Are credit reference agencies government regulated?

colsten

Thanks. Some hilarious remarks on that thread, lol!

supermassive

Hazzinho wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it for me, they are regulated by the FCA. Good solution to see if someone is credit worthy. Please enlighten us with a better solution. They report what is provided by the lenders.

They have nothing in place to make sure what they distribute is fact, yet willingly distribute it to all and sundry without knowing if it's true or not. How do we find out if they are lying about us to lenders? We have to pay! This translates as "give us money or you risk us lying about you".

For example, I was assigned a default for 7 years on a debt that wasn't mine for a mobile device I returned a day after I got it because it didn't work. I had to find out by being rejected for credit (amongst other things) and then had to pay to access my full report, and then had to spend 5-6 years fighting them over and over and getting nowhere. Finally it went to court for a CCJ and I counterclaimed. They were unable to provide ANY evidence that this was a debt in my name, or that I'd even signed anything to take on a credit agreement.

All it would take is for the credit agencies to require signed documentation of a credit agreement or contract before putting things on your credit file.

Preventing their company spreading false and damaging lies to lenders which can ruin a person's life should be a priority in their business operation. Unfortunately, they don't give two hoots!

Pretty much every week there's a new thread on here about debt being falsely applied to people's files. Imagine the amount of people that don't know about their file!

It's an absolute abuse of position.

Hazzinho

How would that work exactly, a signed credit agreement for every person and every account? The lender caused your issue not the CRA'S, they should have reported factual info. Defaults drop off after 6 years by the way so you did well having it on for 7 years. If you feel you're wronged by the CRA'S then go to the FCA which is consumer focused.

meer53

When you buy a mobile phone, unless it's PAYG, you invariably enter into a contract to pay the supplier. If it's not cancelled, then payments become due and if they're not made a default is issued.

The majority of complaints from people on here about CRA's are where people have simply stopped paying. Why shouldn't companies report this to the CRA's ? If people took responsibility for their mistakes, it wouldn't come back to bit them on the !!!!. If information is incorrectly reported to the CRA's this can be amended by the lenders and the CRA will remove it.

On the forum we see a small number of complaints about CRA's, imagine how many people don't have reason to complain.

Tony_F

Could there be another misselling scandal in the making with the credit reference agencies? They use fear of fraud, identity theft, low credit score etc. to sell services of questionable value. Experian charges £14.99 per month for membership when all most people need is to check their credit report a couple of times a year at a statutory cost of £2 each time.

supermassive

meer53 wrote: »

When you buy a mobile phone, unless it's PAYG, you invariably enter into a contract to pay the supplier. If it's not cancelled, then payments become due and if they're not made a default is issued.

The majority of complaints from people on here about CRA's are where people have simply stopped paying. Why shouldn't companies report this to the CRA's ? If people took responsibility for their mistakes, it wouldn't come back to bit them on the !!!!. If information is incorrectly reported to the CRA's this can be amended by the lenders and the CRA will remove it.

On the forum we see a small number of complaints about CRA's, imagine how many people don't have reason to complain.

In my case, and the case of some others that I've read about online, it's a case of "the administration wasn't done properly" for the cancellation. I had an internet dongle for a total of less than 48 hours. Within my rights to cancel the contract (14 days). It was all done and dusted as far as I was concerned. No longer dealing with that company.

Fast forward from 2007 to 2014 and they'd passed in on to Lowell who'd decided to boost up the "debt" by a few hundred pounds.

I didn't find any of this out until I applied for a small overdraft and got turned down due to credit reference. Why should I have to pay some company to see information about ME? I shouldn't. It's even less moral when it's FALSE information about me.

I've had confirmation that I was declined jobs in uk banks due to the credit checks that included this 'debt'.

THAT is why they need to have some kind of legitimate proof of credit.

Luckily for me, after fighting tooth and nail with these companies, I got an email saying that due to my threats of claiming for assault of credit (which is apparently a thing) and defamation of character, plus a bunch of other stuff a solicitor told me to write, I've had an email that it's getting removed and wiped from my record... "within 50 days" 54 days later it's still there.

You know what would've prevented YEARS of my life being restricted unfairly? If they'd changed their processes to make sure the information they give out is true.

Yes, the lenders that report to them should be telling the truth, that's all well and good - but when the CRA's are handing out information, the pressure should be on them to be giving out TRUE information, not being able to pass the buck "we're only telling you what we were told".

An absolute travesty.

