Overpayment of wages

Yup. It isn't your cash. Give it back.

It isn't always that clear. I guess it would depend on why they think they have overpaid him.

As a magistrate, how do you arrive at this judgement so rapidly?

"Bystander" wrote in news:d4KdnaYLYdwu_L snipped-for-privacy@pipex.net:

"The umbrella company I currently use alleges that they've overpaid me"

Alleges?

"John Burke" wrote in news:YZsUi.797$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:

Yes. Having warned you that they might, they have - outside the limits of Defamation - no obligations.

That's a big flaw in the system, as most errors are only detected after the damage is done, and the consumer is supposed to be sufficiently paranoid to check before any harm.

Worse, if you know get to how the main consumer credit referencing agency, Experian - Credit Commercial Nottingham - operates, you'll shit yourself.

Go to Nottingham and ask. Get past reception at Talbot or Woolaton House, and it's like the lunatics have taken over the asylum. One of Experian's senior managers, Richard Beaney, keeps a diary in his desk he's entitled Dialogues with Jesus.

In Dialogues with Jesus, Experian senior manager and 2 faced 5h1t, Richard Beaney, who lives in Long Eaton, berates himself for demanding too much sex, and creating another unwanted child. Catholics are such wise people.

He's a magistrate who never needs evidence to find people guilty and is unashamed at the fact.

In message , at 21:28:24 on Fri,

26 Oct 2007, John Burke wibbled

I take it then that you ignored their letters if pleas have now turned to threats? Mistake if you did ignore them.

The first thing you MUST do is to ask the Umbrella for a full breakdown of WHY they think you owe them money.

Without the why it's impossible to suggest anything as there are too many possibilities.

Yes but you can get a copy of your credit reports and lodge an explanation/comment against items.

who exactly is able to affect someone credit rating at their own discretion? i've had similar disputes before where i am certain the other party is in the wrong... but the other company effectively says 'well if you don't pay up we'll just mess up your credit rating and send in the debt collectors' - it seems the advice in these circumstances is to pay up to protect your credit rating and from the debt collectors... then to claim the money back through the courts ? or am i getting confused? andy

A company can submit false reports to a credit agency pretty much with impunity. The only way you can take action against them is if you can prove you have suffered a loss because of them making a false report. There doesn't appear to be any requirement for them to act diligently.

The best way to deal with it is to gain a £2.00 report from the agency and then dispute anything that is wrong. Credit agencies seem to be acting a bit like protection rackets if you pay them a fee they will help you keep your record clean.

"Andy C" wrote

Hey! - *You* owe *me* 10,000. Now pay up immediately, or I will " ... mess up your credit rating and send in the debt collectors' ... ".

[Of course, I'm wrong, so you'll be able to claim the 10K back through the courts (I'll pay it back the day before the court date!)...]

I look forward to your cheque in the post! ;-)

Am I understanding correctly then?

Do no controls exist to prevent this from being used as a method of extortion?

No. On the contrary, I initiated the dialogue.

When I couldn't reconcile the payslip they'd supplied I immediately emailed them requesting a breakdown.

After three more emails and a phone call to them I still don't have a proper response to this but now two more unintelligible payslips for the same payroll week.

I've since informed them that I won't consider the matter further until I'm in possession of some satisfactory arithmetic and instructed the agency to suspend transfer of any further funding to them.

So, I'm being blackmailed. What a way to do business.

"John Burke" wrote in news:WVCUi.215$ib1.140@newsfe3- win.ntli.net:

Oh yes. Full marks :(. I'm frightened you're going to shoot the messenger.

You can perform periodic credit checks, which "only" cost "2" (or so).

If you find and can prove an erroneous entry on your credit (i.e. bill paying) record, not only are you entitled to have it corrected, but you also get that particular 2 refunded.

Obviously, bad credit risks have a lot of credit checks, while prime borrowers do not, so the fact that you are performing periodic credit checks, will reduce your credit score in any event.

Mike_B wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@localhosts.net:

Of what are you frightened? You pay your bills on time don't you?

What are you paranoid or something? Above all, as the British are so keen to conclude, "there's no smoke without fire."

In any case, it does. I think it's the wrong thing to do as well, but who gives a 5h1t what we think?

The controls that exist IMO are the requirements on the credit reference agencies under the DPA that they should hold accurate data. If you find inaccurate data entered onto your credit file, you can have them remove it. However we have discussed before the difficulty of proving data to be inaccurate rather than simply disputed.

I once ran my own credit file and found on it a joint application for a loan under the name of a former lodger who was a bankrupt. This had created an association and linked our credit files.

I informed Experian that there was no such association and that no such joint loan application had ever been submitted or signed by me and required that they remove the entry and remove the association. Initially they attempted to fob me off by saying that I would need to contact the loan company and sort it out with them.

I had to point out that a) I had no relationship with the loan company, never had one and didn't want one. b) That the data I was disputing was on the credit reference agency records, not the loan companies and c) that Experian's data controller had the responsibility to ensure they kept accurate data. They finally agreed to remove it but it isn't easy and those less tenacious may have been easily fobbed off.

In message , J

But it *would* be defamation for a soi-disant creditor to blacken someone's credit record deliberately over an alleged debt disputed by the would-be debtor, unless said creditor is absolutely sure the debtor is disputing the debt maliciously. If they think there is any chance at all that they may be making a mistake, they should obtain a court judgement first before they can take any steps to enforce collection.

Why would you expect there to be? Extortion is a serious criminal offence which carries non-trivial penalties, no matter what method is employed. That ought to be an effective deterrent. But no, there are no "controls" just as there are no controls (other than the risk of getting caught etc) to prevent people from robbing a bank.

You know nothing about the circumstances you pompous oaf.

In message , J

This makes no sense in relation to the post you replied to.... or actually in relation to the thread.