LL
Lance L
Active since Jan 2013
8
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
8 reviews1 month ago
Experian's automated dispute system denies consumer rights on complex matters
My home loan was cancelled by High Court process in 2020 and the property sold in execution in June 2025. The credit agreement has not existed for years. Despite this, Experian continues to list the account as OPEN/CURRENT with 23 fabricated adverse payment markers, a wrong default date of January 2026, and a monthly instalment that no longer exists. I have disputed this multiple times. Experian's automated system closed my most recent dispute (EXP20260416-CD205188) demanding a "Paid-Up Letter or Cancellation Letter." No such document exists or can exist for a court-terminated mortgage. This is the wrong process app**** to the wrong type of dispute. Two other credit bureaus have already corrected this data. Experian is the outlier. The National Financial Ombud has opened a formal case (0112474) against Nedbank on this matter and has directed me to file a separate complaint against Experian. Regulatory complaints are also active with the Information Regulator (POPIC20261100) and the NCR. Experian's dispute system is not designed to handle legally complex disputes. When the automated dropdown doesn't fit the facts, it simply closes the case and leaves the consumer with no recourse. This is a failure of your obligations under section 72 of the National Credit Act and section 16 of POPIA — not a technical glitch. I am asking Experian to apply human judgment and correct this listing. The bank's own written admissions are already on record. No further verification is needed.
1 reply
1 month ago
VCCB replies to Hellopeter review and then NOTHING HAPPENS
Despite replying to my review on 08 Apr 2026 at 10:00, NO CONSULTANT HAS BEEN IN TOUCH. I will now lodge a complaint against VCCB with the NFO. A Form 29 complaint has been filed with the NCR. SACCRA has also been advised of failure to resolve. VeriCred Credit Bureau (VCCB) reflects a credit score of 700, rated "UNFAVOURABLE" on my profile as at 31 March 2026. My VCCB profile shows absolutely nothing to justify this rating: Personal Loan: No data Retail Card: No data Vehicle: No data Home Loan: No data Credit Card: No data Judgments: None Defaults: None Notices: None A credit score is supposed to be derived from credit profile data. Where there is no visible data, a poor score cannot be legitimately calculated from what is on the profile. Either VCCB holds hidden data it is not disclosing to me — which contravenes section 70(1) of the National Credit Act (every consumer has the right to be advised of all information held about them) — or the score is based on inaccurate or outdated data, contravening section 72(1) NCA and POPIA Condition 4. I lodged a formal dispute with VCCB on 18 February 2026. I submitted a formal demand letter on the same date. VCCB has not provided any explanation for this score, not disclosed what data underpins it, and has not corrected it. I have lodged an NCR Form 29 complaint against VCCB dated 31 March 2026 demanding full disclosure of the score methodology and all underlying data inputs. VCCB must either disclose the hidden data or correct the score. Silence is not acceptable.
0 replies
2 months ago
VCCB assigns POOR score of 700 on a profile with zero accounts, zero judgments, zero defaults — no explanation provided
Here it is: Title: VCCB assigns POOR score of 700 on a profile with zero accounts, zero judgments, zero defaults — no explanation provided HelloPeter complaint text: VeriCred Credit Bureau (VCCB) reflects a credit score of 700, rated "UNFAVOURABLE" on my profile as at 31 March 2026. My VCCB profile shows absolutely nothing to justify this rating: Personal Loan: No data Retail Card: No data Vehicle: No data Home Loan: No data Credit Card: No data Judgments: None Defaults: None Notices: None A credit score is supposed to be derived from credit profile data. Where there is no visible data, a poor score cannot be legitimately calculated from what is on the profile. Either VCCB holds hidden data it is not disclosing to me — which contravenes section 70(1) of the National Credit Act (every consumer has the right to be advised of all information held about them) — or the score is based on inaccurate or outdated data, contravening section 72(1) NCA and POPIA Condition 4. I lodged a formal dispute with VCCB on 18 February 2026. I submitted a formal demand letter on the same date. VCCB has not provided any explanation for this score, not disclosed what data underpins it, and has not corrected it. I have lodged an NCR Form 29 complaint against VCCB dated 31 March 2026 demanding full disclosure of the score methodology and all underlying data inputs. VCCB must either disclose the hidden data or correct the score. Silence is not acceptable.
1 reply
2 months ago
XDS/Splendi retaining fabricated mortgage payment history — dismissed dispute twice — NCR and Information Regulator complaints active
XDS (via Splendi) is retaining inaccurate adverse payment history for Nedbank Mortgage Account 8002073672801, which was closed by High Court judgment (Case No. 10447/20, Western Cape) in 2020. The property was sold in execution and transferred 8 December 2025. No credit agreement exists. No instalments are due. XDS's profile shows: December 2025: late payment marker — fabricated. Any credit in December 2025 was the Sheriff distributing court-ordered sale proceeds. Not a consumer payment. January 2026: write-off marker — fabricated. The R3,034,532 is a post-judgment shortfall. Not a new default. Not consumer payment conduct. Arrears R3,034,532 and instalment R34,334 — both imply an active credit agreement. None exists. I lodged a formal dispute on 18 February 2026 (Ref: CDF-52731). Splendi first closed it incorrectly on 6 March 2026 saying "the account is closed on sold debt" — missing the point entirely. My complaint is about fabricated payment history, not account closure. When I re-engaged, Splendi offered a "20-day notice" investigation — a process for a different right under a different regulation. I declined, as my rights under section 70(2) NCA do not require XDS's permission or an internal investigation process to be exercised. XDS has still not removed the adverse markers. I have lodged NCR Form 29 complaints against XDS and Nedbank, and a POPIA complaint with the Information Regulator (Ref: POPIC20261106). Deadline for correction: 30 March 2026. No substantive response received.
