Defamatory credit reporting

[pocster]

Hi,

 

Not sure if this is the correct forum but here goes

Has anyone ever managed to take a company to small claims court for incorrect credit reporting? (even though you suffered no direct financial loss, just 'distress') (Section 13 of the data protection act I believe)

 

thanks

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A little more detail please.

I have compensation paid by DCA's for problems only threatened court, never had to resort to

hearing.

[pocster]

Hi,

 

Well basically I have a long running dispute with GE. It's very complex. But essentially I started making payments to them in Feb 2011. They accepted the payments; and I recorded the telephone conversation (as they don't!), confirming that my payments were satisfactory as a minimum payment per month. recently I found out that since from before Feb they have been crippling my credit rating as non or insufficient payment. This is ongoing until present and has destroyed my credit rating. Today actually I received a letter from them stating they would get my credit record amended to show just 'query' (due to the on going dispute).

It seems clear to me that I made the required minimum payment since Feb 2011, they were happy with it and yet still cripple my credit rating.

Just on the sole point of defamatory credit rating should I pursue in court?

Hope that's enough basic info.

 

thanks

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I believe they are obliged to show the actual conduct of the account, I doubt that ot make any difference to

contest, the Q entry is better.

[pocster]

Hi again,

 

Sorry, you've lost me. The fact they cripple my account with no reason (presumably to punish me for the on-going dispute), means I have no grounds for compensation?

I thought under the data protection act data recorded had to be accurate. There reporting has been wrong.

Are you saying I have no case then???

 

thanks

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, If all they are posting is the fact that your are making reduced payment, they are as said properly reporting the conduct

of the account, which is what should happen, so that potential lenders/credit providers can assess your credit worthiness.

IMHO that is not defamation.

As many Caggers will no I have taken the CRA's and others to task many times of such matters and have no particular

fondness for a lot of what they do.

[pocster]

Hi,

 

Well it's much more complex than that. So here goes a bit more

I owe them some money, the amount and the terms etc. are *all* in dispute.

I offered a monthly amount which they accepted. Again, they verbally (as recorded) accept this minimum amount. Therefore I am making the monthly payment required. The fact there is an out standing balance cannot be an issue; they have been paid an agreed monthly payment. By accepting this surely they cannot cripple my rating for low payment/no payment when I have made the agreed payment?

i.e. they are incorrectly deliberately reporting defamatory on my credit rating.

Is this not so?

I know they are doing this to punish me. I have written to them 26 times and had 140+ phone calls. So like many people on these forums we all know their back handed games.

If they do not report accurate and correct information on my credit rating then they have broken the law, surely?

I'm gonna kick these (won't swear!); they punished me for 2 years so now it's time to kick them.

 

Cheers

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi I understand what you are getting at but I honestly thing you will be hard pressed to make a case for defamation,

realise this is a mutually agreed payment plan which is an amendment to your account, and this is what is being reported,

which is why I believe the Query marker is a better entry, you can also get the CRA's to add a notice of dispute to your file.

Which will read somewhat like The information has been disputed by XXXX and lenders should be aware of this when taking any

decisions.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Also I would not like to think of you going to litigation and maybe getting lumbered with costs.

[pocster]

Hmmm, I see.

Well I was thinking of small claims court to keep costs down.

But I still don't get it. If we agree a payment and I pay it you can't then cripple my credit rating (if you do, on what grounds???).

Also, I found about about this on my credit report by accident. GE wrote a letter saying that "To whom it may concern... ignore this entry"; even my own bank (who I have been with for 20+ yrs) would not give me a loan with this "helpful" letter. So I am assuming even a "query" still taints my report and potentially could cause issues.

 

Cheers

[The Debt Star]

pocs, nothing about the present system is fair or logical. that is why the CRAs need to be regulated, in the same way that utility companies, insurance companies, lenders etc are regulated.

 

if we all stopped borrowing and started living within our means like the old timers used to then the CRAs would be out of business tomorrow. I know its impossible in this day and age as things are more expensive now than in the pre-CRA days but it makes you think.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The ''problem'' is that the information post is factual as to the management of the account , unfair maybe,

defamatory I think hard to prove, as to crippling your credit file the hard fact is that the cred tor/CRA

has to report the actually conduct of the account.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi DS,

As I see pocsters case the CRA is osting the correct information for once the creditor is

acting as required on the conduct of the account.

I totally agree with your view above we are all responsible in some way for what occurs, and

will have to take the consequences.

