Are credit reference agencies government regulated?

supermassive

Archi_Bald wrote: »

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.

Thanks for that wonderful nugget of wisdom. I guess they can shut this forum down because that arguement applies to literally every single thread here.

As far as taking them to court goes, do you know how difficult it is to find a legal representative that actually knows what on earth a credit reference agency can and cannot do? It's completely new territory.

The fact remains that they're regularly being neglectful of people's information.

If you look at how they prove legitimacy of their files, they say "because lenders tell us so." pretty much.

Furthermore, if a person has cancelled their contract within a cooling off period and returned a product, all done and dusted, how do they prove their innocence 7 years down the line? This is my point. Sorry if life happens and sometimes we can't all own a giant shipping container sized filing cabinet with every piece of paper we've ever touched inside.

agarnett

Archi_Bald wrote: »

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.

Yes, that is one of the most bloody stupid comments so far.

It expresses exactly the attitude of that growing part of the populace who aren't at all interested in changing things for the better, primarily because the world they inhabit and which makes or made their living continues to exist only

• if the imperfections are allowed to persist broadly uninterrupted, and
• if it is made difficult to effectively publicise the imperfections, and
• if those condoning the wrong pretend to be neutral and divert attention from it by suggesting there is a proper procedure for complaints which simply has not been followed if any wrong-doing has gone unpublicised/unprosecuted

This internet forum makes it easy to publicise imperfections, so some come here and try to spoil and distract. I can deduce no other reason for such behaviour.

The OP has hit the nail on the head with this thread.

Hazzinho

Get all your detailed facts together and go to the FCA, sounds like you have the CRA'S bang to rights with your detailed facts. Let us know how you get on.

meer53

supermassive wrote: »

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.

So, did you not receive reminders about any missed payments relating to the agreement for the dongle which you cancelled ? There must have been missed payments for a default to be issued.

Or did you receive them and then ignore them because you had cancelled the agreement ?

This is really the fault of the company who supplied the dongle, nothing to do with the CRA.

PaulW922

Credit Agencies are specifically regulated by the DPA and also they are included in the Consumer Credit Act too. In my view the biggest issue is that, because they do not 'own' the data they hold (it belongs to the credit provider etc) the agencies say that they have no responsibility for it's accuracy. That would not be so bad if there was a simple route of redress for consumers, but there isn't. If you go via the CRAs complaint route and the creditor replies and says the data is accurate, that is it. What can you do apart from go to the ICO, or the Financial Ombudsman or even the court? All these options take months. The notice of correction route allowed for by law is next to useless.

I would like to see a system in place whereby, if a complaint is raised, the creditor should respond within a set period to prove the data is correct. If they cannot, then it goes until they can come up with the evidence. I don't subscribe to the theory that the CRAs should see all the credit contracts before the data goes on - it just would not work.

I think we need a sensible system of regulation that allows for accurate data to be maintained and made available and inaccurate data easily removed. It isn't difficult, but we don;'t have it.

meer53

PaulW922 wrote: »

Credit Agencies are specifically regulated by the DPA and also they are included in the Consumer Credit Act too. In my view the biggest issue is that, because they do not 'own' the data they hold (it belongs to the credit provider etc) the agencies say that they have no responsibility for it's accuracy. That would not be so bad if there was a simple route of redress for consumers, but there isn't. If you go via the CRAs complaint route and the creditor replies and says the data is accurate, that is it. What can you do apart from go to the ICO, or the Financial Ombudsman or even the court? All these options take months. The notice of correction route allowed for by law is next to useless.

I would like to see a system in place whereby, if a complaint is raised, the creditor should respond within a set period to prove the data is correct. If they cannot, then it goes until they can come up with the evidence. I don't subscribe to the theory that the CRAs should see all the credit contracts before the data goes on - it just would not work.

I think we need a sensible system of regulation that allows for accurate data to be maintained and made available and inaccurate data easily removed. It isn't difficult, but we don;'t have it.

We do have a system that works. Lenders report information to the CRA's. If someone has an issue with the information on their credit file they should query this with the lender concerned, they will have a complaints procedure to follow. Inaccurate information can be quickly removed, by the lender, if it's proven to be inaccurate.

agarnett

meer53 wrote: »

We do have a system that works.

We have a system that works for lenders.

Since the beginning of civilisation it has generally been acknowledged (by some in stronger ways than others) that lenders are parasites.

The current system clearly does not work well. even those of us with spotless records have multiple instances of duff information given to CRAs by lenders.

Lenders report information to the CRA's.

Yes they do, and the repeated bad experiences found here and elsewhere show that too many lenders do it in a very unregulated and careless way, clearly without fear of any consequences of their acts or omissions which might have caused them to have sharpened up their acts long ago.

If someone has an issue with the information on their credit file they should query this with the lender concerned, they will have a complaints procedure to follow. Inaccurate information can be quickly removed, by the lender, if it's proven to be inaccurate.

Oh great, so the way to fix it is by appointment with the careless parasite that messed it up - so no hope of any kindly policeman with a big hammer that could show the parasite the weight of feeling against them?

meer53

Please explain why lenders are parasites ?

The vast majority of people who borrow money do so responsibly and repay what they have borrowed within the timescales allowed.

Lenders don't mess up. The people who borrow and don't repay mess up.

You will see many stories on this forum about people who have issues with CRA's. What you will NOT see are the millions of people who have absolutely no issues at all.

Get some perspective.

agarnett

I'll leave it to you to work out for yourself why civilisations since the beginning of time have generally concluded that moneylenders in their midst are parasites. If you received any religious education whatsoever that should have given you a first clue, but if not, I am sure you could find some lengthy ideas on the subject just by Googling ... Start with "moneylender" (617,000 hits in English) and then add "parasite" ... 213,000 of the 617,000 original hits include that word. If you instead add the plural "parasites", then 435,000 of the orginal 617,000 include it

BTW, I already have the broadest perspective thanks. It comes with a broad education, broad work experience, broad hobbies and interests and a life so far a bit longer than yours I reckon.

It is your perspective which is always very questionable on these matters.

The point is, one lets the lunatics run the asylum at one's peril ... but I see you have your own ideas who are the lunatics and fools.

Fools and their money are easily parted, too ? I expect they deserve it in your book.

Archi_Bald

agarnett wrote: »

We have a system that works for lenders.

I guess you weren't around when it was nigh on impossible to get any overdraft without explaining to a person in a Branch in minute detail what you want an overdraft for and how you would pay it back. When there were no such things as credit and debit cards or ATMs. When the Bank Branch Manager was something like a demi-god who decided over your loan request based on the shape of your nose or whether he liked your aftershave (scratch that, we only used aftershave on Sundays). And when we paid 13% interest for our mortgages. You didn't apply for anything online, you went to the Branch and filled in forms. Most of the time, you had to take time off work as banks closed at 3.30 on weekdays. There wasn't a FOS you could complain to if you felt the Bank Manager was treating you unfairly. There wasn't any regulation in the mortgage market and millions of people got sold naff endowment policies. Pawn brokers and corrupt backstreet payday lenders did exist though back then. And some people were irresponsible with their money - just they couldn't go on Facebook and internet forums to talk about it. All this is less than 40 years ago.

The system we have now has vastly improved the flexibility for the consumer, and the access to credit has been made a lot easier. The fact that some people still are irresponsible with their money is neither here nor there - the vast majority of consumers has greatly benefited from the advances we have seen over the last 40 years.

Of course there is always room for improvement. If you know what those improvements are, go and sell your ideas to the the people who can do something with your ideas. The copious use of phrases such as "lunatics in asylums" and "parasites" probably won't encourage people to listen much, though.