Bad data sent to credit agencies - is it libel?

stclair

lazydave wrote: »

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.

I work in the lending team so I have to use CRA data every day.

I think only people wish in some circumstances that CAIS information was shared real time. Just as the same when we send corrections its not updated straight away unless a rapid update is sent otherwise it will just get updated on the next monthly feed.

You're making reference to Experian but what about Equifax and call credit RBSG also share data with them also.

The bank have 8 weeks to resolve your complaint so just let them deal with it and await the outcome.

GingerBob_3

Reading this thread I thought I'd look up what Experian have to say about CAIS. It's slightly off-topic, but in some ways it's relevant. Here it is:

http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/what-is-cais.html


Can you believe the effrontery of this organisation!!!! Quote; "Over 550 companies share the payment behaviour of their customers with Experian. This data is quality checked and entered in to the CAIS database and then matched to the correct individual. This helps to build a complete picture of credit history for everyone in the UK. ...... Every record on every test file is put through more than 130 individual quality checks and for live data more than 250 individual quality checks"


Allow me to re-write this to the truthful version; ".......This data is not quality checked at all and if we can't match it to the correct individual we make an assumption as to whom it relates. Often this is little more than guesswork if key fields such as date of birth are missing or incorrect. This helps build a skewed and sometimes grossly inaccurate picture of credit history for everyone in the UK. We tell our gullible customers that more than 130 individual quality checks are carried out. In fact these checks are nothing whatsoever to do with quality and are not intended to improve accuracy [example - is the date format correct, and so on]." I could go on, but you probably get the drift.


OP - don't think the CRAs are excused from the problems you're encountering. It is they who have published the lies about you.

chattychappy

To answer the original question, technically yes, it could be libel. But publishing something that isn't true isn't enough. You have to establish that you suffered loss of reputation (all kinds of tests). Negligence is an issue. Then did you actually suffer any loss as a result? What damages would you seek? Defamation law is notoriously difficult for claimants - have a google to see what you find. If you were to start an action that failed, you could be liable for costs.

IMHO, the best remedies are via the FOS or ICO route. If organisations are not handling personal information properly, then the ICO can be engaged. No doubt they get plenty of complaints (justified or not) from people concerning their CRA files. So complaints to the CC (followed by the FOS) and, if necessary, the CRA (followed by the ICO) are probably the best ways to go.

Following a fraud, I was put into a similar situation by Nationwide. They reversed the fraudulent payments straightaway and said (in writing) that the CRA file had been updated with respect to a late payment marker. Well, it wasn't. I complained and got an apology letter and two bottles of wine. Still the late payment marker was not removed. I left it that - plenty of other things in my life to worry about. Didn't need credit right then and knew that a single marker would quickly fade in importance. But it does show how cavalier these organisations are and, I suppose, how toothless quango/regulators can be.