Sign this Petition. For no adverse reports from United Utilities.

GingerBob_3

The point that some contributors here are missing is that when dealing with water companies you do not enter into a contract with them. You agree to nothing and there are no terms and conditions. They are obliged to supply you, they cannot cut you off, and they cannot put you on pre-payment. For those of us without water meters it's also arguable whether the issue of credit comes into it at all. The relationship is more like that with your local council concerning council tax.


So, no contract, no T&Cs and no one agreeing to "sharing" data; but they are doing it anyway. This drives a coach and horses through the whole idea of consent. In fact, if you look at the guff from the ICO, they can even carry out a credit check without your consent!


It's one thing when an organisation files erroneous and disadvantageous data against you with the CRAs after you've given them consent to file data in the first place. However, if you've not even given consent and then they screw up your chances of credit by filing erroneous data, the whole issue is elevated to a new level.


On reading Thames Water's justification for reporting customers to CRAs they say they don't carry out credit checks. How then, do they make the decisions about managing their customers' account along the lines described? What information about their customers are they getting from the CRAs, and in what format (don't hold your breath for an answer).


It really is quite simple - as I've said before - Thames Water and the others are using the threat of adverse CRA reporting as a form of blackmail.


It's interesting to read the ICO statement provided by fermi, with particular reference to "legitimate interest", and then compare it with the example of "legitimate reason" given here (maybe "legitimate interest" and "legitimate reason" are different, but I don't think so):


https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/conditions-for-processing/


The ICO, the CRAs and their customers are seemingly making it up as the go along.

GingerBob_3

stclair wrote: »

Like everything else providing it's paid on time theirs no problem.

Did you not see this thread:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5332463


And the many others in a similar vein?

MisterBaxter

GingerBob wrote: »

Did you not see this thread:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5332463


And the many others in a similar vein?

There is a difference between the general principles of reporting to CRAs and the ability of the creditor/CRA to ensure reporting is accurate. More needs to be done to favour the consumer when there is a dispute. If the system worked as it was intended then all reports would be 100% accurate whether consumers liked what it was saying or not. The problem is that errors occur, some are through negligence or incompetence but I suspect there are also some that are malicious. When there are errors it doesn't seem to be easy to resolve and there can be adverse affects for the consumer. There can be compensation but proving loss is difficult.

Almost every thread where there is an issue with CRA it relates to incorrect data and the difficulties in reaching a resolution. But there has to be some perspective, there are going to be considerably more people who haven't had issues than those who have.

There are of course some people who simply don't want their data being held by others and I can respect that but in this day and age I don't think it's realistically achievable.

Edit: GingerBob - are you sure there is no contract with the water supplier? They offer to supply water to your home and tell you how much it will cost. You take and use the water with an expectation of paying the price they have stated, does that not constitute a contract as it has the requisite criteria. I'm not a legal person but it seems to fit the definition of a contract and they can restrict your supply for non payment and I thought they could also seek to resolve over costs through Court.