Bad data sent to credit agencies - is it libel?

lazydave

Hi

2 weeks ago had £2K of fraud in a single transaction take me over my credit limit.

Called the bank and they said they would reverse but didn't.

They have now told Credit Agencies I am over my limit which has adversely affected my rating.

I am about to apply for a mortgage so this is detrimental to me.

To my reckoning this is libel.

Comments?

Marktheshark

Straight to written complaint stating the complaint is starting the clock for the ombudsman

Thrugelmir

lazydave wrote: »

Called the bank and they said they would reverse but didn't.

Being investigated?

lazydave

Thanks for replies

Emailed (text removed by MSE Forum Team)) and got a reply so exec complaint lodged.

Committed response in 5 days max.

Would like to know where I stand now though - don't want to be left cleaning the mess myself with regards to the agencies they have sent erroneous data to.

Regards

eskbanker

No, it's not libel - if they haven't reversed the allegedly fraudulent transaction yet then you're presumably still over your limit (albeit temporarily, assuming they side with you) and would have been so when they updated the CRAs, i.e. they'd have told the truth. When did you first call them and what did they say about how long it would take to resolve?

lazydave

Called them 7/4. Told resolution within 24hrs.

Chrysalis

Funny enough I had a fraud situation also.

One of my family members managed to take out a virgin media package in my name, this went on for about 3 years, I didnt receive any billing or other correspondence, they eventually got into arrears on the payments, and I found out about it when contacted by a debt collector, by then I already had a mark on my credit file. I paid of the debt in one go, and now the family member is making payments to me to pay it back. Virgin media agreed to remove it of my file, but I still 2 months later had no confirmation that I paid it off in writing or that the mark has been removed, I keep meaning to check the file and chase up VM but never got round to it.

grumbler

eskbanker wrote: »

No, it's not libel - if they haven't reversed the allegedly fraudulent transaction yet then you're presumably still over your limit (albeit temporarily, assuming they side with you) and would have been so when they updated the CRAs, i.e. they'd have told the truth.

Strange logic. The only reason why the transaction wasn't reversed is because they broke the rules that require almost instant refund. And if they are still investigating and not decided against the OP, it's an unproven allegation, not 'information'.

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

Strange logic. The only reason why the transaction wasn't reversed is because they broke the rules that require almost instant refund. And if they are still investigating and not decided against the OP, it's an unproven allegation, not 'information'.

None of us knows the reason why it hasn't been reversed! I was answering OP's question about 'is this libel' rather than the separate issue of 'why hasn't this been reversed yet', i.e. my point was that, given that it hasn't been reversed, then it would appear that the data they've passed to CRAs is consistent with the actual current state of play on the account.

Clearly OP is understandably unhappy at the time taken thus far but has to sort out the root cause (reversal) before addressing the consequential issues (CRA data)....

grumbler

I just assumed that if they processed the refund, as they were supposed to, and then reversed if for whatever reason, the OP would have come here complaining about the reversal/rejection in the first place, not about adverse report to a CRA.

Ben8282

First of all, you say that an allegedly fraudulent single transaction for an amount of £2K has been applied to your credit card account which has caused your credit limit to be exceeded. Can I ask by how much? If the amount by which your credit limit has been exceeded is significant, that raises the question of how this transaction came to be authorised in the first place.
Secondly, when you reported this alleged fraud a temporary credit should normally have been applied to your account while it was sorted out. The fact that such a credit has not been applied to the account raises the question of why not. What is the nature of the allegedly fraudulent transaction? Are there any factors which could be causing the credit card provider to doubt your claim that it was fraudulent? Some more detailed information would be beneficial in understanding the problem.