Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Experian "misselling" of ID theft insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3546 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Money Mail today raises concerns that customers of Britain’s biggest credit agency Experian have been paying for years for insurance they did not know they could avoid.

 

The organisation, which guards customers’ credit record details, has been signing up people to the low-cost cover as part of a membership package.

 

The Experian ID protection policy is bundled in with the £14.99 monthly membership for its Credit Expert service, which allows users to check their credit file.

 

The insurance deal, which covers expenses if your identity is stolen, is about £6 of the monthly cost.

 

The rest of the package allows you to manage your credit report and check your score when applying for cards or loans.

 

Money Mail has been contacted by people who signed up to Credit Expert, but did not realise they could opt out of the insurance and keep the rest of their perks.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2627599/Experians-6-month-cover-dont-admit-DONT-need.html

 

 

Have you been trapped into -paying for Experian's ID theft insurance? Well you should claim the money back

 

Mr Flann says he never knew he had bought the cover, but Experian says it gave him full details when he applied.

 

He says: ‘My complaint is I was never given a choice to not have the cover. I believed I was obliged to take out the insurance, whether it was an appropriate product or not.’

 

He demanded a refund of his premiums, but Experian refused, so Mr Flann threatened to go to the independent Financial Ombudsman.

 

Experian then offered a £112.32 refund — £102.40 for the insurance and £9.92 interest. It said it was not compensation, but a goodwill gesture.

 

It admits new customers can’t buy the Credit Expert service without insurance. In some cases, though, it says it will offer existing customers a ‘reduced service’ without the cover and they can keep the rest of the deal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-2627599/Experians-6-month-cover-dont-admit-DONT-need.html

We have been trying to get some one to take notice of this story for over a year. Finally BBC Radio 4 MoneyBox ran the story a few weeks ago and today, Ruth Lythe of the Daily Mail had her article about this misselling published.

 

 

FORCED TO INSURE - Moneybox - 16th March 2014

People who join the Experian 'credit expert' service to get unlimited free access to their credit reports and scores are also insured willy-nilly against ID theft. The cost of the package is £180 a year of which the unasked for insurance accounts for £77. It is sold online so no suitability test is done. Among other things the £77 a year policy will refund the cost of letters and phone calls needed to sort out an ID theft problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03xzs1l

 

Experian declined to comment on the Moneybox programme.

 

I understand that there were strenuous efforts by Experian to prevent both the BBC broadcast and the the Daily Mail piece from going out.

Go figure.

 

Clearly in respect of Experian's Credit Expert bundled insurance package, there is no enquiry as to whether the product is wanted - or whether it is appropriate.

For instance -many people have an equivalent insurance as part of their credit card bundle or maybe their house contents insurance - so buying the forced id insurance product, Experian customers may effectively be buying duplicate insurance.

So what happens if you ID is stolen and you have to invoke the insurance? Which policy do you choose? This is bound to become a problem because it is a fundamental principle of insurance policies that they will not make duplicate pay outs for a single loss.

So immediately you have the opportunity for each insurer to deny the loss on the basis that you have duplicate insurance and that it should be the other company which pays.

 

The Experian id theft product has all the hallmarks of misselling - but goes one further because most insurances - PPI etc are required to make it clear that their insurance product is optional. Experian does not even do that. There seems to be no opportunity on their website to opt out of the insurance. It is only when you call them to cancel that they then offer you the favour of opting out if they think that they are going to lose your custom altogether.

Finally - it seems to me in any event that the insurance represents very poor value for money - but you should go to the Experian/Credit Expert website and judge for yourselves. http://www.creditexpert.co.uk/

 

If you have been caught by Credit Expert - claim your money back. Complain to the FOS if there is any monkey business.

If your money is offered back under conditions of confidentiality - you should consider refusing and continuing to the FOS instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven million people are to receive an average £200 each having been mis-sold useless credit and debit card insurance.

 

The payouts, which will be made automatically by banks, have been ordered by the City regulator.

 

Customers affected will be contacted by post from August 29 and be asked to vote on whether they feel the redress scheme is fair.

 

Those victims of the scandal will have paid between £30 and £80 a year for extra insurance cover provided by CPP. This was nominally to protected against identity theft or card fraud.

 

Some customers affected will be unaware they were paying money to a third-party, thinking instead the cover was being offered by their bank.

 

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

Most will be aware they were paying CPP, but may not have realised how unecessary the policies were. Banks told many customers that the products were compulsory. Others were given a hard sell, with branch and telephone staff using scare tactics - talk of the rising threat of fraud on their account - to cajole customers into signing up.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/10258876/Are-you-one-of-7m-mis-sold-identity-insurance.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Experian ID theft product

http://www.protectmyid.co.uk/

Link to post
Share on other sites

***** We now understand that the FOS has informally expressed the view that the insurance is the responsibility of Arc Legal and that claims should be made against them.

