Sueing CRAs?

GingerBob_3

rizla_king wrote: »

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

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

But just look at the hoops he had to jump through to get redress.

Typical response from the Experian spin doctor; "it's not our fault, guv" Er, yes it is! You exist, so it's your fault.

rizla_king

Exactly, and as I said, the case a few years ago where someone tried to sue Equifax directly and got slapped down in the high court good and proper so Equifax won.

A knee jerk "sue the CRA" is in all but blindingly clear cut cases going to end in a world of pain.

Gordon_Hose

rizla_king wrote: »

Exactly, and as I said, the case a few years ago where someone tried to sue Equifax directly and got slapped down in the high court good and proper so Equifax won.

A knee jerk "sue the CRA" is in all but blindingly clear cut cases going to end in a world of pain.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

BillJones

GingerBob wrote: »

Stroll on!...Take money from a company ... " I think you mean "borrow money from a company

It's only "borrow" if you pay it all back as agreed at the time, and on the original schedule. I get the distinct impression that most people who are unhappy with CRAs have reneged on deals in the past. You, for example, having a marker put on your file after cancelling your direct debit.

You are getting your knickers in a twist because you did something, and you can't keep it secret, so of course some companies now will tell you to "stroll on", to use your own phrase. Don't pretend that what you actually want is "accurate" data. They already are accurately reporting what you did. What you want is for them to stop doing this.

a4a

BillJones wrote: »

It's only "borrow" if you pay it all back as agreed at the time, and on the original schedule. I get the distinct impression that most people who are unhappy with CRAs have reneged on deals in the past. You, for example, having a marker put on your file after cancelling your direct debit.

You are getting your knickers in a twist because you did something, and you can't keep it secret, so of course some companies now will tell you to "stroll on", to use your own phrase. Don't pretend that what you actually want is "accurate" data. They already are accurately reporting what you did. What you want is for them to stop doing this.

I wouldn't necessarily call it accurate when its out of date.

In my scenario, I pay all my creditors on time and my CRA score is in the excellent bracket. Why I have a problem with CRA's is that their data is NOT up to date and that (in my view) they look at searches the wrong way and thus these two issues can hinder me when I want to find a better deal to reduce my monthly outgoings.

Gordon_Hose

If anyone doesn't agree with their data being recorded to the CRA's then they are well within their rights not to take the line of credit being applied for.

You agree to the sharing of your data with credit reference agencies when you sign on the dotted line, it's quite clear.

a4a

Of course,, but you have little choice as there are only 3 main CRA's and therefore the information they provide needs to 100% accurate and the only way they can do this, is to provide it in realtime.

I have no problem with my data being recorded, I just expect it to be accurate.

Gordon_Hose

a4a wrote: »

Of course,, but you have little choice as there are only 3 main CRA's and therefore the information they provide needs to 100% accurate and the only way they can do this, is to provide it in realtime.

I have no problem with my data being recorded, I just expect it to be accurate.

The banks have a huge hand in what is reported also, so lets not go blaming the CRA's alone.

If a lender take 2 months to send the update to a CRA, then that isn't their fault.

You're view is very simplistic. 'The data is out of date so it MUST be the CRA'... well, wrong.

a4a

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

The banks have a huge hand in what is reported also, so lets not go blaming the CRA's alone.

If a lender take 2 months to send the update to a CRA, then that isn't their fault.

You're view is very simplistic. 'The data is out of date so it MUST be the CRA'... well, wrong.

No I accept this and totally agree. I have pointed this out in an earlier post and I fully accept it is not just down to the CRA's. They are both at fault and both have a lot to answer for, but for them it works because between them they can control the marketplace.

WorkingTowardsDebtFree

I have no problems with the CRAs existing.

I have no problems with correct and accurate - no matter how ghastly - information being held.

I have no problems with CRAs making money for these services.

However what I don't like is that CRAs and companies far too often report inaccurate, out of date information - and on occasion information that could quite easily be considered lies.

The CRA blames the companies providing the data, the companies blame the CRAs - both point the finger in the opposite direction and if you're lucky the information eventually gets updated to be a true and accurate representation of the account.

The information held and processed is far from realtime (although in today's world there's no reason for it to be anymore than 24/48 hours out of date, let alone more than a week). However I'm being quoted up to 75 days after an account is settled + 5 months since the information was last accurate on an account before it will be updated... Go figure!

I wouldn't want to take those that report incorrect information about me to court to sue for profit, but I would like a nice, clean and easy way to force the information before the equivalent of say a County Court whereby a judge can overlook the available information and proof, force the CRA and company to update their records and force the company to pay the relevant costs... Much like a CCJ works with debts, there should be something equivalent for CRAs, their records and companies that report to them.

Going down this kind of route would allow someone to pay a nominal amount, pass the information to a court, have the CRA/company presented with the information and either the ability to not contest it, or the ability to contest it as per a CCJ. It could only be beneficial for the law, individuals involved and more importantly the truth.