Credit Reference Agencies - above the law?

[2Grumpy]

From what I have seen in these forums, the Credit Reference Agencies are regulated less than a sweet shop.

 

They have their procedures and rules, but they are their own procedures and rules.

 

They are there to serve the credit industry, to highlight risk. In some ways an important function.

 

But when the CRA holds incorrect information about you, just about the only law they break is the Data Protection Act - information must be accurate - and the information commissioner does nothing, he has no teeth. People are directed to the courts. TheCRA will let you supply a statement in mitigation of an entry - but that is it. They won't remove or change information unless the organisation that supplied the information asks them to.

 

The CRAs are the credit industry's suppliers. They are paid for providing credit references, so of course they don't want to upset their paymasters. They will want to hold as much as they can to make their company the best. So are they going to spend a lot of time trying to be fair?

 

In reality they are data processors. They are responsible for the accuracy of the data they hold - but how to enforce it?

 

Perhaps it's time that they were regulated in the same way and by the same organisations as credit providers and debt collection agencies - certainly not a voluntary code policed by themselves.

Unfortunately I don't see any government doing this, certainly not one that has just changed the law on bailiffs in the way that it has.

 

Maybe there are other laws that they are breaking. If some informaation is incorrect and they pass it on to a bank when you apply for credit, is that libel? Now that might lead to an interesting court case.

 

In the meantime, what can be dome to sort out your Credit Reference File?

 

I am not attempting to sort out my own credit file, but to discuss the situation in general

 

 

Grumpy Grumpy

 

For a real shock, look at what data Experian & Equifax say that they process & who they share data with.

 

Is everyone happy with all of this information being shared with this lot worldwide?

 

Grumpy

 

I've found this in the forums - very useful defaults-proposed-method-removal.

[sillygirl1]

The CRAs seem to me to have an 'open licence' to process data, whether true or not. I've tried getting inaccurate links broken and don't accept a 'Notice of Correction' is the right way to go - the link should NOT have existed in the first place and therefore should be permanently broken... Notices of Correction are their way of saying 'we think this person may still be lying but until proven otherwise we stand by our data'.

 

Does anyone else agree with the above?

[tomterm8]

 

Perhaps it's time that they were regulated in the same way and by the same organisations as credit providers and debt collection agencies - certainly not a voluntary code policed by themselves.

Unfortunately I don't see any government doing this, certainly not one that has just changed the law on bailiffs in the way that it has.

Grumpy Grumpy

 

Erm... you've heared of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, haven't you?

 

It's the one that requires Credit information agencies (the definition includes credit reference agencies) to be credit licence holders, licensed in the same way as credit providers, and subject to complaints to the Finanancial Ombudsman scheme, and which gives the OFT jurisdiction over credit information agencies.

[2Grumpy]

I think that it goes without saying from what I posted that I agree, but I will say it anyway.

 

There should be a simple way of getting these organisations to correct their data held about us without having to resort to the courts or wait for ages for the Information Commissioner to look at a complaint.

 

Did you ask for their complaints procedure? I have seen in another post that someone got their record updated after submitting a SAR - possibly a full £10 SAR rather than a £2 credit reference report.

 

I wonder if the CRAs hold more data about you than appears on your credit reference?

[Brassed off]

Hi 2 Grumpy

 

Don't know whether you've seen this yet:eek:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/107363-wescot-did-you-know.html

 

Apparently, Wescot are owned by Equifax;)

 

Bo

[2Grumpy]

Erm... you've heared of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, haven't you?

 

It's the one that requires Credit information agencies (the definition includes credit reference agencies) to be credit licence holders, licensed in the same way as credit providers, and subject to complaints to the Finanancial Ombudsman scheme, and which gives the OFT jurisdiction over credit information agencies.

 

Well, I've heard of the act before, but had no idea that these wonderfully useful organisations would be covered by it. Fortunately there was nothing behind me to trip me up when I stepped back in amazement.

 

Does that mean that after exhausting the inhouse complaints procedure you can report them to the OFT and then they get charged £400 for the privilege of having the complaint checked out, like a DCA, or is that something different?

 

Now that might concentrate their minds. There must be hundreds that could complain.

 

 

Grumpy

 

Hi 2 Grumpy

 

Don't know whether you've seen this yet:eek:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/107363-wescot-did-you-know.html

 

Apparently, Wescot are owned by Equifax;)

 

Bo

Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive. - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

 

But I'm sure that they aren't really trying to deceive;)

 

Grumpy

[tomterm8]

Well, I've heard of the act before, but had no idea that these wonderfully useful organisations would be covered by it. Fortunately there was nothing behind me to trip me up when I stepped back in amazement.

 

Does that mean that after exhausting the inhouse complaints procedure you can report them to the OFT and then they get charged £400 for the privilege of having the complaint checked out, like a DCA, or is that something different?

 

Now that might concentrate their minds. There must be hundreds that could complain.

 

 

Grumpy

 

the OFT does not charge them £400; it's the F.O.S. ... and, yes, AFAIK.

[2Grumpy]

the OFT does not charge them £400; it's the F.O.S. ... and, yes, AFAIK.

Ooohh - sounds like a plan for anyone with a real problem with them.

 

Sounds cheaper than taking them to court & probably more effective than the Information Commissioner - they might underdstand the credit laws!

 

I had thought that if they give the incorrect informatio on a credit reference to a bank etc then you could sue them for libel but that sounds risky, expensive & time consuming.

 

Grumpy

[2Grumpy]

Just thinking out loud

 

The Original Creditor can process your data because you have an account with them

Normally he cannot share this data (except with a subcontractor doing some of the work for him) unless the contract says that the data can be shared with a 3rd party.

 

If the contract (credit agreement) cannot be produced then the original creditor cannot prove that you gave consent for your information to be shared, so he shouldn't

and the Information Commissioner shouldn't have any trouble understanding that.

[Josie8]

surely cra's are supposed to be independent of debt collection agencies? I wonder if the OFT know they own Westcot?

[tomterm8]

Ooohh - sounds like a plan for anyone with a real problem with them.

 

Sounds cheaper than taking them to court & probably more effective than the Information Commissioner - they might underdstand the credit laws!

 

I had thought that if they give the incorrect informatio on a credit reference to a bank etc then you could sue them for libel but that sounds risky, expensive & time consuming.

 

Grumpy

 

Libel can only be pursued in the high court, and i would expect the costs involved to be prohibitive for most ordinary people.

[Belaflat]

Libel can only be pursued in the high court, and i would expect the costs involved to be prohibitive for most ordinary people.

 

Not only that but you may indeed win your case and find that the award does not cover your costs. Not entirely sure of the exact law but there are documented, high profile cases where the awards are derisory and leave the claimant well out of pocket. You know the sort, where everyone knows that the court has said legally you are right but the public perception is you have been stuffed for being a deceitful little toerag and the award bears that out.

 

Usually reserved for politicians, journalists and other highly popular and trustworthy professionals.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

Libel can only be pursued in the high court, and i would expect the costs involved to be prohibitive for most ordinary people.

 

Yes. If you could afford a libel case you probably wouldn't have a bad credit file in the first place.

[2Grumpy]

Sounds like the £400 per investigation from the FOS is the most cost effective way forwards then.

 

At the moment they appear to be getting away with their opinion that the bank is always right.

[phoebesmum]

Oh my God, they know more about me that I do!!!!!!!!