This is very surprising because Arc Legal say their policies are" ... not an ‘off the shelf’ solution. All products and services are developed to meet the specific requirements of our clients and are sold on a ‘white label’ basis." Meaning that they do not consider themselves the direct supplier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc Legal are trying to say that it is Experian's fault. Interesting to see that no one so far has said that the product wasn't mis-sold.

Also, it seems that if Experian are liable, then they will not have to make any refunds because apparently they were not within the regulatory regime at the time this particular mis-selling occurred.

 

However

Experian may not have been regulated then but they are regulated now and they continue to sell the insurance product in exactly the same way

 

As a regulated firm it cannot be right that they can avoid responsibilities simply buy selling a white-label product and not exercising any kind of quality control and absolving themselves of any legal responsibility. This amounts to a form of extraordinary rendition.

Experian make it clear on their website that Arc Legal are the providers of the insurance. Arc Legal have been content to remain associated with the product and no doubt to enjoy some kind of advantage form the public exposure.

Furthermore Arc Legal is outsourcing their insurance product and is directly subject to the responsibilities and control of the relevant FCA rules

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had experian for years (since about 2006-2007), cancelled just recently(jan2014?). My initial monthly payments were something like 6.99 or 7.99, then it jumped to 9.99 for no apparent reason.

I dont know if i need to bother with this at all ? Did i have insurance ? Anyone tried claiming something back with lesser than 14.99 payments ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took out one of Experian's free trial usages and when I cancelled within the trial period I was told that I would still be "charged for insurance". I tried to argue that I didnt realise there was any insurance attached to the trial period but they stated that I had to pay and refused to accept my arguementWere other people caught by this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Experian will claim to "be acting as an introducer only " in regard to this insurance.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad to hear that Experian Credit has been exposed over this mis selling of personal ID Theft Insurance

as I had been writing about this for over a year.

 

There are Three companies working in the UK, Experian Credit, Call Credit and Equifax

all charging monthly subscriptions for a service that is a waste of your monies,

 

they give advice such as use credit cards often and do not pay the bill in full at the end of the month.

 

Following advice like this incurs interest charges on your credit card,

they give out a lot of bad advice to improve your credit score and get paid a fortune for it.

 

They often send back low credit scores to banks and employers preventing people from obtaining bank loans and employment.

 

The banking sector is losing customers because of these credit reference agencies and their seriously flawed credit scoring

and people are being exposed to taking out loans from payday lenders etc.

charging thousands of per cent in interest charges leading to poverty,

because they cannot get bank loans because of credit scoring.

 

The UK Government wants to seek legislation to have these credit reference agencies removed from society.

 

They originate from the USA and set-up in the UK to cash in on what can only be described as a [problem].

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had experian for years (since about 2006-2007), cancelled just recently(jan2014?). My initial monthly payments were something like 6.99 or 7.99, then it jumped to 9.99 for no apparent reason.

I dont know if i need to bother with this at all ? Did i have insurance ? Anyone tried claiming something back with lesser than 14.99 payments ?

 

Same here, from reading the Mail article I can only assume that I didnt have it simply due to the monthly amount paid.

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been Experian customer since 2008 and never knew I was paying for ID insurance until I read this article and actually asked them to confirm I was paying premiums. This is what they told me:-

 

Our records indicate that the monthly fee that your of £9.99 include Identity Fraud Expenses Insurance. The Identity Fraud Expenses Insurance is a mandatory element of the overall CreditExpert service.

 

If you do not wish to have the insurance policy, you will be unable to take advantage of the CreditExpert service.

 

I thought all along I was paying for accessing my credit report only since I've never asked for ID insurance and wasn't told it was part of the package when I signed up.

 

The reason some pay £14.99 and some £9.99 is that when Experian changed their subscription pricing, they included all benefits for current members for the £9.99 price. All new members (who signed up after the price increase) are charged £14.99. This was what Experian explained when I questioned the price increase at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine went from I think 7.99 to 9.99 when they changed the prices in Feb 13

 

I have found the email they sent about the price change and it says nothing about insurance

 

Dear ICY

We are just getting in touch to make sure that you know about all the benefits of your new package, so that you can make the most of your membership.

 

Your benefits at a glance...

Weekly alerts when there are changes to your Experian Credit Report.

We search the web, social media and public registers with Web Monitoring so that we can immediately alert you if we find your personal information on the web. Look out for another email from us that will tell you exactly how Web Monitoring works.

