British Gas default RE-ADDED after 6 years

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I have said it once here I have said it 1,000 times. Never give a real name to general Utility companies. They are toxic, sub-prime or risky creditors to have on your credit file. They are prone to reporting errors and difficult to get the errors resolved.

Using a false name or simply "The Occupier" on general utility bills means any errors do not feature on your own personal named credit file which you reserve for "prime creditors" which are agreements properly controlled by the CCA such as mortgages, personal loans, cards and current accounts. One's where billing errors are minimal.

People never learn. I started this trick when British Gas thought it would be a good idea to start "reporting" people's bills. I left them on those gorunds and now get round the issue of credit reporting "risk: with utilities by having "The Occupier" or a fake name.

However, no matter how often I provide this help here it seems I still read incidents of sub prime creditor mis-reporting.

And if anyone decides to jump in here with "this is fraud", it is only fraud if you deliberately intend to rip the firm off. On the same subject what is it called when the firm mis-reports to your credit file? A data protection breach - a criminal offence I believe but how many firms are duly prosecuted for it?

GingerBob_3

An interesting quote from the 'Prove It' letter, mentioned in another current thread:


Recording false and inaccurate information on Credit Reference Files is a breach of the Data protection Act 1998, and may also constitute an act of defamation on your part.


If this law was enforced, the CEO of Experian and the rest would be permanently banged up!

Arleen

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I have said it once here I have said it 1,000 times. Never give a real name to general Utility companies. They are toxic, sub-prime or risky creditors to have on your credit file. They are prone to reporting errors and difficult to get the errors resolved.

Using a false name or simply "The Occupier" on general utility bills means any errors do not feature on your own personal named credit file which you reserve for "prime creditors" which are agreements properly controlled by the CCA such as mortgages, personal loans, cards and current accounts. One's where billing errors are minimal.

People never learn. I started this trick when British Gas thought it would be a good idea to start "reporting" people's bills. I left them on those gorunds and now get round the issue of credit reporting "risk: with utilities by having "The Occupier" or a fake name.

However, no matter how often I provide this help here it seems I still read incidents of sub prime creditor mis-reporting.

And if anyone decides to jump in here with "this is fraud", it is only fraud if you deliberately intend to rip the firm off. On the same subject what is it called when the firm mis-reports to your credit file? A data protection breach - a criminal offence I believe but how many firms are duly prosecuted for it?

Got any actual law to cite to base this nonsense of "advice"?

Fraud is fraud, and just becuase you've paid your bills and wasn't caught doesn't mean you didn't commit it. Also how would reporting wrong information about state of account to CRA breach Data protection act? I'm really curious where did you read that making a mistake would be a criminal offence under Data protection act 1998.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

GingerBob wrote: »

An interesting quote from the 'Prove It' letter, mentioned in another current thread:


Recording false and inaccurate information on Credit Reference Files is a breach of the Data protection Act 1998, and may also constitute an act of defamation on your part.


If this law was enforced, the CEO of Experian and the rest would be permanently banged up!

Exactly. It has got to the stage where I am bordering on laughing when I see people moaning about utility companies reporting late payment marks and defaults when all could be avoided by the customers simply being recorded as "The Occupier" on the bills. How can they report a missed payment to such a named person - how do they report a default to "The Occupier"?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Arleen wrote: »

Got any actual law to cite to base this nonsense of "advice"?

Fraud is fraud, and just becuase you've paid your bills and wasn't caught doesn't mean you didn't commit it. Also how would reporting wrong information about state of account to CRA breach Data protection act? I'm really curious where did you read that making a mistake would be a criminal offence under Data protection act 1998.

Is it fraud if the bill is just named as "The Occupier"?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Arleen wrote: »

Got any actual law to cite to base this nonsense of "advice"?

Fraud is fraud, and just becuase you've paid your bills and wasn't caught doesn't mean you didn't commit it. Also how would reporting wrong information about state of account to CRA breach Data protection act? I'm really curious where did you read that making a mistake would be a criminal offence under Data protection act 1998.

So when a firm reports wrong information it is "a mistake". When a person report themselves as "The Occupier" or some other name it is "fraud" - in your opinion anyway. Very interesting view you have there.

