UK Credit Reference Agencies Unfit For Purpose and must be reformed - Discuss
Options
Comments
-
VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »What's your feeble excuse for taking a pop rather than engaging properly in the discussion, Thrugelmir?
Where was my pop? I merely suggested that you had some reason to feel personally aggrieved. So made the observation that the CRA's serve a useful purpose. Not in any way that they are perfect.0 -
Let's sum up before these two inadequates dishonestly twist the state of play:
Thirteen posts in the thread so far:
- Simple introduction of topic for discussion by OP (me)
- Rather brief and poorly based counter the motion statement by jonesy suggesting that the transaction volumes were remarkable and therefore some excuse for mistakes.
- Detailed evidence by me rebutting jonesy and further in support of the motion
- Brief evidence from Stephen C in support of the motion
- Thrugelmir steps in with brief counter assertion about how pedantic and slow things were and that the existing system enabled competition for the benefit of customers, then for no reason known to man decides to accuse the OP of having a chip on the shoulder.
- Spirited rebuttal by me offering translation to Thrugelmir's mistaken assertion on competition in lending, and fair enough question by me to Thrugelmir about his unexplained outburst about some "chip on the shoulder" he seemed to be accusing me of.
- Counter assertion to motion by nidO with fair enough examples
- Rather brief and poorly based counter assertion by safestored based on his wonder of big numbers
- Rebuttal by me referring again to the illogical reference to big number volumes used wrongly as an excuse for some mismanagement of data.
- Bleat by stephen that he has been insulted
- Support for the bleater by Thrugelmir who again accuses OP of a chip on the shoulder with no explanation.
- Thrugelmir then double-posts to dissemble on answering why he took an unwarranted pop. He or she still hasn't explained other than to suggest that if I have some personal experience which should not have happened to me, my views do not count? I am not sure what sort of experience he is referring to because a chip on the shoulder usually refers to a grievance held by an employee against an employer. In any event Thrugelmir prefers to raise that again rather than discuss the thread topic further.
- This post
If you ever hear that the financial services industry has righted its wrongs and is a different animal to the one that crashed us into the buffers five years ago then you can be sure you are in the presence of liars, spin merchants, delusional types or simple ignoramuses.0 -
VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »Anyone else have strong opinions for or against?
I presume, you are only interested in opinions that agree with you. Anyone who does not subscribe to your 'throwing-out-baby-with-bathwater' attitude, gets a load of abuse from you.
Nice way to conduct a discussion!
0 -
You have no reason to presume and then base an insult on your presumption. Don't be so puerile and unoriginal. nidO did not agree with me but at least came up with understandable argument with examples instead of spin, and didn't enter the discussion and immediately attack me personally as now you are doing (and have now received the deserved swipe back).bengal-stripe wrote: »I presume, you are only interested in opinions that agree with you. Anyone who does not subscribe to your 'throwing-out-baby-with-bathwater' attitude, gets a load of abuse from you.
Nice way to conduct a discussion!0 -
VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »You have no reason to presume and then base an insult on your presumption. Don't be so puerile and unoriginal. nidO did not agree with me but at least came up with understandable argument with examples instead of spin, and didn't enter the discussion and immediately attack me personally as now you are doing (and have now received the deserved swipe back).
Please be nice to other posters. You may not agree, but I don't see anything here that isn't constructive.
Due to the amount of people that have the same name etc in the UK, it is inevitable that some mistakes will be made; I've had a default for someone with a completely different name show on my report by now.
I sent a letter to all three CRA's, and after a few calls, it was removed after I'd satisfied a bank I'd never dealt with that I was not the person in question.
Something I don't agree with is CRA's offering low cost credit. If I apply for something, it's not up to the CRA to decide, and I'd say that 90% of applications are with a bank that knows the applicant anyway.
The CRA's could do a lot better, but trust me, in other countries they're so much worse.
CK💙💛 💔0 -
VictimOfImpersonation wrote: »The motion is that UK Credit Reference Agencies Have Become Unfit For Purpose and Must Urgently Be Reformed.
I have many reasons (and evidence) to propose the motion ranging from poor access control to bad data management and recording of irrelevant and secret (coded) data.
Anyone else have strong opinions for or against?
You invited discussion, yet seem to have forgotten that it is a debate and took offence when other opinions were not to your liking.You may question anything I say. Just be polite, otherwise you go straight on to my Ignore List, which funds a good old fashioned knees-up every Xmas. Cheers;)0 -
Victim you asked for a discussion - some have given their opinion - a straw poll of views so far would indicate about 90% of posters have no grudges with the system as it is.
If you wanted people to agree with you you should have stated so at the beginning instead of asking for people to ''discuss''.0 -
I did the straw poll at post #13. The conclusion was that there were plenty of naysayers who just visit the thread to ridicule the premise and the OP without offering any evidence to back up their assertions.
Mr Khalvashi, your views are interesting on a certain level, but why do you too assert that mistakes requiring intervention by customers are acceptable, especially in a monopoly business whose specialty is maintaining accurate data ? When you were involved in the original semi-monopoly Airport taxi business I remember you once mentioning, did you grow it by making mistakes by picking up fares late or delivering them to the wrong destinations? I appreciate that once the airport deal was done, most business fell in your lap as competition was effectively stifled and maybe mistakes could be tolerated without significant loss of turnover or growth on the back of particular lo-cost airline expansion, but as I am sure your business did not do, setting out to tolerate mistakes is not really a good way to run any business, is it?0 -
What I find completely unacceptable is when data is put into peoples credit files without being checked properly.
I've read so many occurrences of data being added to the credit file of someone who has the same name as the debtor when there's a DOB mismatch. Such things should NEVER happen because it's so easy to check.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
I think CRA's are a good idea and are well executed.
I have had the odd issue on mine that has been resolved very quickly by the CRA's and hasn't negatively affected me.
WRT to [car insurers] "They should never have been permitted in the first place. I never authorised them. I remember refusing one insurer that notified me that they would do a search and told them to stick it. Four other companies did the searches without disclosing the fact"
Picking a common insurance site; Moneysupermarket.com and looking at the T&C's one of the first ones is "The information you provide may be used to carry out certain credit checks through licensed credit-referencing agencies. This is used as part of the underwriting process for some of the insurance providers and a record of this search will be made although this will not adversely affect your credit profile"
I think the key issue is that you haven't read the Terms and Conditions NOT that it doesn't exist. If you had (like you agree to when you take out a quote) you would have known this happens. Personally i though it was common sense they would.
The Beneficiary Search you are so distressed about is CAPITA searching for the beneficiary of a Will. If someone had died and you were beneficiary then that would have been why. If you weren't then it is most likely CAPITA searching for them, as you didn't hear anything else odds are they realised it wasn't you. Personally I find this reassuring that they DO do everything they can to search for people in the event of a death. It makes no difference to me and it won't appear when searched by others.
Th method of obtaining a credit report is fairly well hardened, you need Name, Address, D.O.B and normally a credit/debit card to be able to obtain the information. Therefore if you have been a victim, odds are YOU have made this information visible to them to enable them to do it. That is why normally it is family that commit these offences as they know this information easily. Deciding that the system is flawed because you have been negatively affected is wrong, especially considering the millions of people who have used and not been affected. Your argument is similar to me saying that the driving license isn't sufficiently difficult to obtain legally or there would be less accidents.
No-one likes being rated, least of all financially but clearly your experience of fraud has left a huge chip on your shoulder and you feel that the CRA's are to blame and not the person(s) who did it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards