Talk mobile ruins my credit rating

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

I was the person who pointed out that owning money gives a person the general "right" to decide what they do with it. I did not expect someone to pedantically say there is no such "right" over money. ...

No, you were the person who said

sargeantsalt wrote: »

.... So what about the right to withold payment when a company provides defective goods/services?

It is an important right. But, by giving custom to companies that use CRAs, you give up that right.

I simply asked where in law that right exists, so that we have some idea of where the law says that right is lost when a CRA is involved in someway.

So far you have been unable to do so.

Stating that people can do what they like with their own money is simply a contender for the Captain Obvious award.:)

sargeantsalt wrote: »

Then I get every troll on this forum pointlessly joining in. If you really don't think you have rights over your own money then it might be better to have someone else look after it for you.

Ah right. So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.:) It's always nice to see the ad hominem fallacy being trotted out.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...
If anyone wants to correct me, the burden of evidence is for you to provide a link to disprove my opinion.

I am pleased to be able to correct you. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.:)

The principle in civil cases is he who asserts must prove.
https://global.oup.com/uk/orc/law/evidence/spencer_concentrate4e/resources/keyfacts/ch02/

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...
So, far no one has been able to present an intelligent explanation as to why there is supposedly no "right" to pay or not pay your own money.

Now we have the straw man fallacy.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...
There will not be a piece of legislation that creates the general proprietary interest in money because it is based on the common law that has been established for hundreds of years.

If you want to really find out more, use your preferred search engine or go to a library...

I would suggest you take your own advice.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...
Back on topic, I agree the OP should pay the £7 and complain. If the company have not followed the correct procedures, there is a chance of getting them to remove the late payments from the credit file...

What do you mean "Back on topic"? There is no suggestion that the OP received a 'defective service' nor that they 'withheld payment', and yet those are the issues you have chosen to raise. It's as if the mere mention of 'CRA' gets you frothing at the mouth like Pavlov's dog and triggers an ill-considered rant.

You are the one responsible for dragging he thread off topic.:)

sargeantsalt wrote: »

..
(Any minute now I expect a chorus of disagreement such as: "they won't remove it", "he can't pay £7", "he has no "right" to complain", "it was all his fault", "there's no such thing as a black list", "the ICO does not exist", "he deserves it", "tin foil", "he should have been clever like me", etc)

Now you are being very silly. Stop trying to personalise. It's not all about you.

sargeantsalt

Another poster gave advice that it is inadvisable to cancel a direct debit when dealing with firms who share data via CRAs. I added to that advice by pointing out that the ability to assert your lawful rights according to contract law is hindered by the potential detriment to your credit file should you ever need to withold payment.

Then you said as if it is a fact "There is no such right". As if you seriously believed a person has no right to decide whether they pay or do not pay. Now you have changed your mind saying "Stating that people can do what they like with their own money is simply a contender for the Captain Obvious award.:)"

If you disagree with someone to get a response when you know otherwise, then it is trolling.

I predicted in the last sentence of my previous post that you would be bothered to contradict every sentence of my post. It is indicative that you feel threatened that someone has expressed an opinion different to your own.

You are a CRA fanboy and that won't change unless you personally have a bad experience. It is naive to think it could never happen just because you currently view them as a wonderful thing to make your life more convenient.

I am not trying to convince you of the potential pitfalls. My intention is only to give some balance to the forum for the benefit of others who may come here to educate themselves.

Then they can decide on a risk vs reward basis the type of companies they wish to give their custom to.

I don't really have anything more to add but I wish the OP luck with his complaint and hope he gets the missed payments removed.

PixelPound

If you have a dispute, then procedures need to be followed. Too many people have a gripe and simply withhold payment "that's it I'm leaving and you're not getting a penny more" rather than follow any complaints procedure. It rarely goes well, even if the company does not report to the CRA. If you want to withhold payment then its important to raise complaints and enter dialogue with the company. If you have a contract and simply withhold payment you are going against the contract you have agreed to - there is no right to simply withhold payment unilaterally because you want to - you need to follow complaints procedure, get a final resolution and take it further. If you are proved right then information of the CRA can be corrected as part of the resolution.

takman

sargeantsalt wrote: »

Good advice.

As you say, there are exceptions. So what about the right to withold payment when a company provides defective goods/services?

It is an important right. But, by giving custom to companies that use CRAs, you give up that right. If you lawfully stop payment, you will receive a harsh and immediate extra-judicial penalty - without trial (damage to credit file).

This is unjust.

In fact, even though the OP owed money, the penalty inflicted was unjust because it was without an independent hearing of all the facts and was disproportionate to his offence (£7 owed).

So lets say i agreed to buy an item off you for £7, i got the item but never paid the £7.

Your saying that it would be wrong for you to tell everyone that is going to sell me an item that i didn't pay for an item i got from you?.
You would simply keep quiet and tell no one what happened because i have a legal right to choose what i do with my money, even thought i agreed to pay you for your item?.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

CRAs are a stick to beat customers with. They do not admit to this but it is one of their primary purposes.

No company should be allowed to take the law into their own hands.

There primary purpose is to provide information so companies can do more accurate risk calculations when providing credit.

Someone with a good record of credit management is able to get accepted for credit that they wouldn't have had a chance of getting before they were around; which means higher limits, lower rates of interest and extra rewards.

But people like you who can't manage their finances properly can be rejected for credit so your defaulting and "refusal" to pay as agreed doesn't push up the cost for others. So it seems like a pretty good system to me.

But it's good we a have replacement for GingerBob on this forum now.

PaulW922

Putting all these very useful 'discussions' aside, none of which are of much help the OP, I would suggest that given the account has not actually been defaulted, (which I believe is the case), then paying the full amount due now will mean that the final indictor on the account *should* change from late payment to up-to-date. The Op can then discuss the reporting with Talk Talk without the risk of a £7 default appearing.

antrobus

PaulW922 wrote: »

Putting all these very useful 'discussions' aside, none of which are of much help the OP, I would suggest that given the account has not actually been defaulted, (which I believe is the case), then paying the full amount due now will mean that the final indictor on the account *should* change from late payment to up-to-date. The Op can then discuss the reporting with Talk Talk without the risk of a £7 default appearing.

Yes, that advice has already been given.

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...
I don't really have anything more to add but I wish the OP luck with his complaint and hope he gets the missed payments removed.

All I would say that you are a fairly typical amateur internet lawyer who has only a limited knowledge of the law or of how CRAs operate, and appear keen to throw abuse at anybody who points out your mistakes.

Might I suggest that if you want to debate CRAs you might be better off posting a thread in the Debate House Prices & the Economy forum, rather than derailing some other poor s0d's thread.