CAG CRA S.A.R Club

[renegotiation]

We are all adults & quite capable of making our own decisions as are the lenders in their dealing with me

 

Yes, you make some good points. I would have to disagree with the above quote though. A lot of people have made terrible financial decisions, especially the young, which the lenders must bear some responsibility for too. 'Some' people are losing their homes simply because they rashly overextended their borrowing. It's not just rising interest rates, cost of living, redundancy etc., though that is of course the case in many situations. I sympathise tremendously with these people and don't think anyone deserves to lose their home. I think some sort of C.R.A. holding limted data could actually help protect people, 'if' the lenders make sensible decisions based on that data. Because of the kicking they have had a shift has already begun in that direction. If I hadn't found this site my foolish youthful decisions could have severely affected me for a few more years yet. In the context of my life I don't think I deserved that. They sucked me in and charged me like a mofo. I fell into their trap. Luckily, I didn't have a home to lose.

[JonCris]

Yes, you make some good points. I would have to disagree with the above quote though. A lot of people have made terrible financial decisions, especially the young, which the lenders must bear some responsibility for too. 'Some' people are losing their homes simply because they rashly overextended their borrowing. How did having CRA's benefit these people exactly?? It didn't did it & if they are meant to help lenders to take decisions based on a prospects liabilities why did they lend to consumers already in considerable debt It's not just rising interest rates, cost of living, redundancy etc., though that is of course the case in many situations. I sympathise tremendously with these people and don't think anyone deserves to lose their home. I think some sort of C.R.A. holding limted data could actually help protect people,Why 'if' the lenders make sensible decisions based on that data but they don't & they never will. The ONLY reason for the withdrawal of cheap mortgages now is due to the bankers folly in becoming embroiled in securitization sub-prime lending in an effort to increase their profits well above the norm Because of the kicking they have had a shift has already begun in that direction. All they have done is pull the plug on the most vulnerable plunging those already in debt & struggling into an even worse situation. It's got nothing to do with 'responsible lending' but everything to do with their cock up If I hadn't found this site my foolish youthful decisions could have severely affected me for a few more years yet. In the context of my life I don't think I deserved that. They sucked me in and charged me like a mofo. I fell into their trap. Luckily, I didn't have a home to lose.

 

The advent of the CRA's data being the arbiter in lending decisions has led to this current situation. Nor has it curtailed lending as some would have us believe. In fact it has removed the human & therefore commonsense thinking processes from lending decisions resulting in greater lending not less

 

See above in red

[car2403]

Correct PO that you would argue was your consideration

 

& here's more info about the strange world of 'consideration' for those following this thread

 

In the world of contract law when an agreement is made a certain amount of consideration is put into the agreement from both parties.

 

Party A (the offeror) and Party B (the offeree)

 

 

A offers to sell his wife:eek: for £10k to B.

 

B agrees and stumps up the cash.

 

Here is the tricky bit so bear with me all,

 

 

The consideration by A is the following: handing over the wife:shock: for an amount of cash predetermined at the sale.

 

Consideration by B is at the following point: When B hands over the cash to A; A then hands over the wife & that completes the transaction & the agreement/contract is completed.

 

Consider the following in terms of repaying a debt in full and final offer,

 

By offering a creditor payment to be considered as full and final - what consideration are you as the offeror are you putting into the agreement?

 

Nothing - you are gaining something while the offeree will gain nothing.

 

Under common law this agreement can be retracted by the creditor and he can reclaim the full balance remaining.

 

However by offering EARLY repayment in full and final, then you are providing some sort of consideration to the deal, even though you are paying less, the fact that you are paying early means that the creditor is getting something out of the deal - his money early - albiet not the full amount but that he receives it early can be argued by you is the consideration – the early settlement, if correct, & needs to be made clear at the outset.

 

Please Note* this does not apply when a creditor makes YOU the offe as that is completely of their own making & choice, the giving a a consideration should only be applied when making you make an offer to a creditor out of the blue.

