Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I really feel the following matter needs to be addressed and is just as important to hundreds of thousands of consumers as the bank charges case.
At the moment it is possible for creditors to add defaults to your credit file as they please even if it turns out they are breaking the data protection act in doing so. This can have severe financial consequences on the individual and is very often unjust. This is just not acceptable.
Although credit reference agencies allow you to raise a dispute, in doing so many consumers are met with responses such as, 'we have contacted the company in question and they have advised us the default is to stay on file'. Of course they will say this. What is wrong with this situation is that the CRA's do not even ask the creditor to provide them with proof that the default is legitimate. They simply say all their clients sign up to strict conditions and agree the information they provide to them will be legal and accurate. If this is the case when a consumer raises a dispute the CRA should then challenge the creditor and if it is found the creditor has abused the system like so many do then they should be held liable by the CRA's and legal action taken against them for breaking these conditions.
The ICO's own publication states,
41 Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.
Why is this not done by the credit agencies and why are the governing bodies who control them not making them follow these guidelines? Even if you are succesful in having defaults removed due to the fact they should never have been there, nothing is done against the creditor after causing you many months even years of stress.
As previously said i feel this is a matter that affects thousands of consumers and the CRA's need to take responsibilty for what information the process and offer just as much protection to the consumer as they do the creditors. Sadly at the moment this is not the case and many people including myself are suffering unjustly at the hands of these organisations.
There is one thing that puzzles me. Agreements (unless it has changed) ask you to tick a box agreeing to your details being sent to CRAs. There is nothing that says the CRAs can pass that information to another party, in other words, who has given these private companies (CRAs) permission to sell your data to someone else ie; a forth party.
Trading Standards wants your help
Dubious website businesses Conterfeit alcohol and cigarettes Illegal sales of alcohol, tobacco, knives & fireworks to children Cowboy builders or tradesmen Car clockers Counterfeiters Aggressive selling
Never phone or accept phonecalls from debt collection companies.
If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed.
_________________________ ________________ _________________________ ___________________
Campaign Against CRA's Enough is Enough
Reply With Quote