"imagine how many people don't have a reason to complain" imagine how many people don't have cancer. Doesn't mean cancer is ok.

supermassive

Hazzinho wrote: »

How would that work exactly, a signed credit agreement for every person and every account? The lender caused your issue not the CRA'S, they should have reported factual info. Defaults drop off after 6 years by the way so you did well having it on for 7 years. If you feel you're wronged by the CRA'S then go to the FCA which is consumer focused.

The default was sat on my account since January 2007. It's still there, gathering dust.

The fact is that yes, the lenders should've reported factual information, but what happens when they don't? If it's not checked or there are no processes in place by CRA's to make sure the information they hold is correct, then they're negligently distributing false information.

How would a signed credit agreement for every account work? Well, the same way they transfer their current documents and data. A signed piece of paperwork that's scanned and emailed or faxed, your choice, to each CRA (there's only 3 to cover, really) which would trigger the opening of a credit agreement on a credit file. That's the first step.

The second step would be some kind of paper trail - whether it's call recordings, contact recording, signed papers etc - for when a contract is cancelled or closed.

I'm not quite so sure what these companies find difficult about the word "contract". It should be signed as proof of an agreement. It's not really rocket science.

In theory, what's the stop the following:

I work in a company that has just obtained the license to provide credit to consumers. I decide one day that I'm going to open a credit agreement with you and then default you on £10,000 each and every month.

I have no proof, but I don't need it. Do you know how long it'll take you to rectify it? YEARS! I'm going to take weeks to respond to any contact, and even then I'm going to be so vague your eyeballs will drop out reading the responses. Eventually I'll remove the default, just to avoid legal action (not that anybody knows how to take legal action against these companies as the ombudsman isn't even sure) but then a month or 2 later, it re-appears.

It's entirely lawful, apparently.

supermassive

It may be impractical to check the accuracy of personal data someone else provides. In recognition of this, the Act says that even if you are holding inaccurate personal data, you will not be considered to have breached the fourth data protection principle as long as:
you have taken reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure the accuracy of the information (see the Keeping personal data accurate and up to date (Principle 4) and Retaining personal data (Principle 5) pages of the guide)

From the ICO. CRA's are NOT doing this at all.

This, too:

Data protection FAQs
The Act provides you with the following rights:

The right to a subject access request to find out what personal data is held about you.
The right to prevent processing of personal data
The right to prevent process for direct marketing
Your right in relation to automated decision-taking - for e.g. individuals have a right to object to automated decisions made them where there has been no human involvement
The right to compensation for damage or distress caused by a breach of the Act.
The right to rectify, block or erase inaccurate data held on file
The right to ask the Information Commissioner to assess your case if personal data has not been processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

CRA's are "above the law", clearly.

nottoolate

What experian say they do http://www.experian.co.uk/assets/responsibilities/brochures/dataprotectionguidev16.pdf

Credit Reference Agencies obtain data from a variety of public and
financial sources about individuals, for multiple purposes, such as
helping banks and other companies make decisions about whether to
lend money to them or not. One of the sources of data is financial
information from organisations that the data subject already has dealings
with, for example in relation to an existing loan agreement. Banks
and other creditors provide regular ‘feeds’ of data (usually monthly) to
the Credit Reference Agency.

• As the data is being provided to the Credit Reference Agency by
a third party, i.e. the existing loan account information from the data
subject’s bank, the information can be deemed accurate, as long as it
is recorded correctly as has been provided by the lender.

• Because credit referencing data can have a significant impact
on the data subject, i.e. it can affect credit decisions made
about them. Althought the data has been obtained from a lender,
the Credit Reference Agency must take reasonable steps to
ensure its accuracy. It does this, by conducting tests on a sample
of data received each month – to check for any discrepancies
or inconsistencies.

• The Credit Reference Agency ensures that they are keeping data
from lenders and other sources up to date by obtaining regular
(usually monthly) updates from its sources.

An individual obtains a copy of their credit report and notices that
it shows a mistake. They contact the Credit Reference Agency to notify
them of the inaccuracy.

• The Credit Reference Agency takes reasonable steps to ensure
the accuracy of the data by contacting the third party that
provided it (for example, a lender).

• In the meantime, they add a ‘dispute notice’ to the item of data,
so that anyone viewing it while the accuracy of the data is being
challenged will be aware that it may be inaccurate.

• The individual could also add a ‘notice of correction’ to explain
circumstances surrounding information on their credit report,
for example late payments due to losing their job unexpectedly.

Archi_Bald

supermassive wrote: »

CRA's are "above the law", clearly.

You should take them to court if you have proof that they acting illegally. The court will make them stop illegal practices. Your rants on an internet forum will change nothing.