Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[finlander]

Can you look at my thread below.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/148780-experian-final-battle-commences.html

 

I think we may have hit upon a way to go after the CRA's. My proposal is to set up a sticky on the main page and get as many members as possible to send in a pre-formated letter of complaint to the OFT regarding the abuse of deafult notices. If we can get a large amount sent in it may consitute a mass complaint and get them acting.(the more the merrier) and get an ivestigation without an expensive court case.

 

A letter something like this...

 

Dear Sir/ Madam.

This letter is being sent to you as an official complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax and Callcredit in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The complaint also encompasses those companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The complaint relates not to these companies handling of consumer data but to the uses that this data is put.

In particular I am concerned that ‘default’ markers on consumers accounts are being abused and used by these companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice, OFT guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998

Currently a default marker is put onto a persons account after a default notice has been sent to them. The issue of these notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to enforcement action through the County Courts. In effect they are a means to an end. They are a temp marker to allow other lenders to see that legal action is pending on an account. If the legal action is successful they are replaced by a County Court Judgement which is on view for 6 years. However it is apparent to me that these markers are being used when no enforcement action is been taken or has a prospect of being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending legal action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these markers wishes to challenge these markers they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and would have take legal action against the agency to have the marker removed. This can be both to expensive and stressful for most people.

The marker if placed on a record lasts for 6 years and has the same effect as a County Court Judgement. This affects a persons ability to gain credit, housing (landlord checks) and in some cases their ability to gain employment.

This seems to be an attempt by the Agencies and their clients to bypass the courts system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine disputes.

I would request as a taxpayer and concerned consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I would be interested to know, and I am sure you would as well, how many of the millions of default markers issued over the last 6 years what percentage have resulted in any enforcement action being taken in court.

As a public body you have a duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now

Yours truly,

any thoughts? :-?

[rippedoffagain]

This would seem to be a good idea, and I would certainly participate. May I also suggest that anyone who does write to the OFT also send a copy to their MP.

[finlander]

excellent idea

[Hobbie]

Very good idea, I'll join in and send a letter, no problems about that.

[finlander]

I recently challenged my council tax band... intresting that...it took 4 months. Why? because everyone was doing it after Martin lewis's program on it. Thats what the council said. If we could get the same amount of letters sent to the OFT then that may get them to act...... it's worth a try

[babybear39]

Count me in...It's a few letters and may just make a difference

[sosumi]

Count me in!!

[finlander]

Pending a decision on if we can get this thread a stcky if you are gonna send the letter or a letter just let me know here. Lets see how many we get.

 

let anyone else on here know if you can and give them the thread link. If we can get 2000 or so in the next month I think it may cause a stir...

I will be back on my other thread now (the one above)

....

[thecteam]

im in for the longhaul. im sending this letter to the OFT nad one to my Local MP

will be sending 2 one from me one from the wife. will put a pile of letters in my shop for customers to send off.

Edited July 27, 2008 by thecteam

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

I'll ask the site team members to have a look.

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[finlander]

Cheers Scott

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Finlander!

 

I'm up for this, count me in.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pt2537]

just one fly in the ointment

 

the Human Rights Act 1998 does not give a right to an effective remedy, the Government left that clause out on purpose as they did not want the courts to have absolute power in deciding matters

 

apart from that the letter looks ok

[MARTIN3030]

In principle looks ok.We could also do a block complaint which could be substantiated by individual cases should they request it.

The letter needs a little tidying.

Elsewhere on another thread it was asked who regulates CRAs.....the fact is that no one does and they operate as businesses with no specific criteria given to them under stat law.All the more reasons why they should be taken on-given that they will continue to play to their own rules until they are taken to task.

[finlander]

cool...I shall redraft and post below........

[finlander]

Dear Sir/ Madam.

 

This letter is being sent to you as an official complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax and Callcredit in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The complaint also encompasses those companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The complaint relates not to these companies handling of consumer data but to the uses that this data is put.