See how we can help you maintain and improve your Experian Credit Score.

See the details of your Experian Credit Report. This gives you an indication of how lenders view you.

See credit cards, loans and mortgages uniquely matched to you. This could help you to save money.

Log in now

 

 

Your membership

Your new monthly membership fee of £9.99 will be collected on your next billing date and will be taken monthly after that. If you have any questions about your new membership price, or want to find out more about how we can help you, please feel free to contact our customer service team on 0844 481 0800.

Check your credit report

Read FAQs

Join the online community

 

Many thanks

The Experian team

Please do not reply to this e-mail. This email address is not monitored, so if you have any queries, please us at
.

This is a service based email that has been sent by Experian Ltd (registered number 653331) to the email address ixxxxxxxxx.com as part of your CreditExpert membership. The service emails we send you contain essential information relating to your membership. If you think you have received this email in error, please email us at
. Copyright 2012. Registered address: Experian Ltd, Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 business park, Nottingham, NG80 1ZZ, United Kingdom. Trading address is: Cardinal Place, 6th Floor, 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL.

 

Experian is committed to protecting your privacy online. We will never email you directly requesting any personal data or details. If you believe you have received any such communication from us, do not respond. Please email
for assistance.

 

To ensure delivery, please add
to your safe list.

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main points are.

 

 

1. These credit reference agencies are providing a service which is of no good to anyone so why are people subscribing to it?

 

 

2. A person such as myself who pays my Utility bills on time at the local Post Office and who does not use Direct Debit is classed as a credit risk by these companies because they cannot monitor my spending habits, If I went to a Bank for a loan I would not obtain one because of points like this. Experian Credit and Equifax and Call Credit send in a low score to my own bank who I have been with for years.

 

 

3. You pay £19-99 for ID Theft Insurance and its so called advice on how to improve your credit score.

 

 

4. You are already covered for ID theft via your own bank as long as you don't write down pin numbers etc.

 

 

5. The advice from Experian Credit includes.

Don't have too many credit cards, the ones you do have, use them often and don't pay the balance in full at the end of the month, pay it off bit by bit each month.

What sort of advice is this?

Using credit cards often causes debt.

Paying off monthly instead of paying off the balance in full at the end of the month incurs interest charges on a credit card of typically 36%.

This causes more debt.

 

 

6. If I do not follow their advice, they have no idea how I handle my own finances so I get a low credit score from Three companies such as Experian Credit who do not even know who I am.

I am therefore classed as a credit risk to my own bank and some employers will not give a person employment based on their credit score reports.

 

 

7. I will not follow their advice and I pay my bills on time, every time and have never been in debt and I most certainly will not use credit cards often,

 

 

8. My advice to anyone reading this is as follows.

Do not waste your monies on paying Experian Credit any of your hard earned monies.

They are USA based companies and there are forums on the Internet where these Credit Reference Agencies have caused misery and debt and people who have studied college courses cannot even get employment all because of their flawed credit scoring system.

 

 

9 These Credit Reference companies are raking in Millions of Pounds from the UK Economy and are virtually con artists.

 

 

10. People cannot get bank loans because of their Credit score reports driving people into the arms of Payday lenders and logbook loans companies all over the UK, just like is the case in the USA.

 

 

11. The UK Government wants to take steps in removing these Credit reference agencies from UK Soils. They are not fit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but no it isn't always bad, I have found things on my credit file which were incorrect and if I hadn't subscribed I would have no way of knowing, correcting things that weren't right has meant I have put myself in a better financial position including a incorrectly listed default when the account wasn't in default, by not tackling things like this it causes further problems.

 

They may not be perfect and of course they are making money, that's what businesses do and you may be surprised how many businesses are based in the states, this many many high street names, they have the right to trade, Experian have been very useful to me and no doubt countless others, If you don't want the service then don't use it, but everyone has the free choice to decide.

 

I never follow any 'advice' from experian I am perfectly capable of making decisions on my own, I am not stupid enough to let a company like that sway my decisions.

 

You need to be careful accusing an organisation of being a con artist though, just because you don't like something or how it operates does not make them guilty of conning people, the insurance thing which is what this thread is about is wrong and on the face of it they were misold, that doesn't mean every aspect of their business is to con people.

 

"have never been in debt " most of the country cannot say that, people aren't perfect and things don't always go to plan, sometimes things like credit reports do help

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Experian mis-sold CreditExpert, not ARC legal, therefore they are responsible for the consequences and I'm surprised the FOS has taken the stance you claim. As with PPI, the FOS has directed victims to the Banks who sold the product, not the insurers who stood behind them because it was the Banks who misled consumers.

