I can’t go into the specifics of the other outlandish claims Creditor made, though suffice to say that there was much worse than I can publish in this article and it was all a reaction to the poor treatment they’d previously received at the hands of unprofessional ‘credit repair companies’.
I have personally now communicated with Creditor, and explained the many differences dealing with MyCRA Lawyers, a Law Firm regulated by the Legal Professions Act 2007 (QLD), that maintains the highest possible accounting standards with a Legal Trust Account that is externally audited every year and reported back to the Queensland Law Society.
Simply as a result of that conversation, Creditor understood that every action taken by MyCRA Lawyers is 100% transparent and accountable. This resulted in a much calmer creditor that was further willing to learn how providing the documents would result in a speedy decision. If Creditor had complied, the default would stay, however if the creditor had erred, the default would require immediate removal.
I explained that our historical success rate of up to 91.7%, was the result of ongoing professional relationships forged through countless battles between MyCRA Lawyers and many hundreds of individual creditors.
Many creditors MyCRA Lawyers deals with on a daily basis, now understand that when a request for documents is received, and they can’t locate any part of what is requested, that it’s simpler to remove the default immediately, than go through the full audit process only to still be proven to have placed the default listing unlawfully, and will often offer to remove the default on a no admissions basis.
The problem with so-called credit repairers
Credit repair Shonks are hurting consumers
One of the most alarming issues I see with most of the unregulated ‘credit repair companies’, is not actually the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct they are reportedly engaging in, but the quite simply, their lack of legislative comprehension.
A case in point. Today I became aware of the website of a relatively new player in the credit repairing ‘game’. I will refer to them simply as ‘A’.
A’s business name was only registered 30/07/2015 – (8 weeks ago) and is already claiming ‘… has helped hundreds of people across Australia to fix their credit.’
A’s website goes on to claim, ‘… 10 years’ experience in the finance, credit repair & legal sectors.’
Question worth thinking about | MyCRA Lawyers 1300-667-218
I would like to pose the following question: If a ‘credit repair company’ is claiming to know, understand and enforce the provisions of the Privacy Act, why would they potentially be in breach of a section of the Privacy Act that has a maximum penalty of up to $1,800,000.
Another question: If these ‘credit repair companies’ actually purport to understand the implications of the Privacy Act, why would A leave itself vulnerable to prosecution under s 11(1) which states, ‘If an APP entity holds personal information, the entity must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the information: (a) from misuse, interference and loss; and (b) from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.’ by not bothering to protect consumers personal information by spending the money to have a safe and secure SSL Certificate installed?
A has published data collection forms on its website. These forms aim to collect the type of personal information that is regularly collected by Identity Thieves. These forms ask consumers to enter their name, contact information, Driver’s License number, Date of Birth, and credit card information. All very valuable information on the black market and to Identity Thieves!