 

As I have already stated EARLY is a good word to add when making an offer of repayment in full and final satisfaction.

 

The problem here is how to deal with the enforcement of gratuitous promises.

A gratuitous promise means a promise for which the promisee does nothing in return.

Every legal system recognises that to enforce all gratuitous promises would be undesirable, since there is too great a risk that the promisor may have given his word lightly on the spur of the moment and without proper reflection, for example to extricate himself from an awkward or embarrassing situation. A gratuitous promise will therefore only be enforced if it was made in a way which shows that the promisor must have known what he was doing and intended to be legally bound.

 

 

You'd still be protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel though.

 

If they promise not to chase you for the debt (write off?) they can't then pursue you as they've promised not to.

 

Anyway, my heed hurts, and this is way off topic a little, so I'll stop now...

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

What business is it of you, me or anyone else, including CRA's to know about my financial affairs. We are all adults & quite capable of making our own decisions as are the lenders in their dealing with me

 

 

I agree.

 

For a lot of lenders, using an automated system that interrogates a CRA database and makes a decision based upon the information received and credit scoring is the cheapest and quickest way to do things.

 

Feckless behaviour and financial mismanagement - step forward the UK's clearing banks and credit card companies - that'll be irresponsible lending, then.

[PriorityOne]

You'd still be protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel though.

 

If they promise not to chase you for the debt (write off?) they can't then pursue you as they've promised not to.

 

Anyway, my heed hurts, and this is way off topic a little, so I'll stop now...

 

 

Thanks guys..... my head hurts as well, but all knowledge is good.

[patrickq1]

You'd still be protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel though.

 

If they promise not to chase you for the debt (write off?) they can't then pursue you as they've promised not to.

how would the promissary estoppel work in the case of the building societies have agreed not to chase debts over a suggested period of six years ,when in fact they are already in breach of this promise according to some of the posts we have seen on here so the building societies have not by the looks of things committed to their promise

patrickq1

[Goldlady]

You need to look at Foakes v Beer which is a very old case but still good law.

[JonCris]

You need to look at Foakes v Beer which is a very old case but still good law.

 

 

Which is precisely what I'm saying

 

At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes (the debtor), but was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal in favour of Beer (the creditor).

The reasoning behind their Judgment was that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement.

 

However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed not to be sufficient consideration as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.

 

In other words IMHO that if Foakes, the debtor, had been able to argue the consideration was the early settlement then recovery would not have been possible.

However in this case early settlement was not a factor as the debtor after paying only a partial sum continued to make payments so that the creditor did not benefit from early settlement

[Allwood]

BBC Working lunch are asking people to send in questions for them to put to their expert regarding debt on Friday, this will be a good opportunity to asked why there are so many CRA in the UK and are so careless with our data.

 

That is one of the questions that I will be putting forward:-x

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Working Lunch | Your questions answered

[renegotiation]

How did having CRA's benefit these people exactly?? It didn't did it & if they are meant to help lenders to take decisions based on a prospects liabilities why did they lend to consumers already in considerable debt

 

Yes, I quite agree. I know full well the CRA's haven't benefited people prior to now. I know the tactics of creditors to get people into a neverending debt. That was the past. It could still be the future. I was just suggesting one well regulated or govt. CRA could play a more helpful role in the future.

 

 

but they don't & they never will. The ONLY reason for the withdrawal of cheap mortgages now is due to the bankers folly in becoming embroiled in securitization sub-prime lending in an effort to increase their profits well above the norm

 

Again, I agree. The future could be different though. We need more regulation.

 

All they have done is pull the plug on the most vulnerable plunging those already in debt & struggling into an even worse situation. It's got nothing to do with 'responsible lending' but everything to do with their cock up

 

Yes, I agree. I don't think you quite got the gist of my post. Maybe I didn't express myself well enough.

