Sueing CRAs?

a4a

WorkingTowardsDebtFree wrote: »

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However what I don't like is that CRAs and companies far too often report inaccurate, out of date information - and on occasion information that could quite easily be considered lies.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and processed is far from realtime (although in today's world there's no reason for it to be anymore than 24/48 hours out of date, let alone more than a week).

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.

Absolutely right and as pointed out above, banks and financial institutions also play their part.

This is all part of my gripe that the whole CRA industry is out of date and in desperate need of a revamp. There is no reason why they CAN'T provide realtime information (the stock market has been doing it for quite a while now and I'm sure process far more information), but there is ONE reason why they DON'T do it, and that is I believe, because they are a monopoly and have no one challenging them, which suits the banks just fine.

GingerBob_3

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.

Well I don't know if I've a so-called marker on "my" file, but I wouldn't be surprised. And what was my crime in this case; late payment? No. Missed payment? No. Default? No. Cancelling a direct debit after the account had been cleared? Yes. Ah yes, stopping the credit card buffoons from double dipping my current account. That certainly deserves a "marker" that could advesely affect my finances, doesn't it?

I have never had a problem personally with CRAs and I've always been able to obtain finance. On the one occasion I did check "my" report with Experian I was horrified to see that even the bloody book club were reporting on me. You know, I order a book, they send it, I send cheque in post - or I order a book, they send it, it's damaged, I send it back and don't send cheque in post. Next thing they're telling tales to the CRAs that I haven't paid (days before online ordering by credit card).

Yes, Credit Reference Agencies, doing good work for the benefit of society. :rotfl:

JKSandy

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 'The data is out of date so it MUST be the CRA'...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


So who is to blame if one CRA is up to date and the other isn't?

Would the lender just be updating one and not the other? Hmm I doubt that.

Gordon_Hose

Assuming your account has been reported to more than one agency of course. If it hasn't, and not all accounts are reported to more than 1 CRA, then the answer is simple.

It has already been pointed out that 28 days is an acceptable leadtime for updating of information. If it's more than this then the customer would need to raise this with the CRA's in question. If they won;t do anything then a complaint to the ICO would be in order.

Like I've said, if you don't trust these scoundrels with your data, don't take any credit that would mean them processing your data.

GingerBob_3

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Like I've said, if you don't trust these scoundrels with your data, don't take any credit that would mean them processing your data.

Exactly. So remember, customers of Yorkshire Water (who now report to the CRAs). If they send erroneous and financially damaging information about you to the CRAs --- simply go elsewhere; get your water from another supplier.

Gordon_Hose

GingerBob wrote: »

Exactly. So remember, customers of Yorkshire Water (who now report to the CRAs). If they send erroneous and financially damaging information about you to the CRAs --- simply go elsewhere; get your water from another supplier.

IF

<extra text to get around the character limit>

GingerBob_3

Please advise: I don't trust Yorkshire Water with my data, so what should I do?

Gordon_Hose

Build a well.

GingerBob_3

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Build a well.

And the sewerage? No, don't tell me.

Actually, it's hypothetical, since I'm not in their area. For those that are - don't tell them your DoB, title, etc, etc. Let them know you as "the occupier" if possible. That way they'll find it more difficult to report your account to the CRAs.

Gordon_Hose

They'd have lovely roses.