Policing the Credit Agencies

Alasdair_on_Arran

Collaboration between credit reference agencies and banks etc. is limited and incomplete, and the agencies' information is inaccurate: having had a card application rejected I got on big E's free trial and found several errors and omissions e.g. E says I'm not on the Electoral Roll, but the other big E has me correctly at my present address since 2003. Agencies will only correct in their own good time, and on the say-so of the bank or Electoral Officer, whatever proof I send them.
I know about Notices of Correction and Dispute, but all of this places onus on Joe Public to correct libellous records. Is my experience unique or are the finance houses reliant on bad advice?
Credit reference agencies need much tighter control and policing - who can make that happen?

snowmaid

An organisation has a duty to ensure that it's records are 'accurate and up to date'.

This is cut and pasted from the ICO website:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-4-accuracy/

When an individual tells a credit reference agency its record of a particular account is wrong, the agency will usually have to contact the lender concerned to confirm that the record is accurate. If the lender satisfies the credit reference agency that the record is correct then the agency can retain it. However, if the agency is not satisfied that the record is accurate, it should amend or remove it. The credit reference agency will mark the record as being in dispute while the lender looks into the matter but it must tell the individual whether it has amended or removed the record within 28 days of receiving the challenge.

Alasdair_on_Arran

Thanks snowmaid.
So, like I said, the onus is on Jo(e) Public to discover libel.
Other than the Ombudsman rebuking them, there are no other checks and no policing.
If a garage or a doctor did health checks like this they would be struck off, and some people might consider prejudice to their financial status defamatory and every bit as serious.
So, my question is how do we get big E policed?
It must be in the finance houses interest to have big E policed, 'cos they are loosing customers who are credit worthy, and presumably gaining customers who aren't.

GingerBob_3

Alasdair_on_Arran wrote: »

Thanks snowmaid.
So, like I said, the onus is on Jo(e) Public to discover libel.
Other than the Ombudsman rebuking them, there are no other checks and no policing.
If a garage or a doctor did health checks like this they would be struck off, and some people might consider prejudice to their financial status defamatory and every bit as serious.
So, my question is how do we get big E policed?
It must be in the finance houses interest to have big E policed, 'cos they are loosing customers who are credit worthy, and presumably gaining customers who aren't.

Yes. They are in dire need of "policing" or tough regulation. In theory the ICO should do this, but in reality they let them get away with murder.


These are the serious issues regarding CRAs that need addressing:


There are three of them. This does not work for the benefit of the consumer. There should be just one licensed agency.


They publish lies and are not held to account. For instance:


Bogus address links, which are reported indefinitely. A linked address is never removed from the CRA files - why not? Why are they not removed after six years?


Illegal associations, created by organisations that have no business to create them (water companies etc.), are never removed even if there is no association. Other associations are not removed even when the association ceases to exist. This is a major problem with way CRAs operate. In effect they are publishing libellous information when this happens. Incidentally, why should anyone have to plead with the CRAs to remove these links, given that those affected have no relationship with the CRAs? The way financial associations are handled is surely in breach of basic DP principles.


The CRAs accept erroneous data from a myriad of sources and don't put it though any meaningful QA protocol. They then publish it - the data is available to a host of government and private organisations. Worst cases here are when people lose a mortgage or similar as a result of the CRAs publishing lies. It happens all the time. Energy companies and mobile phone providers are the root of most problems here. A possibility here would be to ban these organisations from reporting to the CRAs if they continue to abuse the system.


To find out EVERYTHING the CRAs hold against you, hit them with a SAR. There is much more than appears on "your" credit report, as it's euphemistically referred to.


Complain about specific issues to the ICO (and stand by as they do nothing about it - normally).


Take up these issues with your MP.

Anthorn

Don't agree: The CRAs simply list what lenders report to them. If anyone related to credit reports should be policed then it should be the lenders! But if there are inaccuracies on your credit report it's your own fault for not checking it sooner and reporting it the the lender(s) who reported it to the CRA.

GingerBob_3

Anthorn wrote: »

Don't agree: The CRAs simply list what lenders report to them. If anyone related to credit reports should be policed then it should be the lenders! But if there are inaccuracies on your credit report it's your own fault for not checking it sooner and reporting it the the lender(s) who reported it to the CRA.

Correct - no relevant QA whatsoever. Why not?

Alasdair_on_Arran

Thanks Anthorn
ML has said that lenders are more likely to report defaults than positives, so yes, lenders supply partial information; but also the two big CRAs have both inaccurately transferred that info to "my" credit report. It seems a bit hard to say it is my fault for not checking the CRAs info is good: until my card application was rejected I had no reason to think anyone was maintaining false records about me, but YES - everyone should check up on whether CRAs are libelling them. If CRAs were properly policed and controlled there wouldn't be the extreme need. So back to my question "how to get them policed": GingerBob's advice is 'take it up with your MP' - I was hoping for something more immediate.
PS my example was: 13 years since I registered as a voter here and big E still got me as not on the ER!

m4rc

If you are not showing on the electoral roll but e addresses are correct then it's likely a for,setting issue and it's really hard to correct. Trust me, I've just managed to do it but it's taken months. The addresses looked identical, but the boxes the words were in were not the same. District Council blamed Experian, Experian blamed council, in the end Council tweaked it as I requested.

Don't whatever you do use a notice of correction unless you really must. Each and every time a lender needs to access your file - limit increases or new credit - as every time the system will pass it off to someone to be read. This will at best lead to delays, at worst just lead to automatic declines.

snowmaid

If records are inaccurate and are not rectified in 28 days, then perhaps we should be complaining to the ICO. If the ICO have enough substantiated complaints, maybe they will undertaken investigations?

Alasdair_on_Arran

I'm planning to change banks (S having decided to cut interest rates) so I thought I'd ask my prospective new bank who they do their vetting with - unfortunately its the same big E that has still (after 13 years) still got me as not on the Electoral Roll. This prospective bank did caution me that a succession of muddy footprints from different banks visiting "my" credit report would certainly amount to a 'no-no' for future approvals,
Think I'll see if ICO can provide some help (thanks snowmaid).

[Deleted User]

Their so called data quality is appalling.

A certain car company were adamant I still owe them money (despite Bankruptcy), so have continued to report this. They are the ONLY lender to still be causing trouble 1 year after discharge

The CRAs seem incapable of understanding simple principles and insist they aren't at fault and it's the lender - although the CRA can suppress incorrect information, they just choose not to 99% of the time. I've actually had incorrect information suppressed from Equifax on 2 occasions due to lenders submitting incorrect data, so if they can do it their friends Experian can.... but won't!

The ICO finally got involved and 'recommended' changes were made to the reports.... so the car company made some, but not all.... so I'm now back with the complaints team trying to get the rest sorted!

How CRAs can make all this money from B2B sales & flogging 'credit scores' to consumers, but then wash their hands of any form of QA, is a disgrace.

Experian claim they have a QA & data checking process - but they clearly don't to allow this to still be on my record.

I've taken the car company back to the ICO, and raised a fresh dispute about Experian, as I'm very concerned - especially for those consumers who may not think to check their reports in detail and continue to suffer.