challenging the CRA's-have we all missed something?

[lickthewallfatboy]

also,on what grounds does a CRA have the right to process your data on the sole basis of an application form-especially if the application goes no further

 

an application form is not a contract

[mr.ton]

Just moving this thread on slightly....is it actually possible to live your life without credit of any sort whatsoever?

If this was possible then the whole system would crumble coz people wouldnt have a need for credit anymore.

Kraken is right as well - having a clean credit file can be just as bad as having an adverse one.

[lickthewallfatboy]

apart from a mortgage.I would say "yes"

 

you have to rejig your life and priorities,but we're doing not so bad

 

if we want something,we buy it when we have the cash-we don't have credit cards.....

 

but let's keep the focus on the CRA's here.....this is too important to let slip

[havinastella]

Subbing.....

 

and offering my services as well.

 

I apparently had a monument card, but have no knowledge of this account.

 

Cabot have brought it but have no CCA (they wouldn't as I have never had the account)

 

They still supply infomation to the CRA every month as defaulted.

 

I'm willing to start a case against the CRA or maybe if we can find enough people with the same problem, we could look at a class action.

 

JOgs

[Debtcontrol]

Man, this is interesting.

 

I am particularly fascinated with the whole 6 year thing V DCA putting on fresh default notices.

 

I checked my credit file 2 weeks ago, shortly after finding this wonderful site. Of my (alleged) outstanding accounts, that all defaulted in 2003/early 2004, 1 DCA has put a fresh default notice on my file.

Appears on my credit file as - Defaulted On: 02/06/2006

 

I particularly think this is unfair.

[Debtcontrol]

Subbing.....

 

and offering my services as well.

 

I apparently had a monument card, but have no knowledge of this account.

 

Cabot have brought it but have no CCA (they wouldn't as I have never had the account)

 

They still supply infomation to the CRA every month as defaulted.

 

I'm willing to start a case against the CRA or maybe if we can find enough people with the same problem, we could look at a class action.

 

JOgs

 

I'm up for that.

[vint1954]

 

With regard to unenforceable agreements, these are unenforceable, they do not cease to exist. this means that the cras can record the fact that a transaction existed and that you received money from xyz ltd. the fact that it can't be legally recovered against you does not mean that the transaction (be it gift or otherwise) does not exist. A cra's files contain lots of information about your financial situation, and does not just record bad information, as my example above demonstrates.

 

But it is a different matter if the agreement does not exist.

 

I still think that we need to find out more regarding pre and post contract situation. Those so called agreements that exist for credit cards, are usually only pre contract.

[vint1954]

Man, this is interesting.

 

I am particularly fascinated with the whole 6 year thing V DCA putting on fresh default notices.

 

I checked my credit file 2 weeks ago, shortly after finding this wonderful site. Of my (alleged) outstanding accounts, that all defaulted in 2003/early 2004, 1 DCA has put a fresh default notice on my file.

Appears on my credit file as - Defaulted On: 02/06/2006

 

I particularly think this is unfair.

I understood it to be one default per debt?

 

Should hopefully be 3 years when we come in line with europe.

 

Anything in the europe angle???????????????? ( European Law )

[Debtcontrol]

I understood it to be one default per debt?

 

Should hopefully be 3 years when we come in line with europe.

 

Anything in the europe angle???????????????? ( European Law )

 

 

Ah sorry, to clarify - not a NEW default, just updated the date of default. Bumped it by at about 3 years.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Kraken1]

a gift in law is a gift-not credit.If I give you £100 strictly as a gift,does it then become a loan just because I say so?

if it is not a loan,it is not credit,and The Law Lords basically stated this to be the case.And if it's not credit,a CRA should have no part in dealing with your data whatsoever

 

See the argument, but CRAs are there to allow lenders to access information on a person to determine whether they are a good risk or not, they don't only record information on debts or credit, but your name, address, linked addresses, etc. Generally a whole host of information to determine your credit risk.

 

Whist in law it might be the case that a wad of cash was 'gifted' to you, in fact this is not the case. Lloyds don't do this (although I do have a story about that for another time) and so another lender might feel justified in judging your risk on the basis of the 'gifts' that you have received.

 

But it is a different matter if the agreement does not exist.

 

Agreed, so if there was no agreement, and no gift, and no money given to you, then you should be off it. Often there is an unenforceable agreement and an audit trail to show you had the cash.

