Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[Dipply75]

Count me in too. They are just companies and they are making their own rules up as they go along, and they are being allowed to. Its beyond ridiculous.

 

Can they, or their procedures, not be audited or something? Equifax told me they would not confirm what verification checks were done with my info as they had a contractual obligation to their client, which is confidential!

 

What kind of secret agreements exist between the CRA's and clients regarding the processing of our info?

[andrew1]

Count me in too. They are just companies and they are making their own rules up as they go along, and they are being allowed to. Its beyond ridiculous.

 

Can they, or their procedures, not be audited or something? Equifax told me they would not confirm what verification checks were done with my info as they had a contractual obligation to their client, which is confidential!

 

What kind of secret agreements exist between the CRA's and clients regarding the processing of our info?

 

It's the law of the land my friend in the credit industry

 

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

 

I got a strange feeling that's all about to change and they ain't gonna like it

 

 

 

Sarah

[Gez]

Perhaps this is something that needs to be put in the profile box where the new messages about touts & credit files are.

We should really be writing to MPs aswell, possibly more so than regulators. MPs will likely want to be seen to be doing the right thing. You know how they like to be popular..

 

I'm going to add something in my letter along these lines..

 

As a taxpayer, I, and I am sure the majority of your constituants, would like to know what plans you and other MPs have in place to ensure that financial institutions & credit reference agencies are properly regulated in future.

I would urge you to spend some time looking on the bank, debt & CRA sections of the following websites [CAG, MSE e.t.c.].

You will see that there are hundreds of thousands of people struggling against the mal-practices of just about every type of financial institution and credit reference agency.

I find it astonishing that there are no less than three independent regulators, namely the OFT, FSA, FOS, yet the only place these people can get reliable help is on a "self help" website run by other ordinary people.

[Details here about the FSA turning a blind eye to banker's openly flouting the waiver by altering charging structures & punishing complainants]

From these instances, it is quite clear that the FSA in particular have failed and continue to fail in their duty to protect consumers and regulate the financial industry.

In light of the above, its seems quite obvious to me that there needs to be a thorough investigation into the policies of the FSA and whether they can now be considered the right organisation to carry out such a task. As a matter of enormous public concern, questions need to be raised as to how these financial institutions have been able to continue such mal-practices for so long, unhindered & unquestioned until challenged by the ordinary consumer.

 

I am sure you will agree, with the resources of 3 major regulators, there can be no good reason as to why it has taken a campaign by consumers themselves for these issues to be brought to light and for anything to be done about it.

 

Furthermore, it would appear that financial institutions, banks in particular may only be taken to task for their unfair/unlawful practices in the past 18 months. I would like to know why.

If any other rogue trader had used similar unfair/unlawful practices to rip off customers for many years, surely he would not be extended the comfort of such leniance.

[tifo]

then there's the National Hunter system which is a 'secret' CRA they don't tell you about. This stores data about applications etc which are cross matched with one another and if any discrepancy is seen, a CIFAS record is recorded. It was initially for mortgage applications only but is now used for almost everything. So if you make even a small mistake on any application form you complete, beware!

 

Have a look here Experian plc - Experian’s new hunter system takes the fight against fraud global

 

and here for MCL Welcome to National Hunter

 

Makes you wonder who else has our data ....

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Tifo!

 

That's interesting.

 

I note they do have a Page that almost encourages them to be sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)!

 

Here it is: National Hunter SAR Page

 

Seems a shame not to SAR them when they ask us so politely!

 

However, it could also be a ruse for them to harvest yet more Data via the Request. Indeed, as a new boy in town, maybe they have geared themselves to handle these Requests, making the £10 fee a form of Income Generation. If they have built the Data so it is geared to Printing off a SAR with ease, then they could, in theory, make some money doing this and harvest validated Name/Address details in so doing. Cost is then just Printing and Posting, the Return is the balance left out of the £10 and some nice validated Data to add to their System. Data they can sell.

 

Looks like we have four CRAs in the UK, not three, albeit this one is part of Experian.

 

Could be interesting when sending a SAR to Experian to ask to see any Data Transfers made to National Hunter, and Vice Versa.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[tifo]

they're not that 'new' and Experian has bought them out in 2004 i think. Have a look here Experian Decision Analytics Solutions - Fraud

[knoxvillain]

We do not hold any credit scoring records, credit histories, information concerning County Court Judgements (CCJs) or bankruptcies, nor do we store Electoral Roll information. The information that is held relates only to applications made to our member organisations, and consists only of the application information supplied by the applicant(s).

 

I would say the application information would flow from the banks to nhunter not from experian to nhunter.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Tifo!

