The Abuse of the Credit Rating System

BikingBud

James_B. wrote: »

Your situation is that you FAILED to pay certain quantities on certain dates (your Capital One debt), and now find that others are less willing to lend to you. This is all as it should be. You were given a chance, you showed that you were not to be trusted, and now people are less likely to trust you.

You may think that it's no big thing to borrow money and not pay it back on time, and I've no interest in a moral debate over what I think of that, but the practicalities of it is that you will not find people as willing to lend.

As to an apology, you must be joking. You are utterly in the wrong here.

What a complete biff.

You are as incompetent as British Gas:rotfl: How on earth can you come on here pontificating and getting basic details wrong. I have never had any dealings with capital one you complete buffoon:T

It is not about borrowing money, in case you had been in a time warp for the last 25 years, bills are now paid after readings are taking. Basing a bill on an estimate whilst possibly acceptable if you are staying with the company is not acceptable if you are taking your business elsewhere. We can argue the toss about this as long as you wish but whichever way you look at it, an estimate does not settle the payment for the service received. Try that with a builder and see where you get.

Let's go back to the original post and consider the context rather than your misguided consideration that everyone is a debtor and should be burnt at the stake:

What worries me is those that have a disagreement with a companies dealings with them (often because of bad admin which includes computer errors) are then hounded, harrassed, into paying by the threat of "Getting a BAD credit rating".
What amazes me more is that you now have to pay to LOOK at your credit rating!! So these people write stuff about you & you have to pay to see if its true. How did they get away with that?

TWONK:(

PS British Gas have now responded with a very contrite email and removed the default mark. My point all along was that they should have said they were going to apply a default based upon a false bill and then we all know where we stand.

BikingBud

You edited it and still got it wrong!

Are you as conscientious in your financial dealings?

Do you read the small print as effectively?

James_B.

Your situation is that you FAILED to pay certain quantities on certain dates (your Capital One debt),

Is the B for Buffoon?

BJV

If you borrow something or use something you must be prepared to pay for it.


If you do not how can you expect someone else to lend you money based on the fact the fact that you are an unreliable payer?


If it was your money would you lend it to yourself based on the fact that you do not know if and when you will ever get it back. Sorry I know it can be frustrating but I would not.


If your bill is wrong let them know, but the moment that you close the lines of communication it is all over.

colsten

Complaining effectively is a skill not everyone has. People often think that CS employees of a firm have the last say about a complaint. In reality, the CS folks are invariably not in a position, for various reasons, to properly assess a complaint and/or to provide a fair settlement of the complaint. It is also not unheard of that the complainant has not been able to express the issue properly, and/or that the complainant is unaware of the legal position around the dispute.

If a resolution cannot be reached within a few weeks, the complaint needs to be escalated. Either inside the company, to the Executive Complaints team that all companies have. Or to the industry Ombudsman. The responsibility for the escalation lies with the complainant.

It is pretty unforgivable for the OP to let a a final utility bill unresolved for over a year, and it is not surprising that late payment markers were added to their credit files. As meer53 pointed out, if the OP had paid what they considered reasonable (i.e. what they had used), they would be in a much stronger negotiation position than they are now.

It is certainly not the fault of any CRA that the OP got late payment markers, and I can't detect any abuse of the credit rating system in what the OP reported.

BikingBud

It was not the OP who complained about getting a mark but I.

For those that are hard of reading and hard of thinking I repeat my comment above, read it slowly and carefully:

I have been trapped by the incompetence of British Gas who were unable to manage my account transfer and kept sending final bills based upon estimated readings! I refused and kept advising of the correct readings, 2 debt collection agencies tried to force me to pay and I advised both that if BG sent the correct bills I would pay. They both gave up and put a mark against me.

So your presumptions that I did not want to, was unwilling, couldn't afford to, really need to read and understand; British Gas were incompetent.

I advised them many times over the year that the readings were incorrect, they gave up trying to rectify the situation and put a mark against me. If they had mentioned before they did what they were going to do I would have kept on arguing that the were incorrect. The fact is as the OP did say is that I was rendered completely impotent in my ability to manage this situation. It is now resolved but please do not confuse any of this including the inability of BG staff to address and rectify this situation as anything other than gross incompetence. Again as the OP offered and as you all seem to be jumping to stick the boot in I am considered to be debtor that cannot manage my financial affairs. Aspersions that are completely false and as bad as those that would be brought by anybody that would see the mark but not understand the reason.

Bullied I think was the phrase used earlier.

meer53

usefulmale wrote: »

No, it's not. The companies that report to the CRA hold all the power. They can just issue a default that causes you disproportionate harm whether you are in the right or not and without reference to any other procedure or scutiny. You cannot have these removed if the debt is in dispute.

If a company feels that you owe the money, they should take you to court and have both sides views brought into the open for everyone to see and let a judge decide.

Should the judge decide for the company, and the debtor still doesn't pay, THEN issue a default.

Of course the companies who report to the CRA hold all the power. They are the ones who have not been paid. If you simply choose to not pay a bill, then why shouldn't they apply a default and report this to the CRA's ? They're businesses not charities.

A credit file is a report of information given to the CRA's by lenders, it has to be an accurate and up to date report. If everyone started to take their issues to court to be settled, how far behind would those reports be do you think ?

Your suggestion is ridiculous. It would go something like this " So Mr Usefulmale, you're looking for a mortgage ? We can assess this for you in about 12 months when your court case about your default for £30 has been heard. Please give us a call when it's sorted. Have a nice day"

It's quite easy to avoid defaults. Even if you don't agree with the bill.

Thrugelmir

usefulmale wrote: »

If a company feels that you owe the money, they should take you to court and have both sides views brought into the open for everyone to see and let a judge decide.

Simply unworkable for a whole variety of reasons.

usefulmale

meer53 wrote: »

Of course the companies who report to the CRA hold all the power. They are the ones who have not been paid. If you simply choose to not pay a bill, then why shouldn't they apply a default and report this to the CRA's ? They're businesses not charities.

A credit file is a report of information given to the CRA's by lenders, it has to be an accurate and up to date report. If everyone started to take their issues to court to be settled, how far behind would those reports be do you think ?

Your suggestion is ridiculous. It would go something like this " So Mr Usefulmale, you're looking for a mortgage ? We can assess this for you in about 12 months when your court case about your default for £30 has been heard. Please give us a call when it's sorted. Have a nice day"

It's quite easy to avoid defaults. Even if you don't agree with the bill.

It's not accurate if the utility company is wrong and you don't actually owe the money but they arbitrarily issue a default. In the example you give, you seem to think that it is OK for the CRA and the reporters to the CRAs to be judge and jury, rather than the courts. I don't think it's OK.

usefulmale

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Simply unworkable for a whole variety of reasons.

It seemed to work fine before the parasitic CRAs took a hold.

meer53

usefulmale wrote: »

It's not accurate if the utility company is wrong and you don't actually owe the money but they arbitrarily issue a default. In the example you give, you seem to think that it is OK for the CRA and the reporters to the CRAs to be judge and jury, rather than the courts. I don't think it's OK.

No utility company would issue a default if you don't owe any money. Defaults are only issued when a payment is not made. It's not difficult to pay what you owe and have a clean credit file.

Can you tell me why you think it's OK for lenders to not report defaults to the CRA's ? If a company hasn't been paid, they haven't been paid. It's not rocket science.