Campaign to the OFT against unfair CRA practices.

[finlander]

Ok i seem to be the only one contributing at the mo which is a shame.

here are some examples oh the 'Natural Justice' avenue.

House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE
TREASURY COMMITTEE
RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN LONG-TERM SAVINGS
Tuesday 8 June 2004
MR WALTER MERRICKS


USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

Oral Evidence

Members present
Mr John McFall, in the Chair
Mr Nigel Beard
Angela Eagle
Mr Michael Fallon
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Norman Lamb
John Mann
Mr James Plaskitt
Mr Robert Walter

Examination of Witness

Witness: Mr Walter Merricks, Chief Ombudsman, The Financial Ombudsman Service, examined.
Q1867 Norman Lamb : a House of Lords Committee has recently looked at accountability of ombudsmen and other similar services and they have recommended a requirement for an accessible and efficient appeals mechanism based on merits of case rather than by judicial review. I have a real concern as a lawyer myself about natural justice.

Q1868 Norman Lamb: Do you have a concern about natural justice where perhaps new evidence comes to light and the fact that a small company or individuals who have had their livelihoods destroyed have no recourse at all?
Mr Merricks: We do have a concern for natural justice and due process and we comply with the rules of natural justice and due process.

Q1869 Norman Lamb: Apart from the lack of an appeal.

Q1870 Norman Lamb: But inevitably there is a difference between an ombudsmen process, not just yours, and a court process. In the court process there is an appeal.

Mr Merricks: We are not a court.

Norman Lamb: No, you make quasi judicial decisions that can affect people's livelihoods ---





Natural Justice

A. Definition

Natural Justice is an umbrella term for the legal standards of basic fairness. It is a fundamental doctrine within the common law, rested in centuries of legal tradition.

R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin PLC (1987).
Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls

“... a failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice, which is probably better described as fundamental unfairness since justice in nature is conspicuous by its absence.”

B. Importance

John v Rees (1970) .
Justice Megarry

“It may be that there are some who would decry the importance of the rules of natural justice. ......those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not: of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered ; with inexplainable conduct which was fully explained; ........ nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find there is a decison against them as being made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events.”

C. Parliament’s Intent

Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1976)
Lord Russell

“I am satisfied that if the true conclusion is that the course which events followed resulted in that degree of unfairness ... that it is commonly referred to as a departure from the principles of natural justice and it may equally be said that the order is not within the powers of the Act and that a requirement of the Act has not been complied with. For it is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in paraticular procedures, compliance with those principles .”

R v Commission for Racial Equality ex parte Hillingdon London Borough Council (1982) - Lord Diplock

“I do not think that in administrative law as it has developed over the last 20 years attaching a label ‘quasi-judicial’ to it is of any significance. Where an Act of Parliament confers upon an administrative body functions which involves making decisions which affect to their detriment the rights of other persons ... there is a presumption that Parliament intended that the administrative body should act fairly towards those persons who will be affected by their decision.”
R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd (198 Lord Bridge

“Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as if it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way in which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended.”

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995)

Lord Justice Rose

“statutory powers however permissive, must be used with scrupulous attention to their true purposes and for reasons which are relevant and proper”

Lord Steyn (1997)

“We live in a democracy in the narrow sense that majority rule prevails but, more importantly, we live in a liberal European democracy based on values of justice, liberty, equality and humanity. Judges are therefore entitled to assume, unless the Statute makes crystal clear provision to the contrary, that Parliament would not wish to make unjust laws.”

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (199
Lord Steyn

“... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural.”

R v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport & the Regions ex p Spath Holme (2001) Lord Nicholls

“No statutory power is of unlimited scope”

D. Rights and Duties

1) Duty to promote the legislative purpose

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Brind (1991)
Lord Ackner

“The discretion .......... must be used only to advance the purposes for which it was conferred. It has accordingly to be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act."



2) Duty not to act ‘ultra vires’

HTV Ltd v Price Commission (1976)
Lord Denning - Master of the Rolls


“A public body which is entrusted by Parliament with the exercise of powers for the public good cannot fetter itself in the exercise of them. It cannot be estopped from doing its public duty. But that is subject to the qualification that it must not misue its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen when there is no overriding public interest to warrant it”.

Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983)
Lord Scarman

“The unreasonableness of the decision i.e that which would enable the Court to conclude that it is one which no reasonable authority could have reached, is that it proceeded upon a misconception of the duties imposed upon the appellants by the statute.”