 

The advent of the CRA's data being the arbiter in lending decisions has led to this current situation. Nor has it curtailed lending as some would have us believe. In fact it has removed the human & therefore commonsense thinking processes from lending decisions resulting in greater lending not less

 

I think it has gone too far, yes, but many consumers might prefer to make applications for credit by phone, post or online. There needs to be some limited database for creditors to refer to.

[renegotiation]

BBC Working lunch are asking people to send in questions for them to put to their expert regarding debt on Friday, this will be a good opportunity to asked why there are so many CRA in the UK and are so careless with our data.

 

That is one of the questions that I will be putting forward:-x

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Working Lunch | Your questions answered

 

I'll take the archiving angle and refer to Mr. Vaz's comments.

 

Looking at the link I don't think it's the right place to be asking questions on archiving. I doubt the guy will even know they do it. I'm sure your angle will be good though Allwood.

Edited June 18, 2008 by renegotiation

[sosumi]

If I wrote to a Credit Reference Agency and revoked my permission (or implied permission) for them to process any of my data, what would happen next?

[Allwood]

Sosumi I am sure your request would have to taken into consideration but as you know those organisation are a law onto themselves therefore the public that are not share holders are just there to be exploited by DCA's.

 

What a fat lot of good it did me in writing into working lunch about CRA as it was not even mentioned. Only three question put the person from National Debt line, I suppose that is a step up from the director of a CRA that they usually have on on to answers on debt.:-?

[car2403]

If I wrote to a Credit Reference Agency and revoked my permission (or implied permission) for them to process any of my data, what would happen next?

 

You can't revoke your permission to process, as they don't have it anyway.

 

They claim they can process your data because they have a legitimate interest in the processing, as they want to share it for credit referencing purposes.

 

What you can do is revoke permission for them to automatically process your data. As none of the CRA's currently have a manual process of providing your data to their customers, you would effectively be revoking your entire credit reference file, which would mean that you have no credit history, or the likes, to consider when you're making credit applications. Anyone considering this should think carefully about the consequences as a result.

[sosumi]

You can't revoke your permission to process, as they don't have it anyway.

 

They claim they can process your data because they have a legitimate interest in the processing, as they want to share it for credit referencing purposes.

 

What you can do is revoke permission for them to automatically process your data. As none of the CRA's currently have a manual process of providing your data to their customers, you would effectively be revoking your entire credit reference file, which would mean that you have no credit history, or the likes, to consider when you're making credit applications. Anyone considering this should think carefully about the consequences as a result.

Car, this is what Checkmyfile says in its glossary:

Notice of correction

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives you the option of recording up to 200 words on your credit report. Most people have nothing recorded, and the facility is often used to explain disputes. Credit reports containing Notices of Correction cannot be assessed using credit scoring and instead must be manually assessed, which is less efficient and leads to higher levels of declined applications.

The credit files would still exist, wouldn't they? But like you say, if the 'automated processing' is gone, they (the DCAs) couldn't just have a rummage through your credit files with a few clicks on their computer screen? And the CRAs would be forced to account for the validity of the information they hold?

[car2403]

Car, this is what Checkmyfile says in its glossary:

 

The credit files would still exist, wouldn't they? But like you say, if the 'automated processing' is gone, they (the DCAs) couldn't just have a rummage through your credit files with a few clicks on their computer screen? And the CRAs would be forced to account for the validity of the information they hold?

 

None of the 3 CRA's currently have the ability to manually search your file - each search is done via "software" provided by the CRA or a third party.

 

If you stop them from automatically processing, a software search will produce a "no result". The files, presumably, still exist - if you were to revoke your limitiation permission on their automated processing, I'd assume the old information would again be visible, yes.

 

I can't see how this would have an effect on their accountability for the accuracy of the date, though?

[ScarletPimpernel]

It sounds as if the CRAs are attempting to dissuade people from putting NofCs on their files on the basis that it is likely to place them at a disadvantage. Is this not contrary to the new Unfair Trading directive?

