alanfromderby Alliance & Leicester update

[alanfromderby]

Off we go.

Data Protection Act letter sent to Alliance & Leicester today, for what will be a very interesting and potentially groundbreaking claim.

The account was closed in 1999 and is now subject to a CCJ which is being paid by monthly installments. I am aiming to question the validity of the original judgement since a large part of the debt was due to unlawful charges.

I will keep you posted of progress.

[alanfromderby]

Alliance & Leicester will have missed the 40-day deadline for Data Protection Act compliance on Monday. This leaves me in a strange position, as the original account was closed around 1998/9, but then in early 2002 a CCJ was obtained, which is now subject to a very small monthly repayment via their solicitors (Bryan CArter & Co).

I know for certain that the original debt had a large percentage of fees included within it - but I presume they are going to eventually say that they cannot provide information that old.

This leaves a potentially tricky situation legally, as I am certain that the court will not accept a set-aside so far down the line - especially as an application was made to suspend a warrant and vary the originally imposed repayments in 2003.

Clearly I have to send the Data Protection Act Letter Before Action, but do have this feeling that I might be heading down a blind alley with this one.

As they have the debt established by a CCJ I cannot play the Consumer Credit Act card, and if I cannot get hold of the transactional information, I cannot prove that there were any unlawful charges - even though I know for a fact that there were a lot.

Any thoughts?

[caro]

They must have had the information when they claimed the CCJ which was within the last 6 years, so surely if you are still having to pay they must still have the details from the original debt. If they don't have these details they would be hard pressed to prove you still owe anything I would have thought. Under the DP Act, surely you still have the right to access any information they hold about you.

I have no legal experience, and know nothing of the processes involved, but could you try something with the courts along the lines of "it is now clear that charges are unlawful and in the light of the OFT report the situation has changed, and you believe this debt was largely due to unlawful charges which the court should not be enforcing or condoning. Please look at bank records and ensure the debt is lawful and if not force A&L to return money".

I guess it depends how far you want to take it as it is uncharted territory.

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by caro

I guess it depends how far you want to take it as it is uncharted territory.

I want to take it as far as I possibly can - the problem I have is that I don't want to file papers at court only to get them struck out. Certainly you have raised a good point about the documents used for the legal proceedings of 2002. That is very useful, thanks.

My feelings are that I will press on with a Data Protection Act action, especially bearing in mind the point you have raised. Hopefully, that will reach a position where we can open a dialogue and do some negotiations over reducing the balance owed.

Worth a try.

[lookinforinfo]

In the normal; course of events your account would have been deleted/erased
after the 6/7 year qualifying period.

However, your account from then is still live since not only is there is an amount
outstanding but it is being consistently being reduced.
And they will need to keep the data on file a] to prove their is a debt: b] to
confirm it is a bad debt [should you not eventually redeem the whole amount]
to the Inland Revenue so it can be written off: and c] the auditors will need the
record to confirm their balance sheet and that thepayments you are making are
registered on the account, properly accounted for and tallied.

By that reckoning they would have to keep all the documents relating to the debt.

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

In the normal; course of events your account would have been deleted/erased
after the 6/7 year qualifying period.

However, your account from then is still live since not only is there is an amount
outstanding but it is being consistently being reduced.
And they will need to keep the data on file a] to prove their is a debt: b] to
confirm it is a bad debt [should you not eventually redeem the whole amount]
to the Inland Revenue so it can be written off: and c] the auditors will need the
record to confirm their balance sheet and that thepayments you are making are
registered on the account, properly accounted for and tallied.

By that reckoning they would have to keep all the documents relating to the debt.

Interesting, and thanks also for the input. I have the Data Protection Act Letter Before Action ready to go off on Tuesday, and we will see what happens.

Bearing in mind what you say it would be very difficult to see how they could defend an action under the Data Protection Act, when the County Court will hold evidence (indeed the same County Court where the case was dealt with) that they have produced letters, documents, and would have had to rely on transactional data for their 2002 action.

[lookinforinfo]

I don't see how how they can do other than admit they have your rercords.
Without them they cannot prove you still [or ever] owed them money]. Either
way you win something.

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

I don't see how how they can do other than admit they have your rercords.
Without them they cannot prove you still [or ever] owed them money]. Either
way you win something.

The trouble is that legally they don't have to prove the debt anymore as it is already the subject of a CCJ.

[chrismc]

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

I don't see how how they can do other than admit they have your rercords.
Without them they cannot prove you still [or ever] owed them money]. Either
way you win something.

Alan

I am in a similar position to you, 30-40% made up of charges, only that my debt and CCJ is not as old, but I am new to this so was looking for advice also. But some of what lookinforinfo has merit, I am going to send off a Data Protection Act tomorrow anyway as I don't see as I have anything to loose.

But if you read my post from a day or so ago, lickthewallfatboy vbmenu_register("postmenu _64586", tr also makes some valid comments. I would also be obliged for any thoughts you may have, here is my post chrismc V's Barclays if it helps??


Thanks
Chris

[lookinforinfo]

Quote=alanfromderby;The trouble is that legally they don't have to prove the debt anymore as it is already the subject of a CCJ. Unquote

Fine. But surely the Court cannot refuse to reopen the case since your claim
will be that you have just discovered that part of the debt included allegedly
unlawful charges which should not have been levied. And would have [in view of
the current refusal of banks to defend their charges to this day] not been accepted
by the Court at the time had it and you been in full possession of the facts.

[alanfromderby]

Certainly I am going to seek a set-aside, but I am going to leave it until I have gone through the Data Protection Act process. It can only help my case if I have to take enforcement action over the DPA - it all helps to paint a picture.

[chrismc]

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

Certainly I am going to seek a set-aside, but I am going to leave it until I have gone through the Data Protection Act process. It can only help my case if I have to take enforcement action over the DPA - it all helps to paint a picture.

Yes I am looking at doing the same, sent of my Data Protection Act request today, so I will see what happens. Plus I just heard from someone else today who successfully wrote to the court in question stating that they had new information that they didnt have at the time of service, and wanted to dispute the amount.

The court sent back loads of forms for them to fill out to apply to have it removed and apparantly this request was carried out.


Chris

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by chrismc

I just heard from someone else today who successfully wrote to the court in question stating that they had new information that they didnt have at the time of service, and wanted to dispute the amount.

The court sent back loads of forms for them to fill out to apply to have it removed and apparantly this request was carried out.


Chris

That's very interesting - do you have any details, links etc.