Pay Day Loans - damage to your future credit rating

[rodgerramjet]

This why I don't believe any PDL will remove the foot print. Sorry I just won't believe it till I see proof.

 

Don't mean to offend anyone

[citizenB]

This why I don't believe any PDL will remove the foot print. Sorry I just won't believe it till I see proof.

 

Don't mean to offend anyone

 

What did you say in your email to the company ?

 

You will see that orfoster is saying that their advertising was misleading. That they claim by taking out the loans and repaying them on time, it will improve your credit history, whereas the simple act of taking out one of these loans will imply that you have been desperate for money at some point and will only end up damaging your history.

 

If you have a look round the PDL forums, you will see that one person believed this advertising and in the hope of improving their score they took out a loan each month, repaying it on time. They have been refused a mortgage !

[Ocelot0411]

I have had it done. It can be done and there is no legal requirement to report to CRA's contractually it depends on what CRA and what level of membership they have. Also have a look at principals of reciprocacy and the 'overriding principles'.

[Tawnyowl]

I have had it done. It can be done and there is no legal requirement to report to CRA's contractually it depends on what CRA and what level of membership they have. Also have a look at principals of reciprocacy and the 'overriding principles'.

 

Lost me there for a while.A few links to explain.

What are the Principles of Reciprocity?

 

 

http://www.scoronline.co.uk/principles/

[orfoster]

And for those of you who like a read;

 

http://www.scoronline.co.uk/files/scor/por_version_34_(final)_march_2013.pdf

[orfoster]

This why I don't believe any PDL will remove the foot print. Sorry I just won't believe it till I see proof.

 

Don't mean to offend anyone

 

I have now had three companies remove the full footprint, Mr Lender, Quick Quid, Pounds to Pocket. All of the accounts were paid on time but yes I am arguing on the basis that they advertise it may/will/should (but will never) improve your credit file.

 

My response to wonga would be "show me how it would ever improve my credit status to a prospective lender? Given there is evidence out there that it won't!

 

Wonga still haven't replied, nor have PayDay UK.......it must be such a complicated complaint!

[orfoster]

If Wonga fail to respond I am mindful to take a claim on the basis of COBs for a breach of an implied term of contract. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?834-Fair-Treatment-for-Credit-Card-Holders-and-Borrowers&page=2#comments.

 

In that they should;

 

6 Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

7 Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

8 Conflicts of interesticon A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

 

I understand that according to the link I've posted this would be a course of action. I would probably only claim £100-£200 to keep the claim modest but the principle of breaching the above implied terms of contract.

[orfoster]

Action for damages....

 

It seems as though action for damages is available to the individual under Conduct of Business rules see here http://www.fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/COBS/Sch/5.

 

My question is which act are they referring to because I can't find a section 138D in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 nor in the CCA.....

 

And my other question is are they regarded as a "firm" in accordance with the rules?????

 

As you'll see the fair,misleading bit is right there so that is the way in which a claim would be brought.....

[rodgerramjet]

Can anyone post responses from any of the lenders stating that the foot print is to be removed.

 

Also the above links say nothing about having the foot print removed ?

 

My thoughts are that without proving it that people reading this thread are given misinformation

 

Not to much to ask

[rodgerramjet]

Having incorrect information removed I agree can be done I had information from my mortgage company changed two years ago when I complained to call credit that it was wrong

 

But sorry again unless I see proof I just simply can't believe they will remove the information which is factually correct

[orfoster]

Hi,

I do take offence to your post where effectively you are calling me a liar.

 

I would happily share with you the contents of the emails from the various lenders confirming the footprints have been removed however this would be edited in order to protect identity and therefore could have easily been created myself.

 

So far the three lenders I have mentioned previously have removed the footprints from my credit file.

[rodgerramjet]

I'd love it if you were right but I'm entitled to my opinion.

 

I've had loans with me lender and there's you mentioned repost a copy of your letter / email you sent I will send it word for word and if I get the foot print removed I will post an apology in capital letters on its own thread

 

I have my doubts that's all

[rodgerramjet]

Or pm one of the site admins with the details I'm sure you can trust them to keep your info secret and if they concur then ill believe it

[orfoster]

Quick quid response; (identical to Pounds to Pocket)

 

 

Thank you for you patience. I would like apologise for any delay in replying to your query.

 

As explained on the QuickQuidt website, loan repayment history is reported to Credit Reference Agency. If you take out a loan from QuickQuid and repay it on time, we will inform credit reference agency of your timely repayments, which should positively affect your credit score. Similarly, if you do not repay on time, this could have a negative impact on your credit score. However, each creditor is free to interpret the data on your credit file as they wish based on their lending criteria.

