Moneysavingexpert.com/ Your Credit Rating discussion area

westernpromise

tempuscat wrote:

Hi western -- wasn't able to respond yesterday to your point, so am doing so now because of the importance of the issue you highlighted.

Legally, a person is entitled to protect that which is most fundamental to them -- their reputation.

Factors with a bearing upon reputation include financial standing.

Misrepresentation of an individual's financial standing by a third party is misrepresentation of that individual's reputation. Where such misrepresentation is -- for the purposes of commercial gain -- made to other third parties (as would be the case where a credit agency profited from supplying misinformation to its clients) then the question of legal liability must surely arise.

Your comment about debt collection agencies certainly seems well-founded where our experience is concerned. We had our eyes opened when we researched the activities of Robinson Way and its parent company, and saw from the annual reports just how much profit is generated from debt purchasing / debt collection activity.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the only reason we were able to rid ourselves of Robinson Way was by asking the Office of Fair Trading to intervene. But then. . . 'our' debt was suddenly in the hands of a quite different collection agency, an indication to us that Robinson Way had quickly dropped it after the OFT intervention -- and sold it on.

Our letters (thanks Martin, AGAIN!) to the credit agencies have now been despatched and we await their replies.

Will post here once we have some news. If it turns out that UK credit agencies are not distinguishing between an alleged default and a proven default, then we will certainly take the matter further: so far, we have battled with one of Britain's biggest energy companies (British Gas) and one of Britain's biggest debt collectors (Robinson Way), so locking horns with a British credit reference agency will be par for the course.

What I have never understood is why credit reference agencies are as casual as they are about the information they hold.

If some goon tells his mates in a pub that David Beckham boils puppies, it doesn't much matter. If the same goon tells the News of the World he boils puppies and the NotW publishes this, it does matter. The newspaper has given credence, authority and momentum to something damaging. What the twit in the pub said is of no account on its own, so when Beckham sues, he will sue the paper, not the twit who originated the story.

This should surely apply to credit reference agencies too. They are selling on information wholly on the say so of the business supplying the information. If the information is false and damaging, they are surely not just a party to a libel but the main agent in propagating it. They should be very very scared of libel suits, so why aren't they? Is it because it is notoriously expensive to bring them?

They might perhaps argue that you can amend your own credit file so you have the right of reply. That would be totally specious in my view. Everyone knows that the comments you add can be ignored and carry less weight than those made by the business claiming it is owed money. In any case, the News of the World could not argue that it can run the 'David Beckham boils puppies' story as long as it offers him a right of reply.

I would love to know why they think this risk is acceptable. Some years ago I had a dispute with Diners Club. I paid them, they banked the cheque, but lost the money and didn't allocate it to my account. They duly blackened my name to Experian but capitulated totally when I sent them a copy of the front and back of the cheque and the paying in slip. I mentioned libel and they seriously grovelled. Maybe I should have pushed harder.

Gyms seem particularly drawn to this sort of fraud. If a gym has 1,000 members paying 50 quid a month, and 10% leave every month, that's 5 thousand squid walking out of the door. So if they claim that those 100 people didn't follow the rules and they each owe a month's subs, then sell the supposed 'debt' for say 20p in the pound, they get a thousand pounds a month for literally no effort beyond sending their details to the debt collector.

I am currently involved in just such a dispute with a gym I resigned from in August. I have moved job and home, so their debt collector is having trouble finding me, but has resorted to leaving deceitful messages on my mobile phone. They claim to be from car service centres and the like and ask me to call them to tell them where I want my statements sent. Very droll.

bell

A question:

When paying off credit such as cards and catalogues is it worth keeping the accounts open (as long as you have the will power) in order that you get lots of paid on time scores against this account.

Is just that looking at my credit score for a catalogue which has been closed for 5 months it visibly shows a time when i was 4 (shocking i know) weeks behind with my payments. This presumably wouldnt show as recent if there were 5 extra months where i wasnt behind afterwards.

Also i read that credit accounts stay on the file for 6 years after setttlement. How long are they consider by lenders to be of signifigance. Because it seems harsh to penalise for late payments that are a rather old.

I scored a very low 510, this is my current score. I dread to think what the recently removed CCJ for £290 dragged the score down.

Im actually suprised it is so low, but it mainly seems to be caused by late payments.

grumbler

bell wrote:

When paying off credit such as cards and catalogues is it worth keeping the accounts open (as long as you have the will power) in order that you get lots of paid on time scores against this account.

Cancel unused credit cards, debts and accounts. Access to too much credit, even if it isn't used, can be a problem. If you have a range of unused credit cards, cancel most of them; this lowers your available credit and should help(see full article, Cancel Old Cards (and which to keep)).

- this is Martin's advice from the article being discussed in this thread ...

bell wrote:

... it seems harsh to penalise for late payments that are a rather old.

They don't penalise you. They just prefer to have less risky customers ...

becky004

Don't know if this is the right place to post this, sorry in advance if its not. Without going into great detail I have a diabolical credit history due to divorce in 2000. Am now just about debt free no bank will give me a cheque account my annual income is roughly 35k, its a pain in the butt as I have to pay cash for everything. I do have a Capital One CC with a £200 limit!
Anyway I applied to Halifax for a current account with no overdraft facility and a mortgage result.........sorry madam no current account but we'll give you a mortgage for 138k!!!!!!! I presume they used the same credit searches for both applications so where is the sense in giving me debt but no cheque book?

grumbler

Don't forget that mortgage is secured debt unlike overdraft or credit cards ...

becky004

I know but on application I stated no to overdraft, as I don't want to go down that road again. I said no to CC as I have the one with a low limit which suits me. It just seems a bit ludicrous to me that they won't allow me facilities to access my salary easily but will loan me 4x my wages to buy a property which is encouraging me to stretch myself to the limit and beyond if I were to accept that amount!

grumbler

becky004 wrote:

I know but on application I stated no to overdraft ...

However, you want a chequebook! What if you write a dozen of cheques without having funds on your account?

Many basic accounts come with Visa-electron or Solo cards that can be used for purchases in many shops and even on-line. If you have a pure cash card try applying for a basic accout with other bank.

becky004

If I wrote out cheques, then with no guarantee card and without sufficient funds the cheques would not clear, so it wouldn't matter to them and they would make money for charging me for the honour of bouncing them. If I need cheques then I have to go into the branch which is out of my way, the tellers grumble as I usually ask for 4-5 in one go. What if I took their mortgage money and let the house fall down and don't keep up my repayments? Surely a chequebook with no cards or overdraft is a safer bet than 138k

becky004

P.S. The only card I can get from anyone is an ATM card, no Visa Electron or Solo on it. I appreciate I had a problem in the past (not all my own doing, just had all debts in my name), I just feel it a little unjust to turn me down for a chequebook, yet be prepared to make 1000's in interest off me should i opt to take their mortgage.

grumbler

becky004 wrote:

If I wrote out cheques, then with no guarantee card and without sufficient funds the cheques would not clear, so it wouldn't matter to them and they would make money for charging me for the honour of bouncing them.

I don't know as I never had a cheque book without a cheque quarantee card ...

What if I took their mortgage money and let the house fall down and don't keep up my repayments?

That is why all mortgages require building insurance.