow humans to escape debt slavery. I have zero compassion for banks, DCAs etc and those who CHOOSE to work there and defend an organisation over and a fellow human.

What are your plans? I'm with you. Don't forget, we're all in it together *yawn/frown*

fermi

Please keep the thread on topic, which is the OPs specific questions and situation they need help with. Thanks.

a4a

I don't think you can sue them for defamation and as somebody has pointed out, a court would not consider 28 days to be unreasonable.

However, I do agree as with another post on this thread, CRA's are a law onto themselves and I think their systems are way out of date. Realtime reporting is long overdue and would stop this sort of thing from happening.

a4a

the_worm_that_turned wrote: »

I too have met with some strange points of view too. My intentions are to help fellow humans to escape debt slavery. I have zero compassion for banks, DCAs etc and those who CHOOSE to work there and defend an organisation over and a fellow human.

What are your plans? I'm with you. Don't forget, we're all in it together *yawn/frown*

Thank you. I will keep you posted.

It appears the OP has suffered because information is not reported in realtime, so without knowing the default was still on call credit's file, they kept getting turned down for credit. This in itself, would then have made their credit file look worse, and had a further impact, so it becomes a never ending spiral, all caused by CRA's being very slow.

GingerBob_3

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

The issue addressed by the OP is not one of paying debts in a timely manner, it's really one of proportionality and accuracy. Proportionality in that a VERY small debt can have a totally disproportionate affect on your finances. Or worse, an incorrrectly posted debt can have a similar effect. We are at the mercy of the CRAs and those who report to them - an ever increasing number of organisations. As I said elsewhere, these scoundrels need tough regulation. And, they should be forced to provide free online access (yes, I know one of them does) to everyone, with alerts when nosey providers start looking at your finances during your relationship with them. There is much to do to put the CRA house in order. I too have wondered about approaching my MP about it.

BillJones

Someone correctly reporting your financial information to companies with whom you want to deal cannot sensibly be called parasites. Companies are paying them for a service that they want.

Parasites would better describe people who want their activities hidden, so that they can take money from a company without that company understanding their history.

Yes CRAs need to work to make sure that information is accurate, but that isn't want many people seem to want. They want their dealings hidden.

a4a

Well said. The OP has suffered as a result of someone else's (CRA's) action and it is unlikely they can sue and this is supposed to be fair !!

GingerBob_3

BillJones wrote: »

Someone correctly reporting your financial information to companies with whom you want to deal cannot sensibly be called parasites. Companies are paying them for a service that they want.

Parasites would better describe people who want their activities hidden, so that they can take money from a company without that company understanding their history.

Yes CRAs need to work to make sure that information is accurate, but that isn't want many people seem to want. They want their dealings hidden.

Stroll on! But that's just the point. They DON'T report, or record, accurately in many cases, as the complaints on this and other boards testify. "Take money from a company ... " I think you mean "borrow money from a company ...". Your views are just too simplistic, and your comments do not address the problems that many people have with these maverick organisations.

a4a

BillJones wrote: »

Someone correctly reporting your financial information to companies with whom you want to deal cannot sensibly be called parasites. Companies are paying them for a service that they want.

Parasites would better describe people who want their activities hidden, so that they can take money from a company without that company understanding their history.

Yes CRAs need to work to make sure that information is accurate, but that isn't want many people seem to want. They want their dealings hidden.

I disagree. Whilst I am sure there are people out there who want their information hidden, I'm sure most just want CRA's to tell the truth. If CRA's provide late and out of date information then it is not accurate.

rizla_king

Law gives the CRA 28 days. After that they are fair game.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8098674.stm