 

 

Experian will also be keeping a large element of the insurance premium as commission for selling it, so their sales force are heavily incentivised to sell and retain customers. They also use the insurance as a way to avoid VAT because insured products attracts VAT at lower rates, so they can keep more of the £14.99 fee.

 

 

Insurance is simply a [problem] perpetrated by Experian to increase profits. The management at Experian are fully aware of the deception, and think because they are not regulated by the FCA, they are protected from investigation and the rules don't apply to them. Don't be fooled by the slick exterior, underneath its a greedy company out to make as much money as possible while the sun shines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the forums where their reports prevent people from getting employment because of their credit scoring system? They do not help these people. What about people that can't get loans from banks because of their credit scores? You go to a bank, they say to millions of people, sorry your credit score is too low. People ask why. The bank says "They don't know why your credit score is low, due to data protection" People then have to contact all three credit reference agencies to find out why, then have to take steps to put their mistakes right, most don't understand this! or they have to get loans from Logbook loan companies and payday lenders or even loan sharks all because of their credit score system. You mention things were incorrect on your credit file! Who put these incorrect points on your credit history? Was it these credit reference agencies as I read there is a lot of this. Their reports are utter rubbish

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the forums where their reports prevent people from getting employment because of their credit scoring system? They do not help these people. What about people that can't get loans from banks because of their credit scores? You go to a bank, they say to millions of people, sorry your credit score is too low. People ask why. The bank says "They don't know why your credit score is low, due to data protection" People then have to contact all three credit reference agencies to find out why, then have to take steps to put their mistakes right, most don't understand this! or they have to get loans from Logbook loan companies and payday lenders or even loan sharks all because of their credit score system. You mention things were incorrect on your credit file! Who put these incorrect points on your credit history? Was it these credit reference agencies as I read there is a lot of this. Their reports are utter rubbish

 

 

Experian don't make the information up, its the companies who use experian who list the details, its these companies and only them who are responsible for the content shown on the credit file.

 

Credit files are also a trigger that something is going wrong, there are many people who would keep getting new credit cards to pay old ones off or apply for countless loans and get in a horrific situation if they kept doing this, not everybody is perfect enough to say they havent ever had debt, but without controls such as those demonstrated by credit files they would just keep getting in ever increasing debt meaning many many more people would end up in the bankruptcy court

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the forums where their reports prevent people from getting employment because of their credit scoring system? They do not help these people. What about people that can't get loans from banks because of their credit scores? You go to a bank, they say to millions of people, sorry your credit score is too low. People ask why. The bank says "They don't know why your credit score is low, due to data protection" People then have to contact all three credit reference agencies to find out why, then have to take steps to put their mistakes right, most don't understand this! or they have to get loans from Logbook loan companies and payday lenders or even loan sharks all because of their credit score system. You mention things were incorrect on your credit file! Who put these incorrect points on your credit history? Was it these credit reference agencies as I read there is a lot of this. Their reports are utter rubbish

 

 

 

This seems to put forward the idea that delinquent accounts should not be reported to CRAs just in case the data subject might want more credit, get a mortgage or change a job, which if taken up would lead to even higher costs of borrowing to cover losses.

What is clear and always has been is the fact that CRAs give the individual the opportunity to challenge adverse and/or incorrect data being displayed on credit files, or would MC prefer a "closed" system where only prospective credit providers have access to credit reference data?

 

 

What is also clear is that the CRAs have to depend n the accuracy and honesty of their creditors when they report accounts (delinquent or not) to the CRAs.

 

 

There is no automatic " checking / prove it" mechanism for the CRAs to validate the data supplied to them.

 

 

It has been said many times on these forums that " if an individual disputes any item showing on their credit reference agency files the course of action is to 1. raise a dispute with the creditor reporting the data, and 2. place a notice of "correction/dispute" on the credit files.

 

 

The CRAs state that they will contact the creditor regarding any disputed data, but once again they are entirely reliant on the honesty and accuracy of the creditors reply.

 

 

I personally have (an always will) advise that the course of action should start with " a formal complaint" addressed to the DATA CONTROLLER OF THE CREDITOR, thus putting into place the obligation to fully investigate and respond within 56 days.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All change!!!

 

The FOS now seem to be saying that it may be Motorfile Ltd which is the responsible company.

There is clearly a lot of neat footwork going on here - and I am sure that Experian is probably behind it all.

It may be that Arc Legal raised objections to Experian that they were placing them in the frame.

 

Anyway, people should initially make their claims against Experian and go on to the FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All change!!!