[pocster]

I'm still lost!

I have an agreement to pay xx a month and I pay it then I have done nothing wrong therefore my credit rating should show that. If I miss a payment or under pay then yes it should be reflected on my report.

I know the system isn't fair, and ... well, you should read/listen to the blatant lies/mis-information GE have given. It truly is criminal - I really can't give all the detail and explain the case here though; not enough character space in the reply box.

My point is. How can it be 'ok' to cripple a credit report when the minimum payments are being met?. I did briefly check with a solicitor on another site and he did suggest there was a case here under section 13 of the data protection act. As for the conduct of the account; payments were made. Am I missing some point here???

Yes, the CRA reported what they were told; but GE have NOT told them minimum payments were met. My beef isn't with the CRA (though they are spineless); my issue is with GE for giving incorrect information deliberately when they should not of.

 

Cheers

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It basically no you have not done anything wrong I agree, but the point is that what you

are doing is a reduced payment by agreement and not the normal minimum payment which would be around 5%

of the outstanding balance.

[pocster]

Ok more info.

I have many letters saying I owe GE (amongst other things) 4K from their collections department. They kept sending these letters; even when we agreed I don't owe them 4K. I have a letter from the 'resolutions dispute team'(sic) saying I don't owe 4K. But because the collections department 'deal' with the account they see a 'non-payment' and therefore cripple my credit rating. On that basis my maths indicates 4k(supposedly owed) minus 4K(not owed) = 0.

If one department does not(cannot!) communicate with another and the customer gets hit with a stick anyway then GE have an internal problem then my credit rating should not be effected by their gross miss-conduct.

Also, this isn't a 'loan' or a 'credit card' it's actually a shortfall on a property sale - also in writing (after 6 months of arguing) we have *agreed* interest is 0% on the balance. Therefore any monthly repayment is capital only.

I am going slightly off topic, as my one issue for small claims was the defamatory credit reporting.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

1. Has an order to pay a certain amount monthly been made by a court,

and has a variation been made to any judgement in regards to the amount to be paid.

[pocster]

Hi,

 

No. I offered the amount, they agreed verbally (I recorded the conversation). The 0% is agreed in writing. No court action yet.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi again pocster,

Being of a naturally suspicious nature if I was in your situation I would want the agreement to

be put into writing,informal (verbal)agreements can cause a hell of a lot of problems

I realise you have recorded the calls but the absence of a paper trail would worry me.

I can only suggest complaining formally to GE about the reporting but feel they will say

they have done no wrong, take this as far as you can,get a final response on this matter

alone, then if this response is considered inaccurate complain to FOS, this is the rock and a hard place situation.

[pocster]

Yeah. They seem to like only putting things in writing *they* like. Word it kind of "woolly" and then change the meaning later.

I know exactly what you mean, and I trust them 0. They are trying to stitch me anyway - they even told the FoS that this case was outside FoS jurisdiction!!!, why would they do that?, don't want FoS to look perhaps?? - wish I could swear here but won't

I think I shall wait and see what FoS say. If (as I suspect) we resolve the matter but leave the credit rating untouched (as though it's insignificant) then I will pursue GE through court on this one point.

I know they are shutting the hatches down because their last letter states they refuse to have verbal contact with me and also they accept no liability for the other issues.

They are shutting up shop, just hope FoS isn't as weak and powerless as they seem.

Still, I have played GE at their own game (on other issues) and some of their 'legalities' are very very dubious and aren't worth a lot in court. I have got a right beaut, but can't say until FoS determine the outcome.

If all is ok, I shall post it up here to aid others and hope GE read these forums also.

Fight till the bloody bitter end until everyone of the opponents army is dead ))

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If I can help or advise any more please post up.

Brig.

[sequenci]

If you have deviated from the original terms & conditions as per the credit agreement the creditor would be able to process information on your credit file to demonstrate that. It's not going to be defamatory as the information being published should reflect a true situation.

 

I certainly do agree for calls to regulate the agencies, however.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi sequenci,

What concerned me is this an informal (verbal) recorded agreement to repay a shortfall on

a house sale, there is it seems no paper trail on this arrangement,I agree that the variation

in payments must be reported on CRA files and is not defamatory,I can suggest no more,

can you?

[sequenci]

Just skimmed through the post and couldn't see the answer I'm looking for; was it a repossession?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Never been mentioned, just the sale and shortfall.