Bad data sent to credit agencies - is it libel?

meer53

It's unusual for a credit file to be updated so quickly ?

lazydave

Grumbler - You are correct in your assumption.

Ben8282 - Valid question on authorisation - I do not know how it was authorised either. It took me over by just under £1K. The card has never left the locked location it is kept in except when used, and then only used online with 2 online retailers and once with Teletext holidays (recent). Interestingly the definite not alleged fraudulent transaction was to book flights with BA, so I have a suspicion my card details were recycled by the Teletext call center operator I think based in India. I can think of no reason this was doubted by the card company. They had the name the flights were booked for, and I confirmed I knew no one of that name.

Meer53 - I cannot comment, but why would you doubt me? The card company is Natwest Mastercard and the CRA is Experian. I would think they have a regular feed established? Surely the goal with that sort of data is to make it as near real time as possible to increase its value?

Interestingly I have also had no follow up from Natwest (other than them issuing a new card). When I have previously had dubious transactions there has been a letter following up where I have formally identified in writing what is mine and what is not. To me this smells of process breakdown.

We are however getting well away from my question. What I can gather from your answers is that they should have dealt with this pretty much immediately, and the fact the haven't means they have sent misrepresentative data out to 3rd parties.

I think my original question still stands. I don't really care about any charges etc from the card company as that can all be sorted with then quickly when the fraud stuff is sorted. It's the wider damage I am concerned by.

eskbanker I take your point on them reporting status quo, but if the status quo is wrong, or even if it is in doubt, should they be?

stclair

eskbanker wrote: »

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)....

I didn't think they had to reverse it straight away as in theory it's not the customers money it belongs to the bank. Also given the event was only 2 weeks ago the data submission to the CRA has happened quickly it only goes at the beginning of the month as a general rule.

boo_star

stclair wrote: »

I didn't think they had to reverse it straight away as in theory it's not the customers money it belongs to the bank. Also given the event was only 2 weeks ago the data submission to the CRA has happened quickly it only goes at the beginning of the month as a general rule.

They generally submit the data once a month.

If the OP was close to that date when the fraud occurred it's probably been reported.

stclair

boo_star wrote: »

They generally submit the data once a month.

If the OP was close to that date when the fraud occurred it's probably been reported.

They submit data on the 1st of the month as a rule.

So given this only happened two weeks ago the information shouldn't have been reported yet.

boo_star

stclair wrote: »

They submit data on the 1st of the month as a rule.

So given this only happened two weeks ago the information shouldn't have been reported yet.

That's not true.

I've had numerous credit reports that have stated balances that were not correct as of the 1st.

stclair

boo_star wrote: »

That's not true.

I've had numerous credit reports that have stated balances that were not correct as of the 1st.

I'm saying they send the information on the first not your report will be updated on the 1st. The date it's actually reflected on your report will differ.

boo_star

stclair wrote: »

I'm saying they send the information on the first not your report will be updated on the 1st. The date it's actually reflected on your report will differ.

I know.

I'm saying my balance on the 1st rarely reflects my balance on the 1st when I get my report.

Edit: I get the report over two weeks later.

lazydave

To stop the arguing I checked the statement that arrived on Thursday, and contains the transaction.

The transaction went through on the 24th of last month.

I was only aware when I got back from hols and opened a letter on the 6th.

I would be interested to know if the update that goes out to CRAs contains corrections, or just latest position.

I would also like to know who's job is it to check that they are all correct?

Personally I believe the responsibility should be on the provider to 1) correct as soon as possible 2) confirm corrections have taken place.

lazydave

stclair - I would be interested to know if you work in an area of RBS that has knowledge on this. I used to run the collections platforms for another major UK bank, but don't recall the frequency or content or CRA feeds.