Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[finlander]

p Lease Do Correct...lets Get This Right And Hit The Oft With A Flood Of These:d

[andrew1]

Count me in

[andrew1]

Just a bit of nit picking:


Dear Sir/ Madam.

This letter is being sent to you as an Official Complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax Plc and Callcredit Ltd in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint also encompasses those Companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint relates not to the handling of Consumer Data but to the uses that this Data is put.

In particular, I am concerned that ‘Default’ markers on Consumer Accounts are being abused and manipulated by these Companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate Disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice, the Office of Fair Tarding (OFT) guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998.

Currently, a Default marker is put onto a Consumer's Account after a Default Notice has been sent to them. The issue of these Notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These Defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to Enforcement Action through the County Courts. In effect, they are a means to an end.

In the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Parliament clearly intended these Defaults to be a temporary marker to allow other lenders to see that Legal Action is pending on an Account. If the Legal Action is successful then it was intended that the Default should be replaced by a County Court Judgement which is then on view for 6 years. However, it is apparent to me that these Default markers are being used when no Enforcement Action is been taken or has any prospect of being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

This is not how they are supposed to be used.

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending Legal Action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against Consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these Defaults wishes to challenge these markers, then they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and, utimately, can only seek redress by taking Legal Action themselves to have the marker removed. This is invariably too expensive and too stressful for almost all Consumers.

A Default marker, once placed on record, lasts for at least 6 years. Thus, the Default has exactly the same negative effect as a County Court Judgement, and yet requires neither a Court nor a Judgement. This Adverse Data affects a Consumer's ability to gain Credit, Housing (Landlord Credit Checks) and, in some cases, their ability to gain employment (Employer Credit Checks).

This seems to be an attempt by the Credit Reference Agencies and their clients to bypass the Court system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine Disputes. In turn, the threat of a Default is also being used as a tool to try and deter those wishing to raise or discuss genuine Disputes.

I would request as a Taxpayer and concerned Consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I suggest that it would be productive to invetigate what percentage of the millions of Default markers issued over the last 6 years, have actually resulted in any Enforcement action being taken in Court.

I feel that as a public body, you have a Duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now.



Sarah

	County Court guidebook by Judge Patricia Pearl Follow this link to read the review of this excellent Small Claims Guidebook. This comprehensive and very accessible guide will take you through the process of suing or defending a claim. This guide will help you take control of your litigation and make you more confident about doing it yourself. Applies to England and Wales

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[MARTIN3030]

??????? Have I got my dates wrong-I thought April fools day had gone!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Finlander!

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps rather than us re-drafting your Letter, it may be better to break this down into the Key Points first.

Perhaps by way of a numbered or bullet point list. Then we can discuss each one to death and, when each is thrashed out and cyrstal clear with no flaws, then it can be re-assembled into a knock out Letter.

IOW, initially cut it down to the bones, and then put the flesh back on it when we have the basic structure flawless.

As always, this is just a suggestion.

Cheers,
BRW

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

??????? Have I got my dates wrong-I thought April fools day had gone!

Am I just a little slow or have we missed some important point oh wise one?

[babybear39]

Originally Posted by andrew1

Am I just a little slow or have we missed some important point oh wise one?

My thoughts exactly

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by banker_rhymes_with

(wish CAG had a spell check)!

It does if you use IE.
Download this: ieSpell - Spell Checker add-on for Internet Explorer. Once installed, click on over in your reply box and ta-DAHHHH!!!

Edit: Ah, there seems to be one for FFlovers too, but I don't know whether it works or how, but here's the link anyway: SpellBound - Spellchecker for Firefox and the Mozilla Suite

(brief hijack over)

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by Bookywookie

It does if you use IE.
Download this: ieSpell - Spell Checker add-on for Internet Explorer. Once installed, click on over in your reply box and ta-DAHHHH!!!

of course, you could just use a decent browser such as Firefox which has a built in spell checker

[babybear39]

ROFL...

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Bookworm!

It does if you use IE.

Excellent, many thanks! That will save me a lot of grief, as I have some amazing ways to spell things.

Thanks also PT, I have Firefox on some machines, must try using it again!

But on a serious note, this is useful, as many Letters being drafted on CAG just need a quick whizz through a Spell Checker to make them perfect. Lots are let down by silly mistakes, mine included I hasten to add.

Cheers,
BRW

[sillygirl1]

I'm willing to join in, a certain utilities company has been billing me for two years since they were told I had been evicted. I am posting separately on this website and will include the fact that they have deliberately placed incorrect info on the CRAs records as part of my complaint. My sister confirmed to me that she contacted them telling them that I had been evicted and to send a final bill. Luckily I kept the notes of that call and will include it in my complaint letter.

Also guess what, you can't SPEAK to their complaints department - even though they advertise another phone no for them - a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority is going in about that too!

[finlander]

??????? Have I got my dates wrong-I thought April fools day had gone!


Sorry confused by this?

[finlander]

Ok lets go through this in bullet points to get the finer detail right.