 

Because of any misunderstanding on credit reporting, as a gesture of customer goodwill, QuickQuid will remove the loan repayment history from our Credit Reference Agency as you requested. Please allow for processing time for your credit file to be amended.

[Ocelot0411]

I don't know why yoy are having such an issue with this rodgerramjet, orfoster is not on his (I assume) own here. I have had it done too. I am not prepared to put my credit file details on the internet to prove the point. If you don't believe us then just give up on it and leave your credit file as it is whilst orfoster and I will carry on getting the footprints off ours and oing our best to assist anyone else with the same issue.

 

In my own case the PDL in question (cashbob) simply emailed Experian, cc-ing me in telling them to remove the accounts. Next day - gone entirely. No arguments no fights just done. Wonga are being a real pain though and that looks like and Ombudsman / court job.

 

Orfoster - good work! With you all the way and keep it up.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed it does/has happened I too cannot see rogerramjets problems here as far as I have seen from the caggers concerned they ARE NOT LIARS.

[Ocelot0411]

Thanks Brig, appreciated.

 

Orfoster, section 138D is correct. The FSMA 2000 has been amended by the Financial Services Act 2012. Section 28 repeals the old section 150 (Actions for Damages) of the FSMA 2000 and replaces it with section 138D. The link below will take you to FSA 2012 which show the wording of the new 138D. No wonder you were having issues finding it though as FSMA 2000 hasn't get been updated on www.legislation.gov.uk.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/21/section/24#text%3D%22action%20for%20damages%22

 

Enjoy!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks Brig, appreciated.

 

Orfoster, section 138D is correct. The FSMA 2000 has been amended by the Financial Services Act 2012. Section 28 repeals the old section 150 (Actions for Damages) of the FSMA 2000 and replaces it with section 138D. The link below will take you to FSA 2012 which show the wording of the new 138D. No wonder you were having issues finding it though as FSMA 2000 hasn't get been updated on www.legislation.gov.uk.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/21/section/24#text%3D%22action%20for%20damages%22

 

Enjoy!

[Ocelot0411]

I aim to please......

[ims21]

rodgerramjet

 

It is entirely up to you whether you believe what is being said by orfoster or not. There is no requirement for any member to post unequivocal proof. Indeed many internet forums run on a basis of trust. Orfoster has been a member for some considerable time and I can find no historic evidence that their narratives are "iffy".

 

However, if orfoster wishes to provide information to me for verification then that is entirely a matter for them. My PM box is always open and I can provide an e-mail address to them if required. Hoever. If that offer is taken up (and there is no compulsion to do so) I will not be posting unredacted information in the open forum so you will be taking my word for the verification.

 

As I say, you can take the posts in the spirit they are meant or take the alternative and come to your own conclusions.

 

Continued badgering will not achieve anything apart from disharmony which serves no one.

[orfoster]

Thanks Brig, appreciated.

 

Orfoster, section 138D is correct. The FSMA 2000 has been amended by the Financial Services Act 2012. Section 28 repeals the old section 150 (Actions for Damages) of the FSMA 2000 and replaces it with section 138D. The link below will take you to FSA 2012 which show the wording of the new 138D. No wonder you were having issues finding it though as FSMA 2000 hasn't get been updated on www.legislation.gov.uk.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/21/section/24#text%3D%22action%20for%20damages%22

 

Enjoy!

 

EEEK! I've just issued a BCOBs claim in other thread against Lloyds using section 150!!!!

 

I've posted up their defence today, quite a confused defence by all accounts as they are suggesting I have no claim under UTCCRs but ummm I'm not claiming that..... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS&p=4317493&viewfull=1#post4317493

[orfoster]

Wonga are being a real pain though and that looks like and Ombudsman / court job.

 

I have been totally ignored by Wonga so far for my complaint raised on 31 July.

 

I have today sent them a LBA, I'll PM you the content.

 

O

[Ocelot0411]

Thanks for the Pm orfoster, as for Lloyds amend your particulars of claim ASAP.

[rodgerramjet]

I haven't called anyone a liar and if it comes across that way then so be it. As stated it was not my intention to offend anyone

 

I did back up my opinion with statements from companies regarding credit reporting, not sure why anyone would have such a problem with anything I've said.

 

And I did ask for a copy of the email he sent so I could use it as well

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The standard statement on 'credit reporting' are open to challenge on a number of fronts and these challenges have been and still are successful!

 

Research is the key!