Credit Reference Agencies - out of control and unaccountable

GingerBob_3

meer53 wrote: »

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.

Quote (my emphasis): But although no fraudulent activity was found on the account, it [Barclays] is refusing to remove the marker, which can be seen by other companies.
In its response to Mr Head, Barclays said: “We are unfortunately unable to remove the negative marker due to it being a commercial decision to close your accounts. This negative marker will drop off your record within six years of it being applied.”


I'd call that pretty unsubstantiated. In fact, it's an outrage.

dumpyboy

Is it not more no one regulates what company's like Barclays report, thus allowing them to report what they like, there should be tough regulation in place to make sure what is reported is true and correct

Thrugelmir

GingerBob wrote: »

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!

Impossible to make comments on the basis of a one sided newspaper article.

Any article which contains such wording (as below) suggests that the journalist concerned has limited financial understanding themselves.

Puzzled, he checked his credit rating with Equifax, Experian and Call Credit, which all returned an “excellent” score.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

Quote (my emphasis): But although no fraudulent activity was found on the account, it [Barclays] is refusing to remove the marker, which can be seen by other companies.
In its response to Mr Head, Barclays said: “We are unfortunately unable to remove the negative marker due to it being a commercial decision to close your accounts. This negative marker will drop off your record within six years of it being applied.”


I'd call that pretty unsubstantiated. In fact, it's an outrage.

Just because he says there was no fraudulent activity it doesn't mean it's true. Also there was no mention of him paying the cheque into another account successfully. There is too much information missing to come to any conclusions and barclays will never reveal the result of their investigation.

KJSmith

What exactly is a "notice to close" marker? I've never heard of it.

RecentlyReformed

From my (limited) knowledge, there are two things here:

1. The CRA is not at fault in the slightest (which doesn't mean that they shouldn't have some reform).
2. As I'm learning, the law with which Barclays must adhere, is the data protection act. However, that therefore puts the onus on the Individual to prove / claim that Barclays are not providing up to date and relevant information to the CRA, which according to Barclays, they are.

On other comments. It is very easy not to look at something that doesn't matter. It's even easier to look at something that you don't understand, then read the summary and trust it.

RecentlyReformed

RecentlyReformed wrote: »

...On other comments. It is very easy not to look at something that doesn't matter. It's even easier to look at something that you don't understand, then read the summary and trust it.

Just to be clear, credit reports don't mean anything until you try to get credit, and people (including myself) will see the best in what the CRAs present to us.

meer53

GingerBob wrote: »

Quote (my emphasis): But although no fraudulent activity was found on the account, it [Barclays] is refusing to remove the marker, which can be seen by other companies.
In its response to Mr Head, Barclays said: “We are unfortunately unable to remove the negative marker due to it being a commercial decision to close your accounts. This negative marker will drop off your record within six years of it being applied.”


I'd call that pretty unsubstantiated. In fact, it's an outrage.

You can't call something unsubstantiated or an outrage when you don't have both sides of a story. They made a commercial decision to close the account, thats their decision and they're not going to discuss it with anyone who isnt involved.

GingerBob_3

meer53 wrote: »

You can't call something unsubstantiated or an outrage when you don't have both sides of a story. They made a commercial decision to close the account, thats their decision and they're not going to discuss it with anyone who isnt involved.

Again, missing the point. Look at my emphasis. The point in question is not about the reporting standards of the Telegraph, nor particularly about the case itself. It's about the system that allows a commercial decision, where fraudulent activity is not an issue, to blacklist someone.


A company can place a CIFAS marker against a customer without seemingly having to explain why they've done so to the customer or anyone else. The marker is then published by the CRAs. There's no accountability, no formal appeals mechanism and no regulation. I'd go so far as to call it a fraudulent system!


And for all of you who think CIFAS is all fine and dandy, you wouldn't be thinking that way if you'd had a CIFAS marker maliciously rammed up your backside.

shortcrust

This half story tells us nothing about the CRAs. What on earth is a 'notice to close' marker? The only relevant search results are this tread and the telegraph article.

It doesn't add up.

"Mr Head is unable to take out even basic financial services such as a mobile phone contract." but First Direct opened an account on appeal?

"He found out that the decision had been based on information supplied by Barclays." How?!