Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[finlander]

Good Idea....

[MARTIN3030]

Agree with that,and so done.

[citizenB]

[finlander]

So how does a 'block complaint' work.... what do we need to do?

[tifo]

good idea finlander ...

after the posts by car--- on your 'experian' thread i was thinking the same thing.

[thecteam]

i think we should include the comment about the we cant check every file we get sent the one i got from callcredit.

[MARTIN3030]

Its basically to get around the policy that they have in not dealing with specific individual complaints.I have hears it also desribed as a mass protest.Of course it needs to be co ordinated by a voice they will listen to and appreciate have some substance.I am not completely sure if initially it would need to go to Consumer direct-who would THEN pass it over to the OFT.I was previously told this last year so we would need to check on that first before sending.
The mainframe of the submission would be the complaint itself-which as said before would need to be factually correct,and detail the criteria with which the complaint would be based-including reference to any points of law or regulatory guidance that was being breached.Additionally any other information that could justify why it should be looked at seriously.Many of these have been voiced here already.
Insofar as providing supporting evidence there are various ways which it could be done.Either inform them that there are xxx amount of cases/real victims (in that scenario we would need to have a list to make available should they request it)
Alternatively send the list as part of the submission to them.The logistics and data protection issues etc would need to be looked at beforehand.
As I am aware.other team members are looking into how best we can do this effectively.
In the absence of nothing yet having been decided conclusively,I am not in a position to say how exactly we can proceed since rightly,it has to be looked at and discussed properly with all options on the table,and with the rest of the team involved.
I think the other team members will say more on it as its further looked at.In the meantime it gives the chance for others to join in and give it more support.



Its also been mentioned that this should be a stickie in the CRA forum within the debt sub forums.

[thecteam]

i dont mean it to be used souly for me. it is a complete worry the statement they made. here it is

2008-07-24 09:39:52As we process over 100 million personal data items each month, we believe it would constitute a disproportionate effort on our part to have to check the validity of each data item against contracted terms and conditions. We can assure you that we take our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 and all other relevant regulations very seriously

[finlander]

Thanks martin it's nice tohear we are in capable hands. I really hope we can make something big of this as in my humble view we have been scr*wed for to long.... Power to the people and all that sort of thing........

[finlander]

2008-07-24 09:39:52As we process over 100 million personal data items each month, we believe it would constitute a disproportionate effort on our part to have to check the validity of each data item against contracted terms and conditions. We can assure you that we take our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 and all other relevant regulations very seriously

In that case employ more staff or go and do something else for a living...i can't see the 'Its alright to ruin people lives because we are just to busy to check' defence working very well either to the OFT or in the defamation action I propose to take on the linked thread....

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 Subject Access Request 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 Subject Access Request 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 Subject Access Request 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]

Originally Posted by finlander

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"