R v Hendon Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (1994)

“It is implicit in the enactment that a conferred power is not to be exercised
unreasonably .......... If it is ... the conferred power can be characterised as illegal, void or a nullity”

3) Duty to act in good faith

Board of Education v Rice 1911
Lord Loreburn

“They must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything”.

4) Duty to act reasonable

Roberts v Hopwood 1925
Lord Wrenbury

“A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon
Reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes
merely because he is minded to do so - he must generally exercise the discretion to do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably”

R v Department for Education & Employement ex parte Begbie( 2000)
Lord Justice Laws

“Fairness and reasonableness and their contraries are objective concepts: otherwise there would be no public law, or if there were it would be palm tree justice.”

5) Right to fairness

Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)
Lord Diplock

“in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability”

Board of Education of the Indian Head School Division of 19 of Saskatchewan v Knight (1990)

“ The existence of a general duty to act fairly will depend on the consideration of three factors:

i) The nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body
ii) The relationship existing between that body and the individual
iii) The effect of that decision on the individual’s right”

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Unilever PLC (1996)
Lord Justice Simon Brown

“Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power .......... it is unlawful ....... because it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power”.

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pierson (199
Lord Hope

Referring to the Secretary of State as “ bound by considerations of substantive
unfairness ...... as there are no statutory rules, the presumption must be that he will exercise his powers in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.”

6) Right to procedural fairness

Greater London Council (1985)
Lord Justice Muskill

Went on to identify four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely,

“1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.
2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.


3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.

4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance”



7) Duty of enquiry

The Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977)
Lord Diplock.

“the question for the Court is did the Secretary of State ask himself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly?”

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Venables (199
Lord Justice Hobhouse

“Essential that (the Secretary of State) should be fully informed of all material facts and circumstances”, “it is not clear what account the Secretary of State took of this consideration nor that he took any steps to inform himself of the relevant facts”,

Duty to ask the right question

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977)
Lord Wilberforce

“The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement.”

Lord Diplock

“The Secretary of State did not direct his mind to the right question; and so, since his good faith is not in question, he cannot have directed himself properly in law”

9) Duty to consider all relevant material

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994)

“Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken”

R v Legal Aid Area Number 1 (London) Appeal Committee ex parte McCormick (2000)

“The Committee cannot simply leave those issues in the air since their resolution ... could be beneficial ...”, “serious doubts about whether they did take into consideration all potentially relevant factors”

10) Duty to consider relevant evidence

Dakar v Minister of Transport

“There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable.”

Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough
Council (1977) Lord Wilberforce

“The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement”

Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March (1980)

In describing this basic principle “an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case”.

R v Parliamentary Commisioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (199

“The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the decision maker to reach a different conclusion”

R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999)
Justice Lightman

“The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant
consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration.”

R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)
Lord Slynn



“It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside”.

11) Duty to consider evidence of probative value

Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984)
Lord Diplock

In referring to a principle of natural justice that an investigative decision maker “must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value.”

R v Wakefield Magistrates Court ex parte Wakefield M B C (2000)

The Magistrates decision “fatally flawed by its error of law in purporting to make a critical finding of fact, without having heard any evidence called in the proceedings upon which that finding of fact could properly be founded”

12) A right to see documents relied on

T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (196

“The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being
considered by the decision maker and to contradict them”.

Wiseman v Borneman (1971)
Lord Morris

“I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision”

Lord Wilberforce

“The natural aversion against allowing a decision to be made on the basis of material he has not seen”

R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995)
Justice Sedley

“The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything.”



13) Right to sufficient information

Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)
Lord Diplock

“Fairness requires that the objector ......... be given sufficient information about the reasons relied on by the Department as justifing the draft scheme to enable them to challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of any arguments upon which the departmental reasons are based”

14 ) Right to cross-examine

Osgood v Nelson (1872)
Baron Martin

There can be no doubt my Lords that the Courts of Law in this country, would take care that any proceeding in this country were conducted in a proper manner; that the person proposed who was to be removed should have every opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses brought forward against him, or otherwise opposing the case up against him; that he should have the power of calling witnesses to prove his own case; and he should have every possible opportunity which a person can have, according to the law and constitution of this country, of defending himself and of establishing that he is not liable to amotion”

Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)
Lord Edmond-Davies

“There is a massive body of accepted decisions establishing that natural justice
requires that a party be given an opportunity of challenging by cross-examination witnesses called by another party on relevant issues.”

15) Right to legitimate expectation

Council of Civil Service Unions v Ministry of the Civil Service (1985)
Lord Roskill

“The principle (of legitimate expectation) may (include) .......... an expectation of being allowed to undertake representations especially where the aggrieved party is seeking to persuade an authority to depart from a lawfully established policy adopted in connection with the exercise of a particular power because of some suggested exceptional reasons justifying such a departure.”

R v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Ahmed (1999)
Lord Justice Hobhouse

“The principle of legitimate expectation and English law is a principle of fairness in the decision making process.................”


16) Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy

R v Secretary of State for the Enviroment ex p.Brent London Borough Council (1982)

“(The Minister is) entitled to have well in mind his policy. To this extent the
reference to keep an open mind does not mean an empty mind. This mind must be kept ajar”

R v Hampshire County Council ex parte W (1994)
Justice Sedley

“What is required by the law is that, without falling into arbitrariness, decision makers must remember that policies are means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases, each of which is likely to differ from others. Each case must be considered, therefore, in the light of the policy, but not so that the policy automatically determines the outcome”.

R v Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex p Hamble Fisheries(Off shore) Ltd (1995) Justice Sedley

“In describing the two conflicting imperatives of public law “the first is that while a policy may be adopted for the exercise of a discretion it must not be applied with rigidity which excludes consideration of possible departure on individual cases.............., the second is that a discretionary public law power must not be exercised arbitrarily or with partiality as between individuals or classes potentially affected by it............. the line between individual consideration and inconsistency, slender enough in theory, can be imperceptible in practice”

17) Duty to reconsider where an important error of fact is made known

R v Newham London Borough Council ex parte Begum (1996)

“the decision cried out for review when the error, on so important a matter, was drawn to the council’s attention by the claimant’s solicitors ............ A failure to reconsider the decision in these circumstances would in my judgement have been unlawful.”

1 Duty not to be irrational

Bromley and London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983)
Lord Diplock

“Decisions that, looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached”.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985)
Lord Diplock

“By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

19) Right for the procedural process not to effect an unfair conclusion

Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984) - referring to the rule of natural justice,
Lord Diplock

“that the decision to make the finding must be based on some material which tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically
self-contradictory”.

Conclusion

CRA's should ask themselves whether the above principles of natural justice are complied with whether they are The Court of Star Chamber…
The Court of Star Chamber was established in 1487 by Henry VII and was developed by Cardinal Wolsey as an instrument of royal power. It evolved new and simple methods of effecting justice taken from Roman Law by which the Common Law rules of evidence were dispensed with. It was hated as a symbol of royal despotism and abolished in 1641 by the Long Parliament.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[andrew1]

Ok i seem to be the only one contributing at the mo which is a shame.

Don't worry finlander, you are not alone, momentum will follow, but like everything, people like leaders with things like this - it's a war and the size of it can be intimidating to many, someone has to stick their nose in front and drive it - seems to be you on this subject, the ranks will build and rally rest assured.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.


Quite right, but some of these organisations in the credit industry particularly are worse than the artful dodger himself and studying the strategy is pre-cursor to annihilating them altogether - a much more satisfying prospect. If their underlying purpose and mode of operandi regarding defaults and the keeping of them recorded can be remedied they will be no better than The Registry Trust recording CCJ's ( who also sell the data at vast costs to the loan industry)

[tifo]

Mr Merricks: We are not a court.

This is the FOS answer to every question when you want to use law and it upsets their decision in favour of the bank.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Finlander. Please don't think for one minute you are alone here, this subject is one which is very close to my heart. I've a few angles to add to your campaign one concerns the Advertising Standards Authority who actually are pretty good movers when it comes to valid complaints. I'll put it into something cohesive over the next day or two, just the small problem of a £15k CCJ from no less than HMRC to dust off first. (My representation landed today and within an hour I had a phone call from a very senior Tax Inspector indeed. They haven't been bothered in the slightest for two and a half years but have just been made aware that they're in breach of 40 counts of The Taxes Management Act 1970, 6 breaches Bill of Rights 1689, 6 breaches of Civil Procedure Rules punishable under sec 32.14, multiple breaches Data Protection Act 1998 and breach of Freedom of Information Act Act so not much then.......)

	Record your calls Follow this link to read the review of the Truecall telephone recorder and call manager. This is the Rolls Royce of call recorders. It's a bit pricey but if you buy it with our special offer you will get it at cost: about 20% discount. How much do we make on the deal? - Nothing at all. You can also buy cheaper devices from Maplins. Truecall is the best - but the important thing is to record your calls.

	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

[Toulose LeDebt]

Here's what I mean about getting the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate.
Equifax False Advertising Campaign more ammo against CRA!!!!