[cashins]

Errr...they can't actually do that, you cannot default a defaulted account.

 

David

[lickthewallfatboy]

they're not allowed to do that either

 

if there was an enforceable agreement and a DCA bought the debt(which I think needs outlawing)the original default should have been removed and replaced with one for the original date in the name of the DCA

 

this new one must be removed

[Debtcontrol]

Errr...they can't actually do that, you cannot default a defaulted account.

 

David

 

they're not allowed to do that either

 

if there was an enforceable agreement and a DCA bought the debt(which I think needs outlawing)the original default should have been removed and replaced with one for the original date in the name of the DCA

 

this new one must be removed

 

Hello, Thanks for the replies - I am currently in the process of requesting the CCA (12+2 have passed so acount is in dispute), my aim is to get to the CRA and have the updated date removed as soon as I have something concrete to back it up.

[lickthewallfatboy]

See the argument, but CRAs are there to allow lenders to access information on a person to determine whether they are a good risk or not, they don't only record information on debts or credit, but your name, address, linked addresses, etc. Generally a whole host of information to determine your credit risk.

 

yes-but no-one seems to be able to produce legislation which specifically permits this to happen

 

Whist in law it might be the case that a wad of cash was 'gifted' to you, in fact this is not the case. Lloyds don't do this (although I do have a story about that for another time) and so another lender might feel justified in judging your risk on the basis of the 'gifts' that you have received.

 

 

if it was a "gift" they have no basis on which to judge anything-a gift has no need to be repaid,so there is no conduct on which to judge anything

 

Agreed, so if there was no agreement, and no gift, and no money given to you, then you should be off it.

 

on that we are in 100% agreement

[Blondmusic]

they're not allowed to do that either

 

if there was an enforceable agreement and a DCA bought the debt(which I think needs outlawing)the original default should have been removed and replaced with one for the original date in the name of the DCA

 

this new one must be removed

 

I totally agree with that. I have 2 defaults for the same debt. 1 with the mobile phone operator '3' and a second default dated this April from Lowell (when i stopped paying them cos they can't prove i owe anything). I have wrote to '3' today asking them to remove the default.

[Patma]

Fascinating thread. It's definitely time the CRAs were sorted out.

I'll join in with the research too.

[lickthewallfatboy]

we could do with an insider to blow the whistle on these guys......

[mr.ton]

We need a dispatches type reporter to go undercover in the CRA's

[dpick]

Just my own view on this if no agreement exists then there is no agreed payment date to apply late payment marker on and no agreement to default, I did manage to get OC to remove these as part of settlement but that did also include miss-sold PPI so their figures used on payment and default were screwed.

 

dpick

[vint1954]

mmmmmmm.

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

 

Sections 32, 41-44, 52-54

[lickthewallfatboy]

looking around the web,it appears people have very little faith in the ICO's willingness to face down the CRA's

 

it looks like legal action may be the only option

[vint1954]

looking around the web,it appears people have very little faith in the ICO's willingness to face down the CRA's

 

it looks like legal action may be the only option

 

I fear so. They are toothless at the end of the day, thanking the credit industry for their input?

[Falkirk1298]

 

Snip

 

Agreed, so if there was no agreement, and no gift, and no money given to you, then you should be off it. Often there is an unenforceable agreement and an audit trail to show you had the cash.

 

Agreed up to a point, which is how much weight will that paper trail bear without an agreement at the bottom of it? It could certainly prove a transaction took place but it could only indicate the nature of that transaction, and would only imply your permission to process your data. Is that sufficient to allow either the OC, DCA or CRA to continue processing?

[lickthewallfatboy]

and that implied permission is actually "enforced permission"

 

nor CRA involvement,no credit for you......

[Kraken1]

Agreed up to a point, which is how much weight will that paper trail bear without an agreement at the bottom of it? It could certainly prove a transaction took place but it could only indicate the nature of that transaction, and would only imply your permission to process your data. Is that sufficient to allow either the OC, DCA or CRA to continue processing?

 

Tiz a quandary, no messing. Although this would only apply to completely absent agreements, not those that are knocking around but simply unenforceable due to prescribed terms missing or similar.

 

takes me back to my earlier point - an opt out would be easier, although I think that would run the risk of creative a societal divide which might be a bad thing™. Still, it would be the individual's choice.