But the law as I understand it is anyone can call themselves any name providing they do not intend to do so fraudulently. I don't really see that choosing to use a different name on a utility bill is fraud - your driving licence paper counterpart had a space for you to record any other names you use for example a "professional name".

Of course Lewis Carroll was a master of fraud by not writing under the name of Charles Dodgson.

Arleen

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

So when a firm reports wrong information it is "a mistake". When a person report themselves as "The Occupier" or some other name it is "fraud" - in your opinion anyway. Very interesting view you have there.

That Isn't my theory, this is how our legal system works. And it's quite simple - for it to be a crime, it must be committed with a guilty mind. As someone smart put it: actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means an act does not make a person guilty, unless the mind is guilty.
Luckily in England, we have a legal system that recognizes that human beings are just that, and a mistake does not make someone a criminal. It may lead to a breach of Data Protection Act, but for sure is not a crime.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

But the law as I understand it is anyone can call themselves any name providing they do not intend to do so fraudulently. I don't really see that choosing to use a different name on a utility bill is fraud - your driving licence paper counterpart had a space for you to record any other names you use for example a "professional name".

Of course Lewis Carroll was a master of fraud by not writing under the name of Charles Dodgson.

You are correct, you can use any aliases you want in the UK, but that right also comes with a duty. Namely when you then enter into different agreements and are asked were you known by any different names, aliases, do you provide the name given to British gas? If you do, it's all square and even. But if you do not you may be committing a fraud.

There is a fundamental difference between the two, companies make mistakes - and we have an ombudsman and other services with whom you can raise it so that they will be adequately punished for it. It won't prevent mistakes from happening, but will with time reduce their frequency (at least that is the theory).
But when you keep identities as a secret, and thus give false account and withhold important information from someone you've entered into an agreement with, then you are in hot water and with a guilty mind all over.

UPDATE: You can of course easily argue that if it's strictly a pen name then there is no reason to reveal it, and I can't see why Court wouldn't agree. But when you use a name to enter into financial contracts that may not work well.

GingerBob_3

But when you keep identities as a secret, and thus give false account and withhold important information from someone you've entered into an agreement with, then you are in hot water and with a guilty mind all over.

With water companies you don't enter into a financial agreement. So this one doesn't hold water.

That Isn't my theory, this is how our legal system works. And it's quite simple - for it to be a crime, it must be committed with a guilty mind. As someone smart put it: actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means an act does not make a person guilty, unless the mind is guilty.
Luckily in England, we have a legal system that recognizes that human beings are just that, and a mistake does not make someone a criminal. It may lead to a breach of Data Protection Act, but for sure is not a crime.

According to that theory, if I make a genuine mistake when driving, for instance thinking that the speed limit is 40 when actually it's 30, I'm not guilty of any wrongdoing? It's actually a major failing of our semi-corrupt legal system that genuine mistakes are (nearly always) treated as criminal.

JuicyJesus

GingerBob wrote: »

With water companies you don't enter into a financial agreement. So this one doesn't hold water.

You've had this explained before and you ignored it which explains why you persist with this nonsense.


A water/telecoms/whatever supplier is giving you goods/services - that it incurs cost in providing you - before you have actually paid for them as set out contractually with them. They have therefore given you credit, the literal definition of which is the trust that you will pay something you owe in the future. It is relevant to those you seek to obtain this trust from in the future - be that for future telecoms services or utilities or any other form of borrowing - whether you have abused that trust before, or conversely whether you are trustworthy.

GingerBob_3

JuicyJesus wrote: »

You've had this explained before and you ignored it which explains why you persist with this nonsense.


A water/telecoms/whatever supplier is giving you goods/services - that it incurs cost in providing you - before you have actually paid for them as set out contractually with them. They have therefore given you credit, the literal definition of which is the trust that you will pay something you owe in the future. It is relevant to those you seek to obtain this trust from in the future - be that for future telecoms services or utilities or any other form of borrowing - whether you have abused that trust before, or conversely whether you are trustworthy.

And how many times do I have to explain this one before it will sink in! Again - you do not have any form of contract with the company that supplies you water. There are no terms and conditions and you do not consent to anything. There is no contract. There is no trust involved and they are obliged to supply you even if you don't pay. They cannot restrict the service in any way.