...or stop using banks altogether.

EVEN in England? I would have thought that England was one of the most expensive tourist destinations these days ;-0

...and indeed they are. A quick perusal of the "who is online" link shows that they are mainly yahoo and google spiders.

This isn't the first time either. Remember a few years back when very similar things happened? I saw a HYS on the BBC a few weeks ago, asking if our government should boycott the games on the grounds of China's human rights history. I can't see how they can without looking like the hypocrytes that they are - allowing that sort of sh** to go on in full view of the whole world while moaning about the same from another country. Let's not forget the once Brown has been thrown out of power, he'll be making a mint from being on the board of companies who deal with Chinese companies. Which side is his bread buttered - in Brown's life, both.

If you don't not want to, then you must click it and pay money. If you do not want to buy it, then you must not click it.

In fact, there's a very interesting thread about it here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/29074-victory-last-against-cras.html

It's a means of 'opting out' of having your data used for 'automated decision making processes' - just like the banks/insurance etc... do when they check your credit 'file' with the CRAs. If everyone opted out and stated that their grounds for opting out were that the system is so very unfair and biased (e.g. default for £5 - get the same 'punishment' as someone defaulting for £50,000) , then they would be so overrun with having to do manual checks that the whole system would fall apart. THEN, we might actually begin to see a fairer system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of CRAs (or DCAs for that matter)! In fact, I don't understand why people use them. It's relatively easy to opt-out of using S12 of the Data Protection Act. ...now if we could only get about 20% of people to assert THAT right, then I think the CRAs (and their ridiculously unfair methods of working) would have their days numbered.

...as to checking your file - apparently, according to Which!, 1 in 4 of us have incorrect information held on our 'credit files' so to say that there is nothing you can do about your credit file is, IMO, not correct. When I last checked mine, there were incorrect entries. Let's face it - CRAs have about as much competence as the banks when it comes to personal data, so I would disagree and say that it DOES pay to know what is on there.

The "Attention" bit was for the April Fools joke. People bleated on about the chatroom being removed from here; as a courtesy I have allowed the link to the chatroom from another site. You will notice that the link ONLY links to the chatroom and nothing else. If I take it down I'll be slated, and if I leave it I'll be slated. As there are no adverts here and donations have dried up almost completely since the OFT case started, I don't think it unreasonable to link to a site with adverts on it rather than to host them here. The consumerhealthforums that are linked to from here also have advertisements on them. As to the point about the CRAs 'tipping off' the debt collection agencies - without your consent, this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, so I doubt that it happens that way. If it does, it's certainly not legal. To state the blindingly obvious: if you don't want to go and check your credit file, then don't click on the advert - in much the same was as if you don't want to buy 'CallBurner' for Skype, then don't click the link on the left of this forum.

Please fill in this survey: cidb.co.uk - Consumer Information Database The more people we have, the more ammunition we have against the DVLA. (p.s. The DVLA is under Government Agencies)

If posts of that nature are bought to my attention they will be removed immediately. I must say though, that given the thread titles it was pretty obvious what was going to be in those threads. Personally, after the first one I saw, I don't bother opening the threads any more and just delete them.

They're probably fed up with waiting weeks for the money to actually 'clear'.

Yes, me too - this is the only SO I (or rather my GF) have on the account. I am now reminded why I have it like that!

Brassed off - I know exactly where you are coming from - three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and the fact that if a bank employee says they will call you back, you will never hear from that person again. In fact, it's such a certainty, the I used to get them to say they would call me back when I no longer wanted to be called - it works every time. I swear that bank employees must be trained to be as incompetent as possible. The amount of cock ups that result in them holding on to your money for longer is far higher than averages would allow. ...if we had a choice of using or not using banking 'services', I think banks would be in a lot more trouble than they are now.

....why I hate them so.... Some of you who know me know that I do not have a bank account - at times this is quote difficult. Recently I set up a new website and the hosting company needed paying - the easiest way, they suggested, was by setting up a standing order for the initial amount and then cancelling the standing order. My girlfriend did this for me - I gave her the cash, she set up the standing order. We waited until it was paid out of the account (took 6 days to get to the hosting company), then phoned to cancel it. She was told that they couldn't do that over the phone. So....she went on-line to do it. She successfully cancelled it and that, we thought, was the end of that. ...until today of course, when she checked her balance and tada!!! the standing order wasn't cancelled at all. It seems that every time I have any dealings with any bank, they will cock it up somehow. How have we allowed ourselves to become so reliant on such a sub-standard level of service, from such a low sector of society. I would say it's incredible, but sadly I predicted this from the moment I knew I had to use a bank for something.

I am still to receive your email/pm sammyb2005 as per the forum rules.

I will complain. The person I want won't get in even if I do vote - there is no choice. As there is no 'none of the above' box, the next best thing is a spoiled vote. I remember all too well just how badly the Tories faired when the power went to their heads 16,17% interest rate, record repossesions, deliberate running down of the NHS etc... I am living the nightmare of this government at the moment. Which to choose from? Errr....neither. Both will fill their own coffers and create "jobs for the boys" - I can see no advantage to voting this lot out, or the other lot in. By spoiling my vote, it is a counted vote - if the number of spoiled votes outnumbers the *real* votes, then I think this sends a very powerful message.

Couldn't afford the deposit.

...and that's the thing that suprised me - it was never bought up. Most people who are 'anti' getting your charges back say "don't spend money you haven't got". That argument fall to bits when faced with this.

It is interesting isn't it?

...of course, the third option would be to walk away and ignore them. Not very much will come of it, apart from the added bonus to you of not being able to borrow any more money from legalised loan sharks by way of buggering up your "credit score" with a few privately run limited companies. It's the option I personally favour to be honest. ...and as for the Banking Joke - sorry Code; it's voluntary and there are no penalties for breaching it. Hmmmmm...plus the banks haven't even got a copy, or keep their staff trained up with regards to it's contents. I think that maybe, just maybe, the Banking Code is simply a PR excercise....maybe?

Lol - nope, it's been standing in the same place since 1720, so I think it's quite a permanent fixture!

...or Frostwire. No spyware - and as it's writen in Java it will run on Windows or Linux.

That's the problem though - we have a two horse race (and have had since the 30s). Our choices are to replace the self-serving parasites with yet another bunch of self-serving parasites. Which way to go? None of the above - I'll be spoiling my vote.