The Abuse of the Credit Rating System

usefulmale

meer53 wrote: »

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.

Read the posts by BikingBud. Defaults should only be issued when a CORRECT, UNDISPUTED payment is not made. If a payment is disputed and cannot be resolved, it should be taken to court and have the judge decide. If a judge decides that the payment is correct and it is still not paid, then issue a default.

If your electricity company issued you a bill for £5000 when you knew it should be £500 but the company didn't want to know, would you just meekly pay it on pain of a default?

meer53

usefulmale wrote: »

Read the posts by BikingBud. Defaults should only be issued when a CORRECT, UNDISPUTED payment is not made. If a payment is disputed and cannot be resolved, it should be taken to court and have the judge decide. If a judge decides that the payment is correct and it is still not paid, then issue a default.

If your electricity company issued you a bill for £5000 when you knew it should be £500 but the company didn't want to know, would you just meekly pay it on pain of a default?

I read BikingBuds post.

They disputed the bill, they agreed they owed BG for the fuel they used. They not only refused to pay BG ANYTHING, they also refused to make any payments to TWO debt collection agents. Thats a pretty silly thing to do.

If Biking Bud had made payment for what they thought was the correct amount and THEN disputed the amount they might not have had to deal with TWO debt collection agents and may not have had a default applied to their credit file.

If i received a bill for £5k and it should have been £500 i would pay the £500. Not refuse to pay anything. I have enough common sense to understand that this is the logical thing to do and that i will be in a much better position to argue my point with the supplier and to avoid a default.

I have lost count of the times i've heard people say "i'm not paying on principle" If you want to end up with a trashed credit file then go ahead. Just don't start moaning when you're refused any more credit. These days when lenders are tightening their lending criteria, it's even more important to think about the consequences of your actions with issues like this.

BikerBud has now sorted out their problem with BG but could have avoided all the hassle they've had. There is absolutely no need for court cases and judgements. People just need to use a bit of common sense.

colsten

Can I suggest a bit of a reality check. There aren't thousands of people who get markers for disputed payments. Most disputed payments are being resolved within a reasonable time, even if this might involve time-consuming escalations.

Nobody will be left with unjustified markers on their credit files. Everybody is entitled to have unjustified markers removed, and everybody is entitled to compensation for any financial loss suffered due to incorrect reporting to the CRAs.

Court action should not normally be required but as it has been mentioned, it is worth noting that everybody can take matters to court. I.e. if you feel the dispute with your utility should be settled by a court, take them to the small claims court.

BikingBud had the opportunities to escalate the dispute to the Executive complaints team, to escalate the dispute to the ombudsman, to seek the help of the CAB, to take the utility to court, and to go to the papers. None of which BikingBud seems to have done for an entire year. None of BikingBud's ineffective handling of the dispute is a good enough reason to suggest the CRAs are parasites, or that the credit checking regime is fundamentally flawed.

I do think there should be more education on how credit checking works, and what role the CRAs play. People should also be made aware that there is no need to pay the CRAs a lot of money for access to their personal data.

And more education for people on how to complain effectively.

Thrugelmir

usefulmale wrote: »

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

Then it's apparent you've never worked in a debt collection area.

usefulmale

meer53 wrote: »

I read BikingBuds post.

They disputed the bill, they agreed they owed BG for the fuel they used. They not only refused to pay BG ANYTHING, they also refused to make any payments to TWO debt collection agents. Thats a pretty silly thing to do.

If there truly was a debt due, BG should have taken BikingBud to court and got proper bailiffs to enforce payment, instead of BG messing with legally impotent debt collection agencies.

usefulmale

colsten wrote: »

Can I suggest a bit of a reality check. There aren't thousands of people who get markers for disputed payments. Most disputed payments are being resolved within a reasonable time, even if this might involve time-consuming escalations.

Nobody will be left with unjustified markers on their credit files. Everybody is entitled to have unjustified markers removed, and everybody is entitled to compensation for any financial loss suffered due to incorrect reporting to the CRAs.

Court action should not normally be required but as it has been mentioned, it is worth noting that everybody can take matters to court. I.e. if you feel the dispute with your utility should be settled by a court, take them to the small claims court.

BikingBud had the opportunities to escalate the dispute to the Executive complaints team, to escalate the dispute to the ombudsman, to seek the help of the CAB, to take the utility to court, and to go to the papers. None of which BikingBud seems to have done for an entire year. None of BikingBud's ineffective handling of the dispute is a good enough reason to suggest the CRAs are parasites, or that the credit checking regime is fundamentally flawed.

I do think there should be more education on how credit checking works, and what role the CRAs play. People should also be made aware that there is no need to pay the CRAs a lot of money for access to their personal data.

And more education for people on how to complain effectively.

In BikingBuds case, BG backed down, admitted they were wrong and removed the erroneous default. I doubt they would have done that, had he/she paid what they demanded.

Turning what you said on it's head, BG had ample opportunity to take the matter to court and, if they won, have proper bailiffs enforce payment. Instead, BG decided to take pennies in the pound payment from ineffective debt collectors, issuing a false default, getting nothing and eventually having to back down and deal with the issues properly and to both parties satisfaction.

Peachy_Keen

Hi there - I can't post it here, but i have started an e-petition on this - if you'd like to sign it, and it is a legit HM gov petition - please contact me directly and I'll send you the URl - this stuff makes my blood BOIL! S

meer53

usefulmale wrote: »

If there truly was a debt due, BG should have taken BikingBud to court and got proper bailiffs to enforce payment, instead of BG messing with legally impotent debt collection agencies.

There was a debt due. BikingBud admitted there was. they were disputing the amount, not the fact that they owed BG any money.

Why should BG spend money taking people to court with the prospect of never getting a penny back when they can mitigate their losses by selling the debt to a debt collection agent ? Just because bailiffs ask for payment doesn't mean they get it ! At least by selling the debt they get some money back.

BikingBud hasn't been back to the thread but my bet would be that they paid what was actually owed to BG before the default was removed. No company will remove a default where no payment has been received.

Thrugelmir

Peachy_Keen wrote: »

Hi there - I can't post it here, but i have started an e-petition on this - if you'd like to sign it, and it is a legit HM gov petition - please contact me directly and I'll send you the URl - this stuff makes my blood BOIL! S

People have changed. Not so much the system. As credit agencies actually make obtaining finance far easier. Days are gone when you had to speak to a bank branch manager just to obtain a car loan. In the process explaining your personal finances in detail.

BikingBud

meer53 wrote: »

T

BikingBud hasn't been back to the thread but my bet would be that they paid what was actually owed to BG before the default was removed. No company will remove a default where no payment has been received.

I paid the debt when they sent me a correctly calculated and presented final bill.

Most of you seem to be missing the whole point of the argument. Where is the obligation of these large companies to get anything right? They don't give 2 hoots about the consumer, otherwise they would have addressed and resolved the situation far sooner.

And don't come and blather about the terms and conditions etc of these companies, my terms and conditions are equally applicable are they not? Only problem is the blacklist that I can put BG onto is not worth anything, despite the fact that many know they are incompetent little can be done about it!

You send me an estimated bill and I'm happy to pay but not for an estimated final bill, the phrase is an oxymoron!

End of:o