 

In particular I am concerned that ‘default’ markers on consumers accounts are being abused and used by these companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice, OFT guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998

 

Currently a default marker is put onto a persons account after a default notice has been sent to them. The issue of these notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to enforcement action through the County Courts. In effect they are a means to an end. They are a temp marker to allow other lenders to see that legal action is pending on an account. If the legal action is successful they are replaced by a County Court Judgement which is on view for 6 years. However it is apparent to me that these markers are being used when no enforcement action is been taken or has a prospect of being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending legal action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these markers wishes to challenge these markers they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and would have take legal action against the agency to have the marker removed. This can be both to expensive and stressful for most people.

 

The marker if placed on a record lasts for 6 years and has the same effect as a County Court Judgement. This affects a persons ability to gain credit, housing (landlord checks) and in some cases their ability to gain employment.

 

This seems to be an attempt by the Agencies and their clients to bypass the courts system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine disputes.

 

I would request as a taxpayer and concerned consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I would be interested to know, and I am sure you would as well, how many of the millions of default markers issued over the last 6 years what percentage have resulted in any enforcement action being taken in court.

 

As a public body you have a duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now

 

 

Yours truly,

Effective remedy gone........

[finlander]

Martin... that all sounds great to me... As far as I can see..and believe me I have troied to think of every arguement.. unless the default marker is a temp marker it must be completely indefenceable to use it in the way it has been for so long.

 

No other industry, government body or institution has this power to destroy someones reputation without any recourse. I think a block complaint is a great idea and perhaps it is time we took the CRA's well out of there comfort zone.

[MARTIN3030]

I would just like to clarify the points made by Paul which are correct.

This topic has been the subject of much debate in the past on these forums.I will have a look at some Archive stuff that I think may also be useful to consider.

[gill5blue]

HI All

very interesting I shall join too

gill5blue

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Finlander!

 

Just a tweak of your Letter, feel free to ignore, dump or use any of the changes. Just trying to help get it into a hard hitting format that can be Printed Off by all Caggers and sent.

 

This is not intended to be a criticism! I welcome anyone to pull this apart and add whatever comments they feel are needed. My grammar is not perfect. I have used Capitals in places just for better effect, as this is intended to be a hard hitting Notice, rather than a standard Letter where normal rules of Grammar would apply. Think "Poster" rather than "Letter" in effect.

 

Dear Sir/ Madam.

 

This letter is being sent to you as an Official Complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax Plc and Callcredit Ltd in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint also encompasses those Companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint relates not to the handling of Consumers Data but to the uses that this Data is managed.

 

In particular, I am concerned that ‘Default’ markers on Consumer Accounts are being abused and manipulated by these Companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate Disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice,(please tell what is natural justice ?) the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998.(see Pauls post )

 

Currently, a Default marker is put onto a Consumer's Account after a Default Notice has been sent to them. The issue of these Notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These Defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to Enforcement Action through the County Courts. In effect, they are a means to an end.

 

In the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Parliament clearly intended these Defaults to be a temporary marker to allow other lenders to see that Legal Action is pending on an Account. If the Legal Action is successful then it was intended that the Default should be replaced by a County Court Judgement which is then on view for 6 years. However, it is apparant to me that these Default markers are being used when no Enforcement Action is being taken or has any likelyhood of being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

 

This is not how they were devised to be used.

 

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending Legal Action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against Consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these Defaults wishes to challenge these markers, then they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected (they will argue that they rely on information supplied by the creditor )and, utimately, can only seek redress by taking Legal Action themselves to have the marker removed. This is invariably too expensive and too stressful for almost all Consumers.

 

A Default marker, once placed on record, lasts for at least 6 years. Thus, the Default has exactly the same negative effect as a County Court Judgement,(not exactly) and yet requires neither a Court nor a Judgement.(same thing) This Adverse Data affects a Consumer's ability to gain Credit, Housing (Landlord Credit Checks) and, in some cases, their ability to gain employment (Employer Credit Checks).