1 reply
2 months ago
TransUnion published fabricated mortgage arrears — score dropped 86 points in 9 days — dispute dismissed in 24 hours without evidence
TransUnion dismissed my formal dispute (Ref: TU20260217-000335-01) within 24 hours of lodging it on 17 February 2026, claiming "credible evidence" from Nedbank — without providing that evidence to me as required by law (section 72(4) NCA). The dispute concerns Nedbank Mortgage Account 8002073672801. The property was sold by court order (Case No. 10447/20) and transferred on 8 December 2025. The account was closed by a High Court judgment in 2020. No credit agreement exists. No instalments are due. TransUnion's profile now shows — as at 31 March 2026: 9 months in arrears (April 2024) — fabricated. No agreement existed. 9 months in arrears (December 2025) — fabricated. Written off (January 2026) — a post-judgment shortfall, not a consumer default. These markers have no factual basis and are worsening. My TransUnion score dropped 86 points in 9 days — from 692 (Good) on 22 March to 606 (Average) on 31 March — directly because of this inaccurate data. The "credible evidence" from Nedbank was never shared with me. The four credit bureaus reported four different statuses for the same account — proof the data is unreliable. I have lodged NCR Form 29 complaints against TransUnion and Nedbank, and a POPIA complaint with the Information Regulator. I have given TransUnion until 7 April 2026 to correct the listing and provide the evidence. No response yet. This is causing real, ongoing financial harm.
1 reply
2 months ago
3 paid-up judgments refused — Experian's own evidence proves they were paid
I have four judgments on my credit profile — case numbers 18695/2020, 4273/2021, 14282/2021 and 1013/2022 — all from the same creditor, the 20 West Road South Body Corporate, all fully paid, and all covered by a single paid-up letter from Barnard Attorneys dated 5 February 2026. That letter confirms full settlement and the creditor's consent to rescission of all four judgments. On 25 February 2026 I submitted a formal Regulation 71A removal demand to Experian for all four judgments, with the Barnard paid-up letter as supporting evidence. Regulation 71A requires Experian to verify payment and remove paid-up judgment listings within 7 working days. It does not require Experian to investigate or seek evidence from the data supplier. On 16 March 2026, Experian resolved judgment 4273/2021 in my favour and removed it. On the same day, Experian refused the other three — case numbers 1013/2022 (ref EXP20260217-CD162080), 14282/2021 (ref EXP20260217-CD162084), and 18695/2020 (ref EXP20260217-CD162086) — on the grounds that it had received "credible evidence in the form of a call recording from the data supplier." That "evidence" was a written statement from the previous attorneys, Otto Krause Inc, which reads: "Please note that we have not received payments on the above-mentioned case numbers when we were working on them. Kindly further note that the files have been closed and handed to the new attorneys." This statement does not contradict my payment. It confirms it. Otto Krause says they did not receive payment while they were handling the files — because the files were then handed to new attorneys, Barnard Attorneys, who did receive payment and issued the paid-up letter. Experian took a statement that describes the exact sequence of events leading to my settlement and used it as grounds to refuse removal. That is not credible evidence. It is a misreading of the facts that has left three fully paid judgments on my credit profile. There are three clear failures here: 1. Experian app**** a different standard to identical evidence. The same Barnard paid-up letter that was good enough to remove 4273/2021 was rejected for the other three judgments from the same matter, same creditor, same letter. 2. Experian app**** the wrong legal process. These are Regulation 71A paid-up judgment removals, not Regulation 17 accuracy disputes. Experian had no basis to go back to the data supplier for evidence at all. 3. The data supplier has no standing. The 20 West Road South Body Corporate is not a credit provider under the National Credit Act and cannot lawfully supply evidence in a credit dispute. Three paid-up judgments remain on my credit profile as of today, 21 March 2026. Formal complaints have been lodged with the National Credit Regulator and the Information Regulator. I am requesting that Experian remove all three immediately under Regulation 71A.
1 reply
12 months ago
Sunrose - Take money, but don’t supply.
They take you your money. The don’t deliver after weeks… They have no information Then they ghost you. Reported to credit card company, and as *****.
0 replies
29 months ago
RSAWEB - an efficient waster of time …
I have been trying to get a service connected since 23 Dec. Rsaweb support is slow and ineffective. I get bounced around and my time just gets wasted!
0 replies
Review Distribution
5 Star
0 (0%)
4 Star
0 (0%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
0 (0%)
1 Star
8 (100%)