 

they're not that 'new' and Experian has bought them out in 2004

 

Apologies, I meant new in the sense of having a shiny new Web Site and shiny new Database behind it.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pt2537]

Ok lets go through this in bullet points to get the finer detail right.

 

Ø The Cca was designed to protect the rights of both lenders and borrowers. It set out a clear framework for the layout of agreements, the prescribed terms and essential information required and the procedure for enforcement by a court.

Ø The act lays out a clear framework for lending and recovering funds. The procedure, in brief is

Ø The layout and prescribed terms of the agreement make the document executed, unexecuted or irredeemably unenforceable.

Ø An unexecuted document can be made enforceable on the order of a court.

Ø In the event of a borrower failing to make payments a lender must issue a default notice under the act. This is a clear indication that the act is intending to be ‘fair’ to both side and offer a chance for the borrower to make amends. The default notice is in effect a notice saying ‘Pay us the arrears, come to some arrangement or we will be forced into court action to recover our money’.

Ø In the event that the default notice is ignored then a default can be registered with a CRA. Now this is the crucial bit. This in my opinion, and that of CAR2403 judge is because the notice is pre-cursor to enforcement. A marker to other lenders that legal action is pending. Now if that is the case then the agreement must be either unexecuted or enforceable. If it is not then it serves no purpose. You can’t have a pre-cursor to something that is an impossibility which is the case with an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.

Ø A pre-cursor would require there to be a realistic chance of success in court. In this situation there clearly is none. If this is the case what purpose does the default maker serve now? It no longer becomes a warning or temp marker, which would make sense. It becomes a punishment in it’s self.

Ø Once on your record it last for six years. The same as a CCJ. There is no right of appeal except to the institution that placed it on there and has a vested interest.

Ø This marker can affect your ability to gain credit, living accommodation and employment. In effect this allows a completely unaccountable section of industry to decide if a citizen of this country is deprived of food, shelter and warmth. The three basics of civilised society.

Ø The only recourse for the citizen is the courts. This method is expensive for people who in all probability are already amongst the poorest and in some case’s the least educated in society. Many simply will not be able to and have to live under the marker.

Ø Why should a normal citizen be expected to take the lender to court to remove a marker when the lender refuses to take the debtor for the original default? What possible reason can a lender have for putting the marker on the record and not taking the debtor to court? If it is expense then the lender should write off the loan. They should not be allowed to place the marker and then not follow up.

Ø This is against natural justice. Someone asked above ‘What is this natural justice?’ It’s a legal philosophy out lined here… Notice that it says UK LAW……..

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. The concept is very closely related to the principle of natural law (latin: jus naturale) which has been applied as a philosophical and practical principle in the law in several common law jurisdictions, particularly theUKand Australia.[1][2]

According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator. The assertion in the United States' Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," expresses some of this sentiment. The rules or principles of natural justice are now regularly applied by the courts in both common law and Roman lawjurisdictions. Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good, that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated.[3]

Natural justice includes the notion of procedural fairness and may incorporate the following guidelines:

• A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges).
  
• A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.
  
• A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore can not be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause".
  
• Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".
  
• Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party.
  
• A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.
  
• Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.[4]
  

Ø These people have a vested interest. They have no right to charge convict and punish you in the click of a computer mouse then expect you to prove your innocence. This would mean that the CCa would have been crafted with no account of natural justice. Or perhaps it was just assumed that it would be applied. Remember 'According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator'

Ø If this is a default marker indicating future legal proceedings then there should be a time limit on the markers life. If no legal proceedings are started in a specific period or within a reasonable time the marker should drop off. Not stay on for as long as the CCJ it was after in the first place. The criminal law expects someone who is charged to be brought before a court as soon as possible. This is because the law and ‘Natural Justice’ understand that an indefinite wait for trial or having an accusation hanging over your head for a prolonged period would be unacceptable. But the default marker does exactly that.

Ø If the marker is not a precursor to enforcement then it must be enforcement in its self and banned under the Cca if the agreement is unenforceable…

 

 

 

 

Well that’s a start…………….

 

While Wiki can be a useful tool, to use it to quote legislation and more worryingly Natural Justice is just bonkers

 

can you imagine going into court and hte judge says "What authority are you basing your argument on Mr Finlander"

 

You say "Wikipedia sir" , youd be laughed out of court

 

If you want info on natural justice and constitutional law, look for information from A.V.Dicey or Francis Bennion these are sources i would rely upon

 

just putting my 2P

[knoxvillain]

lol "wikipedia your honour"

[SURFBOY]

You can count me into any action against CRA's.

Has anyone thought of bringing any of the CRA's practices to the attention of the media?

