Me vs Littlewoods Catalogue

[2Grumpy]

Littlewoods in criminal default here & the CRA is still siding with Littlewoods.

 

Littlewoods are sore losers and want the default to stay out of spite. They broke guidelines by placing while the debt was in dispute it in the first place.

 

KPR is legitimately witholding payments until Littlewoods ends its default.

 

The CRA is aiding and abetting Littlewoods in its criminal actions.

 

Isn't Littlewoods libelling KPR by saying that he is in default when legally he is not (but they are) and the CRA doing the same by passing on untruths about him.

 

KPR has given the DCA the opportunity to correct their inaccurate records but they continue to listen only to Littlewoods rather than look at the legality of the situation.

 

At a minimum the CRA should be suppressing this information when there is a valid dispute (perhaps tell enquirers that there is a dispute re data held about the person while it is ongoing).

 

The DCAs do seem to have forgotten that they are data processors, responsible for the accuracy of their data. They don't have the right to store incorrect data "just because Littlewoods don't want them to remove it".

 

The CRAs data controller is personally responsible for the accuracy of the data. He should be made to feel some of the heat. He needs his mind concentrating on the fact that it is he (or she) and not Littlewoods that can get the "go directly to jail" card. Perhaps they need a little education in the dpa.

 

Perhaps the facts (including the CRAs responsibilities) need to be presented in a different way to encourage them to comply. You should definately start the CRAs complaints procedure. Get hold of the CRAs data controller (or company secretary) and point out their responsibilities.

 

The CRA is most at fault here for accepting information without checking it and not removing it in the face of an enormous amount of evidence.

 

Don't they realise what effect a compliance order from the Information Commissioners office would do to their existence? i.e. ensure that all of their data is accurate, Investigate & remove incorrect data. They couldn't operate. They only manage to exist because of insufficient complaints.

It's time for people that can complain to start complaining to the IC (after going through the complaints procedure at the CRA first).

 

Enough ranting. I realise that I sound grumpy.

 

Grumpy

[2Grumpy]

It really is time someone took the CRAs to task.

 

Lots of complaints to the information commissioner after exhausting the CRAs complaints procedure might be the best way to go. If he investigates & issues an enforcement order re accuracy the CRAs will be paralysed. In the short term, people making complaints to the CRAs could use this gem to concentrate the CRAs data controller's minds. I really think that they haven't woken up to their responsibilities or the implications of the dpa yet.

 

In my opinion the CRAs are as bad as the low life DCAs who put erroneous information on. The DCAs attitude seems to be Ok we cannot get any money out of you because you know your rights and we can prove diddly squat BUT we can F**K up your life through our buddies in the Credit Reference Agencies, This is just bullying in another form

 

Quite agree. This is just like bullying by toddlers who want their own way and having a tantrum when they lose the game. Needs a big stick to spank their a****s as well as their friends who hold their grubby little hands.

(anology gone too far?)

[2Grumpy]

Kenny

 

I have sent you a pm re this thread

 

Grumpy

[2Grumpy]

Its ridiculous that the Information Commissioners Office does not carry out a FULL investigation into these lowlifes. Telling you that you can take them to Court when in fact it should be THEM who take the CRAs to Court. Maybe you should ask the Information Commissioners Office for details of their Complaints procedure.

 

I quite agree - who can afford to take them to court - ceertainly not the people who are trying to get this incorrect data (aka lies) removed from their files

 

This effectively puts the CRAs & creditors in a position above the law and able to abuse their power.

[2Grumpy]

How about offering, say, 5% as FAFS provided that all comments are removed from your CRA file?