 

This can be interpretated as an attempt by the Credit Reference Agencies and their clients to bypass the Court system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine Disputes. In turn, the threat of a Default is also being used as a tool to try and deter those wishing to raise or discuss genuine Disputes.

 

I would request as a Taxpayer and concerned Consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I suggest that it would be productive to investigate what percentage of the millions of Default markers issued over the last 6 years, have actually resulted in any Enforcement action being taken in Court.

 

I feel that as a public body, you have a Duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now.(again see Pauls post)

 

 

Updated 28/07/2008 00:06:

 

Many thanks MARTIN3030. All good points to discuss, and thanks for corrections (wish CAG had a spell check)!

 

WRT the: "requires neither a Court nor a Judgement"...I was trying a play on the County Court Judgement, i.e. to spell out that they are lumbering people without going to Court and without letting a Judge make a Judgement. If it doesn't read like that, then by all means pull it out.

 

Might be an idea to use Bullet Points perhaps?

 

I'm fuming about this because:

 

• It's just not English.
  
• I hate banks.
  
• No, I really hate banks
  

 

Then perhaps we can discuss the Bullet Points until we have a good hard hitting set, and then re-draft back into a Letter?

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited July 27, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
still needs work but heres some adds

[finlander]

;)p Lease Do Correct...lets Get This Right And Hit The Oft With A Flood Of These:d

[andrew1]

Count me in

[andrew1]

Just a bit of nit picking:

 

 

Dear Sir/ Madam.

 

This letter is being sent to you as an Official Complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax Plc and Callcredit Ltd in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint also encompasses those Companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint relates not to the handling of Consumer Data but to the uses that this Data is put.

 

In particular, I am concerned that ‘Default’ markers on Consumer Accounts are being abused and manipulated by these Companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate Disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice, the Office of Fair Tarding (OFT) guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Currently, a Default marker is put onto a Consumer's Account after a Default Notice has been sent to them. The issue of these Notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These Defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to Enforcement Action through the County Courts. In effect, they are a means to an end.

 

In the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Parliament clearly intended these Defaults to be a temporary marker to allow other lenders to see that Legal Action is pending on an Account. If the Legal Action is successful then it was intended that the Default should be replaced by a County Court Judgement which is then on view for 6 years. However, it is apparent to me that these Default markers are being used when no Enforcement Action is been taken or has any prospect of being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

 

This is not how they are supposed to be used.

 

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending Legal Action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against Consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these Defaults wishes to challenge these markers, then they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and, utimately, can only seek redress by taking Legal Action themselves to have the marker removed. This is invariably too expensive and too stressful for almost all Consumers.

 

A Default marker, once placed on record, lasts for at least 6 years. Thus, the Default has exactly the same negative effect as a County Court Judgement, and yet requires neither a Court nor a Judgement. This Adverse Data affects a Consumer's ability to gain Credit, Housing (Landlord Credit Checks) and, in some cases, their ability to gain employment (Employer Credit Checks).

 

This seems to be an attempt by the Credit Reference Agencies and their clients to bypass the Court system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine Disputes. In turn, the threat of a Default is also being used as a tool to try and deter those wishing to raise or discuss genuine Disputes.

 

I would request as a Taxpayer and concerned Consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I suggest that it would be productive to invetigate what percentage of the millions of Default markers issued over the last 6 years, have actually resulted in any Enforcement action being taken in Court.

 

I feel that as a public body, you have a Duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now.

 

 

 

Sarah

[MARTIN3030]

??????? Have I got my dates wrong-I thought April fools day had gone!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Finlander!

 

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps rather than us re-drafting your Letter, it may be better to break this down into the Key Points first.

 

Perhaps by way of a numbered or bullet point list. Then we can discuss each one to death and, when each is thrashed out and cyrstal clear with no flaws, then it can be re-assembled into a knock out Letter.

 

IOW, initially cut it down to the bones, and then put the flesh back on it when we have the basic structure flawless.

 

As always, this is just a suggestion.

 

Cheers,

BRW