 

The FOS now seem to be saying that it may be Motorfile Ltd which is the responsible company.

There is clearly a lot of neat footwork going on here - and I am sure that Experian is probably behind it all.

It may be that Arc Legal raised objections to Experian that they were placing them in the frame.

 

Anyway, people should initially make their claims against Experian and go on to the FOS.

 

 

Website shows that Experian is an Authorised Agent of Motorfile, so I guess they are saying that Motorfile is responsible for any actions Experian takes on its behalf?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ALL, I have asked Experian to Take Off The Insurance element as I DO NOT WANT IT. This is their reply today telling me its a Mandatory Policy. I have raised the issue with the FOS immediately. They will contact Experian with my complaint. I will post the results as they reply.

 

 

Dear Mr

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on 29/05/2014.

 

*CreditExpert Membership

 

The Identity Fraud Expenses Insurance is a mandatory element of the overall CreditExpert service.

 

The Insurance policy covers your legal costs in the event of identity fraud, covering you for up to £75,000 which includes reasonable lost earnings of up to £500 per week for a maximum of 6 weeks, up to £200 for the costs of replacing your passport or driving licence, defending you in civil legal proceedings and taking reasonable steps to remove county court judgments.

 

These features and more are detailed in the CreditExpert insurance policy summary.

 

If you do not wish to have the insurance policy, you will be unable to take advantage of the CreditExpert service.

 

The online service has many features, such as alerts to let you know when a significant change has been made to your report. This allows you to stay in control of the information on your report.

 

*Electoral Roll details

 

Local councils keep a rolling electoral register, which they update and publish once a month.

 

We?ll update our records as soon as possible, once we receive the information from your local council.

 

Due to the amount of information we receive please allow 6-8 weeks from the date that you registered for this to appear on your report.

 

In the meantime, if you apply for credit you might want to provide the company a copy of the confirmation letter from your local council so they can take this into consideration.

 

Kind regards

 

Arun Geethamony

Customer Service Representative

 

Customer Support Centre

Experian

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may wish to visit the FAQ section of our website where you can find instant advice and answers about information held on your credit report. This service is available to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Credit Expert is provided by Experian Ltd (Registered number 653331), an appointed representative of Motorfile Ltd (Registered number: 3009493). Experian Ltd and Motorfile Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Both companies are registered in England and Wales with registered office at Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, NG80 1ZZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ALL, I have asked Experian to Take Off The Insurance element as I DO NOT WANT IT. This is their reply today telling me its a Mandatory Policy. I have raised the issue with the FOS immediately. They will contact Experian with my complaint. I will post the results as they reply.

 

 

Dear Mr

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on 29/05/2014.

 

*CreditExpert Membership

 

The Identity Fraud Expenses Insurance is a mandatory element of the overall CreditExpert service.

 

The Insurance policy covers your legal costs in the event of identity fraud, covering you for up to £75,000 which includes reasonable lost earnings of up to £500 per week for a maximum of 6 weeks, up to £200 for the costs of replacing your passport or driving licence, defending you in civil legal proceedings and taking reasonable steps to remove county court judgments.

 

These features and more are detailed in the CreditExpert insurance policy summary.

 

If you do not wish to have the insurance policy, you will be unable to take advantage of the CreditExpert service.

 

The online service has many features, such as alerts to let you know when a significant change has been made to your report. This allows you to stay in control of the information on your report.

 

*Electoral Roll details

 

Local councils keep a rolling electoral register, which they update and publish once a month.

 

We?ll update our records as soon as possible, once we receive the information from your local council.

 

Due to the amount of information we receive please allow 6-8 weeks from the date that you registered for this to appear on your report.

 

In the meantime, if you apply for credit you might want to provide the company a copy of the confirmation letter from your local council so they can take this into consideration.

 

Kind regards

 

Arun Geethamony

Customer Service Representative

 

Customer Support Centre

Experian

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may wish to visit the FAQ section of our website where you can find instant advice and answers about information held on your credit report. This service is available to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Credit Expert is provided by Experian Ltd (Registered number 653331), an appointed representative of Motorfile Ltd (Registered number: 3009493). Experian Ltd and Motorfile Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Both companies are registered in England and Wales with registered office at Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, NG80 1ZZ.

 

 

This I think is a generic reply now, there seems there will be no " individual" answers to any queries now.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This I think is a generic reply now, there seems there will be no " individual" answers to any queries now.

 

Hi well they have replied to my electoral roll issue as well. So it maybe generic by the topic.

I have made a formal complaint to the FoS. They will write to Experian now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they make so much money out of storting and selling my data.. I think they have a damn cheek asking me to pay to check that their records are accurate..

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...