Credit Reference Agencies - out of control and unaccountable

GingerBob_3

This story is about Barclays, but the root of the problem is per the title of this thread:




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/12039897/I-paid-a-US-cheque-into-my-Barclays-account-and-became-unbankable.html


There are some interesting, i.e. worrying, comments attached to the article.

CKhalvashi

Any USD cheques I get now (few times a year) are posted back home, paid into an account by a relative, then transferred back in the national currency of that country into the UK to avoid the issues with UK banks.

I'm still trying to do as little trade with the US as possible.

solentsusie

I must admit after reading the article I am surprised that he didn't query why his account was being closed but just accepted it. If he had queried it at the time he would have found out the issue at the time.

" When Mr Head sold his shares in August 2013, he was sent a cheque for $11,113, which he deposited into his Barclays account.
But Barclays rejected the cheque. Then, without any warning or explanation, it closed Mr Head’s accounts. As he had already shifted his day-to-day banking to the Co-operative, he didn’t challenge the account closure at the time. "

I am also surprised after being rejected by First Direct because of "negative markers" on his credit file, after having his account closed with Barclays for no apparent reason, he did not see this as a red flag and not an error by First Direct. They were telling him there were negatives on his credit file!

It took him from August 2013 to July 2015 to bother to check his credit files. That is two years.

I suppose some people are more switched on that others...

DCFC79

solentsusie wrote: »

I suppose some people are more switched on that others...

That is entirely true.

boo_star

I read the article but it doesn't make much sense. Barclays internal markers wouldn't show in a credit report.

Did they mean CIFAS?

solentsusie

boo_star wrote: »

I read the article but it doesn't make much sense. Barclays internal markers wouldn't show in a credit report.

Did they mean CIFAS?

The title of the post doesn't make sense either.

The credit reference agencies are in this instance only reporting information that they have been supplied. If Barclays are refusing to remove some sort of fraud marker then the issue is with Barclays not the CRA's.

Hazzinho

Nothing to do with the CRA's.

Thrugelmir

Credit Reference Agencies - out of control and unaccountable

You've selected totally the wrong story if you are trying to make a point.

As for the story itself. What happened in the intervening 2 years? Seems to have been edited out.

GingerBob_3

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You've selected totally the wrong story if you are trying to make a point.

As for the story itself. What happened in the intervening 2 years? Seems to have been edited out.

Well, you say that, but - a few points are worth considering. Firstly, the issue here is not so much how the victim dealt with the situation (maybe he was remiss in not investing a substantial amount of time and effort to sort out a problem that was not of his making), but what caused his problem in the first place.


Regarding CRAs, I think we can assume it DOES have something to do with them. Reference to advice regarding "six years", and the fact he couldn't get a mobile phone contract, point to culpability of the CRAs (and almost certainly CIFAS). One would assume Barclays have placed a CIFAS marker on the CRA file about the victim. So let's look at what that's about.


A CIFAS marker of the type likely to have been applied says "we suspect this person to be engaged in fraudulent and/or criminal activity". Now, if Barclays had put an advert in the national press making such an assertion about someone I'm pretty sure that both they and the organ carrying the advertisement would soon find themselves in court on a charge of libel: not so with CRAs. CRAs in effect publish libel of this type but get away with it. And if you think they don't "publish it", then bear in mind that just about anyone get access to the elements of CRA files that include CIFAS markers - if they pay for the privilege. In the respect described here, CRA files hold unproven accusations and hearsay that simply wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. They really are in need of root and branch surgery!

GingerBob_3

solentsusie wrote: »

The title of the post doesn't make sense either.

The credit reference agencies are in this instance only reporting information that they have been supplied. If Barclays are refusing to remove some sort of fraud marker then the issue is with Barclays not the CRA's.

No. They are reporting an unsubstantiated accusation. See my previous post.

meer53

There's only half a story in that article. We're never likely to hear Barclays side so you can't really claim it's unsubstantiated.