Experian is bad for business.

I started to investigate my credit report on the 15 January 2020 and submitted a request to Experian to investigate an overdue account listing from DMC which to the best of my knowledge had prescribed. Experian on the same day submitted a request to *********** at DMC with a request that DMC should confirm prescription of such: African Bank acc. ending ...1003. On the 31 January 2020 a reminder was send to DMC by Experian, DMC rep**** to Experian that they cannot agree to prescription of such debt because of a Purchase made dated 26 February 2018. DMC submitted a copy of the African Bank statement to Experian, they forwarded such to me. 1. Herewith my dilemma: a. Did I make such a purchase? The answer is NO. In fact there is NO purchase make on this account since it is a loan. The only transaction dated that day is a standard credit to the amount of R 183.19 and it is reversed later. b. Then the question is why would DMC make such a false statement in writing to Experian who had access to such information and refused to verify that. 3. Does DMC do that to be prejudicial to the consumer? YES, this debt has been prescribed by Trans Union in December 2019. In summary: Why did DMC denied my claim of prescription based on supply of false information to Experian to deliberately not to approve my claim of prescription. This obviously false claim and the confirmation that the account cannot be prescribed on the mail dated 03 February 2020 has severely prejudiced me in several ways. Experian SA has prejudiced me in the sense that they had direct access to such false information, could have verified such information and not blindly followed DMC down the garden path. It has come to my attention that this kind of behaviour seems to be the norm in the SA banking and debt collection world. I have more proof to verify my statement.

I started to investigate my credit report on the 15 January 2020 and submitted a request to Experian to investigate an overdue account from Nedbank which to the best of my knowledge had prescribed. Experian on the same day submitted a request to PL at Nedbank with a request that Nedbank should confirm prescription of such: account ending 99001. On the 29 January 2020 Nedbank By name PL rep**** to Experian that Nedbank cannot agree to prescription of such debt because of a payment made on the 26 August 2017.( as per email from Nedbank by name of PL) Nedbank submitted a Copy of the statement to Experian and they forwarded such to me. 1. Herewith my dilemma: a. Did I make such a payment? The answer is NO. b. Then the question is who did make the payment in August 2017 (my last payment was made in 2015!) In fact there are two payments and reversals made in 2017. 29/4/17 is the date of the first "payment", reversed again on 04/05/17; the second "payment" 26/8/2017 reversed again 29/8/17. These accounting entries could only have been initiated by Nedbank, since the debit order on my Capitec account (my method of payment) could not be initiated due to a complete lack of funds. c. Why ? 1. Did Nedbank make such a payment to deliberately not to allow prescription? 2. Did Nedbank backdated the payment from January 2020 because I queried prescription? 3. Does Nedbank do that to be prejudicial to the consumer? 4.Why does Nedbank show/make such random payments and then only to reverse such 3 days later. The last entry onto the account was dated: 06 January 2017 Interest. The next entry is a Payment dated 29 April 2017 to the amount of R 1807.42. That entry amount of R 1807.42 is reversed dated 4 may 2017. Next Entry is dated 26 August 2017 and subsequent reversal dated 29 August 2017. Not one entry after that. In summary: Nedbank made random payment to the account to deliberately not to approve my claim of prescription. Their claim and the confirmation that the account cannot be prescribed on the mail dated 29 January 2020 has severely prejudiced me in several ways. Further to the fact that PL had access to the ********** information on the account, and not advised Experian of such is prejudicial to me as a consumer. Experian SA has prejudiced me in the sense that they had direct access to such false information, could have verified such information and not blindly followed Nedbank down the garden path. It has come to my attention that this kind of behaviour seems to be the norm in the SA banking and debt collection world. I have more proof to verify my statement.

Hello

I do not have had the common courtesy of a reply from Experian.

Kind regards

Leon

Hello, Where is the proof of this communication? re Nedbank and DMC.