Ø The Cca was designed to protect the rights of both lenders and borrowers. It set out a clear framework for the layout of agreements, the prescribed terms and essential information required and the procedure for enforcement by a court.
Ø The act lays out a clear framework for lending and recovering funds. The procedure, in brief is
Ø The layout and prescribed terms of the agreement make the document executed, unexecuted or irredeemably unenforceable.
Ø An unexecuted document can be made enforceable on the order of a court.
Ø In the event of a borrower failing to make payments a lender must issue a default notice under the act. This is a clear indication that the act is intending to be ‘fair’ to both side and offer a chance for the borrower to make amends. The default notice is in effect a notice saying ‘Pay us the arrears, come to some arrangement or we will be forced into court action to recover our money’.
Ø In the event that the default notice is ignored then a default can be registered with a CRA. Now this is the crucial bit. This in my opinion, and that of CAR2403 judge is because the notice is pre-cursor to enforcement. A marker to other lenders that legal action is pending. Now if that is the case then the agreement must be either unexecuted or enforceable. If it is not then it serves no purpose. You can’t have a pre-cursor to something that is an impossibility which is the case with an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.
Ø A pre-cursor would require there to be a realistic chance of success in court. In this situation there clearly is none. If this is the case what purpose does the default maker serve now? It no longer becomes a warning or temp marker, which would make sense. It becomes a punishment in it’s self.
Ø Once on your record it last for six years. The same as a CCJ. There is no right of appeal except to the institution that placed it on there and has a vested interest.
Ø This marker can affect your ability to gain credit, living accommodation and employment. In effect this allows a completely unaccountable section of industry to decide if a citizen of this country is deprived of food, shelter and warmth. The three basics of civilised society.
Ø The only recourse for the citizen is the courts. This method is expensive for people who in all probability are already amongst the poorest and in some case’s the least educated in society. Many simply will not be able to and have to live under the marker.
Ø Why should a normal citizen be expected to take the lender to court to remove a marker when the lender refuses to take the debtor for the original default? What possible reason can a lender have for putting the marker on the record and not taking the debtor to court? If it is expense then the lender should write off the loan. They should not be allowed to place the marker and then not follow up.
Ø This is against natural justice. Someone asked above ‘What is this natural justice?’ It’s a legal philosophy out lined here… Notice that it says UK LAW……..



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. The concept is very closely related to the principle of natural law (latin: jus naturale) which has been applied as a philosophical and practical principle in the law in several common law jurisdictions, particularly theUKand Australia.[1][2]
According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator. The assertion in the United States' Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," expresses some of this sentiment. The rules or principles of natural justice are now regularly applied by the courts in both common law and Roman lawjurisdictions. Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good, that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated.[3]
Natural justice includes the notion of procedural fairness and may incorporate the following guidelines:

• A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges).
• A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.
• A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore can not be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause".
• Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard".
• Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party.
• A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.
• Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.[4]

Ø These people have a vested interest. They have no right to charge convict and punish you in the click of a computer mouse then expect you to prove your innocence. This would mean that the CCa would have been crafted with no account of natural justice. Or perhaps it was just assumed that it would be applied. Remember 'According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator'
Ø If this is a default marker indicating future legal proceedings then there should be a time limit on the markers life. If no legal proceedings are started in a specific period or within a reasonable time the marker should drop off. Not stay on for as long as the CCJ it was after in the first place. The criminal law expects someone who is charged to be brought before a court as soon as possible. This is because the law and ‘Natural Justice’ understand that an indefinite wait for trial or having an accusation hanging over your head for a prolonged period would be unacceptable. But the default marker does exactly that.
Ø If the marker is not a precursor to enforcement then it must be enforcement in its self and banned under the Cca if the agreement is unenforceable…




Well that’s a start…………….

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[finlander]

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND
THE ADDED VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Jonathan Cooper

Doughty Street Chambers

Introduction

Article 6(1), European Convention on Human Rights:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

Article 6, and the right to a fair trail, is fundamental to the whole scheme of the Convention and the rule of law. It, therefore, needs to be given a wide and broad interpretation. In recognition of the fact that Article 6 guarantees the right to the fair administration of justice, from its earliest case law the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has affirmed this principle. For example, in Delcourt v Belgium[1] the Court held that a restrictive interpretation of the Article would not correspond to the aim and purpose of Article 6.


PART ONE: ARTICLE 6(1) IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED

Article 6(1), ECHR in civil proceedings

If it is established that civil rights and obligations are being determined, then there is an obligation on the part of the State to ensure a fair trial in their determination, regardless of who the parties are.

In essence civil rights and obligations are determined in any proceedings “the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations”. Article 6(1) therefore applies irrespective of the status of the parties or of the nature of the legislation/law which governs the manner in which the dispute is to be determined.

What are civil rights and obligations?

What is a civil right is an autonomous concept. It is the impact of the proceedings on the parties rather than their classification in domestic law which is crucial.

When civil rights are being determined this will include all types of private litigation between individuals up to and including the assessment of damages and enforcement of judgements.[1] It will also include some, but not all, decisions of a public law character.

[veester]

This is an excellent idea

[andrew1]

Sorry to cut into the flow - shouldn't this be: either executed or enforceable?

Ø In the event that the default notice is ignored then a default can be registered with a CRA. Now this is the crucial bit. This in my opinion, and that of CAR2403 judge is because the notice is pre-cursor to enforcement. A marker to other lenders that legal action is pending. Now if that is the case then the agreement must be either unexecuted or enforceable. If it is not then it serves no purpose. You can’t have a pre-cursor to something that is an impossibility which is the case with an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[citizenB]

count me in

[citizenB]

Originally Posted by andrew1

Sorry to cut into the flow - shouldn't this be: either executed or enforceable?

Ø In the event that the default notice is ignored then a default can be registered with a CRA. Now this is the crucial bit. This in my opinion, and that of CAR2403 judge is because the notice is pre-cursor to enforcement. A marker to other lenders that legal action is pending. Now if that is the case then the agreement must be either unexecuted or enforceable. If it is not then it serves no purpose. You can’t have a pre-cursor to something that is an impossibility which is the case with an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.

It should

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[citizenB]

Just a thought, if you want more CAGers to join in this battle..then perhaps the title could be changed to reflect the cause.