[sosumi]

I take my social responsibilties seriously. I accept that Government Agencies should be able to know who I am. I take very seriously our democratic right to vote, and therefore accept that I'll be on the Register of Electors.

What I do reject is the highly suspect gathering of data about me, which is then 'pooled' and used commercially.

[sosumi]

What I'm thinking is that if enough people revoked the 'automated processing of data', a substantial source of the CRA's income would dry up.

[car2403]

What I'm thinking is that if enough people revoked the 'automated processing of data', a substantial source of the CRA's income would dry up.

 

As most people don't understand they have the right to, this probably won't have an effect on them at all.

[sosumi]

Read this:

EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[BlueSquirrel]

I used to have an account with Experian before I realised what they were up to! I was going to SAR them, but I have moved house since I had the account. Would it be better not to contact them so they do not have my new address?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello BlueSquirrel!

 

I used to have an account with Experian before I realised what they were up to! I was going to S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) them, but I have moved house since I had the account. Would it be better not to contact them so they do not have my new address?

 

Dealing with any of the CRAs is unpleasant, but Experian more so, as they are quite clearly harvesting any Data they can the moment you make the mistake of going near them. They are a really unsavoury bunch beneath the glossy outer coating.

 

It might seem like a real PITA but, if I were you, I'd get and/or Renew Mail Re-Direction from your Old Address to your New Address, and then send Experian a plain Letter with a Postal Order and the £10 Fee for the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). How forgetful of you to put your Old Address at the head of that Letter...just force of habit!

 

It may take a little while to reach you, but better that than hand these people your new details on a Plate.

 

If your Debt File needs to be checked regularly say, because you are busy with a number of Disputes with Card and Loan bankers, then you ought to just send them a similar Letter with a £2 Postal Order for the Basic Debt File Report. Do that every Month, or every couple of Weeks, depending on how often you need to keep an eye on your Debt File during your Disputes. By all means start with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), but after that, the £2 Basic Statutory Reports are fine to see any changes you would rather not miss.

 

That is what I am doing, as it means a steady flow of clear Debt Files, and only costs me £2 every so often plus an Envelope and Stamp.

 

The basic £2 Reports are more detailed than the expensive rubbish Experian (eventually) allow you to see on-line, due to their desire to "protect" your Data from you via multi-Layer bogus Security blocks...I mean checks.

 

Oddly, they don't seem to be so bothered about Security when letting the whole of the Debt Industry and low life DCA vermin have open access to poke about in your Debt Data.

 

So, give these people nothing.

 

But, is hard to do, as almost everything you come into contact with these days has a little tick box or Data Protection Act Statement relating to your consent to pass your Data around.

 

My own next big project is the make sure I never, ever, give any such Data permissions unless it is absolutely essential...and, even then, it will always be under protest and I will always question the need to give my consent.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[humbleman]

I remember, not so long ago, if you wanted to get a financial reference for a customer, your bank could just write to theirs and ask for his standing, without him knowing, now you need to get a consent signed each timed you need a reference from a bank for a customer.

 

Where as now as long as you subscribe to the CRA's you can look into anyones file.

[sosumi]

From here:

BBC NEWS | UK | Firms 'give out' customer details

Businesses are giving out personal and confidential details about customers to third parties in a bid to boost sales, an internet security firm has claimed.

StrongMail said a fifth would give out credit card information and 7% would disclose customers' sexual orientation.

About 60% of the survey of marketing and data protection executives at 900 firms said they had had a data breach in which customer information was lost.

Nearly 90% of these said the incidents had not been reported to customers.

The survey of marketing and data protection executives also found that some marketing professionals were prepared to give out personal data.

One in five said they had given out credit card details, one in seven would reveal information about customers political affiliations, and one in 10 would disclose their religious beliefs.

Paul Bates, managing director of StrongMail UK, said: "Businesses have a moral, ethical obligation to keep private, personal customer data safe and secure.

"They should not be handing it out to third parties in the hope of making a fast buck. If they choose to do this, and then lose customer data, then they should at least be obliged to admit it."