Or would the media even be interested?

[veester]

pt2537 et al.

 

That was hilarious re wikipedia.

 

Also for lawstatues simply try this link (ever law is here) - very easy to search and filter on CCA; i used it in my complaint against SLC

Home - Statute Law Database

 

On another note, what i find a bit galling is that

 

a) you request a credit file

b) note something bad

c) get it amended - usually takes 8 weeks or more.

d) then have to pay again to verify its done - surely the company who has mucked up should pick up the tab for the 2nd report???

While i appreciatte the company in question might complain, on track record and for peace of mind you need to check

[pt2537]

pt2537 et al.

 

That was hilarious re wikipedia.

 

Also for lawstatues simply try this link (ever law is here) - very easy to search and filter on CCA; i used it in my complaint against SLC

Home - Statute Law Database

 

 

Im glad it amused, a QC who was my tutor said that exact phrase when a student on the same course as me submitted an essay where all of the authorities he was citing clearly came from Wiki, i nearly wet myself when he came out with that comment

 

statute law is good, but it fails to provide regulations which are made under CCA

 

apart from that it is a cracking resource as is BAILLI British and Irish Legal Information Institute is you need case law

 

fortunately, i supplied many of the CCA regs and they have been uploaded in our statutes library

 

regards

paul

[finlander]

While Wiki can be a useful tool, to use it to quote legislation and more worryingly Natural Justice is just bonkers

 

can you imagine going into court and hte judge says "What authority are you basing your argument on Mr Finlander"

 

You say "Wikipedia sir" , youd be laughed out of court

 

If you want info on natural justice and constitutional law, look for information from A.V.Dicey or Francis Bennion these are sources i would rely upon

 

just putting my 2P

 

thanks for that.... I didn't realise that this forum was a court or of course I would have brought my law book........I simply used it in response to the question 'what is natural justice?' in a previous post. Are we saying that it doesn't exist then? If so I think that would surprise the majority of law commentators who recommended that Dwayne Chambers should have used it as the basis of his arguement against his olympics ban and would certainly have had more chance of winning.

[pt2537]

No, dont be silly, im not saying natural justice doesnt exist,

 

but if you are au fait with the principles of the Rules of Natural Justice , you would know that Dicey is the authority which any practitioner would cite as a solid source

 

all i say is that wiki is an untrustworthy source where legal matters come to the fore

 

i much prefer to use these sources for explanations as they are accurate especially where law is the issue

 

of course, if you really want an authoritative source of the Constitution and Natural Justice i can forward you Halsburys Laws of England ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (VOLUME 1(1) (2001 REISSUE)) that will give you the definition of Natural Justice which is accurate and relied upon and admissible in a court

[babybear39]

Can you do my law essay for me please if I forward you my copy of McNae's pt2537 lol...

[pt2537]

Hi BB,

 

i submitted a 30,000 word essay on the Constitution a while ago and it achieved 96% so if you need any help, i am sure i can help:p

[babybear39]

I was kidding pt2537 Done half of it and plan to tackle the rest Saturday and Sunday. It's a first try at a mit. circs. essay as I was very ill just before xmas Already got 100%, 72% and 60% fir the rest of the module

[pt2537]

of course, journalism is not something im tooooo au fait with but im a fast learner so im sure i could pick it up quickly, plus i know a few good media lawyers in my contact lists;)

[babybear39]

Ooh, that could be handy

[finlander]

ok so the original idea was for us to post up the arguement and get some peole to play devils advocate and see what the holes are... well the arguements been posted any one want to start the ball rolling........

 

[redsue]

count me in with this - I've added this in my signature to try and spread the word as I'm sure there are 1000's on this site who would join the fight

 

Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices - add your support here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html#post1633465

 

 

I HATE MBNA

Edited July 30, 2008 by redsue
spellin!

[citizenB]

 

 

I HATE MBNA

 

 

So do I

[star_scream]

This would seem to be a good idea, and I would certainly participate. May I also suggest that anyone who does write to the OFT also send a copy to their MP.

 

Done it earlier this year. MP's aren't interested. They refer you back to the FO This was from Kitty Usher, the sec for the treasury. All complaints of this type will be sent to her.

 

From her web site:

Kitty serves as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in Gordon Brown's new Government, meaning that she is responsible for matters involving banking and finance, and is also involved in taxation as it impacts on these areas. In addition, she advises on economic policy and works with other treasury ministers on the Comprehensive Spending Review and finance bills.

[star_scream]

But would it not be better to start a campaign against the financial institutions? The CRA's are only taking their word until proven wrong.

I would have thought it was better to hit the shysters that default us in the first place, abusing their power.