Here's what I've written about the CRA's. Including breach sec40(1) of the Admin Justice Act 1970

New attack on CRA's to remove defaults.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[SURFBOY]

Any more info on this campaign?

[finlander]

Im going to write to the Information Commissioners Office and post the letter on my Experian thread. I want a specific question answered by him first.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[finlander]

In the meantime i suggest that as we appear to have hit a brick wall with any new ideas or progressing this as a block complaint we stick with the original plan. Post the following letter to this address.
Enquiries Unit


Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London, EC4Y 8JX

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 Consumers Data but to the uses that this Data is managed.

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 Trading (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 a County Court Judgement should replace the Default, 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 being taken or has any realistic chance of such action being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself.

This is not how they were devised 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, ultimately, 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 nearly the same negative effect as a County Court Judgement, and yet requires no input from a court. 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 can be interpreted as 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 investigate 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.

Signed


IF PEOPLE CAN MAIL THIS OFF TO THE OFT PUTTING THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGNING IT THEN WE MIGHT GET THIS MOVING AGAIN. REMEMBER THE MORE THE MERRIER AND THE MORE THEY ARE LIKELY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. PLEASE POST ON THIS THREAD IF YOU SEND THE LETTER AND WE CAN TRY AND COLLATE HOW MANY HAVE BEEN SENT. TELL ALL THOSE YOU COME ACROSS ABOUT THE LETTER AND ENCOURAGE THENM TO POST IT AS WELL. A MASS MOVEMENT IS A FRIGHTENING THING AND WE MAY HAVE A REAL CHANCE OF GETTING AN INVETIGATION LAUNCHED. IMAGINE HOW UPSET THAT WOULD MAKE THE CRA'S

FURTHUR TO THIS I HAVE ATTEMPTED LODGE A PETITION WITH HO10 DOWNING STREET BUT IT SEEMS TO BE TAKING FOREVER.

HOWEVER THIS ONE DOES EXIST.

Petition to: Enforce the provisions of the Data Protection 1988 so that Credit Reference Agencies have an obligation to correct any and all inaccurate information they hold on an individual.

IT CURRENTLY HAS 31!!!!!!!! SIGNATURES. COME ON PEOPLE ROAD CHARGING GOT 1000000!!!! GET ON THERE AND SIGN IT. GET YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILLY ETC TO SIGN IT. ONCE IT GETS TO 500000 THEY WILL TAKE NOTICE.

I AM GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL THREAD NOW.

I HAVE SENT THE LETTER AND WILL BE SIGNING THE PETTION.

LETS BEAT THEM ONCE AND FOR ALL

GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY AND REMEMBER PASTE HER WHEN YOU POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION.

	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.

[SURFBOY]

Count me in, letter will be posted recorded delivery first thing monday morning

[finlander]

thanks surf boy its a start.........

[the main man]

Just a thought........what about posting a link to this petition across all similar sites?

[knoxvillain]

petition signed.

[SURFBOY]

Petition signed as well.

[citizenB]

petition signed x 2

Letter will be posted x 2 first thing tomorrow

[citizenB]

Originally Posted by the main man

Just a thought........what about posting a link to this petition across all similar sites?

Is it ok to post the link on all subscribed threads ?

[babybear39]

Petition signed, letter ready to post tomorrow...

[thecteam]

Petition signed and letter going in post tomorrow.

[veester]

I read the post from finlander relating to NJ (Natural Justice) when posted, but had to digest and re-read to really understand the implications.

Correct me if i am wrong but the premises set-out within would to greater or lesser degree apply to any situation.

For example if a company/organisation whether financial instituion (lender etc) or FOS type body did not consider all due evidence fairly.

The reason i state this is that some of the institutions i am having issues with are ignoring medical evidence of illness.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[legalpickle]

Whilst I commend this action and am happy to add my name to it, I think you are going about it the wrong way.

The OFT regulates the markets. The CRA's Data Protection policies are meant to be regulated by the Information Commissioners Office.

I would therefore do a mass complaint to the Information Commissioner - Richard Thomas.

The problem, put shortly, is that CRA's are putting default's on files left, right & centre without sufficient evidence and not removing them when disputed by the customer because the provider says it's right even without evidence. The provider refuses to remove the information and the customer is left in the lurch with no recourse to action.

I have encountered this as have numerous friends. If this - without reading in detail through all the posts - is exactly the problem, then in my opinion the correct body to make a mass complaint to would be the Information Commissioners Office, though the OFT would also possibly be beneficial.

It is important to note however that there is officially a process of dispute. If a company refuses to remove the information, a complaint can be made to the Information Commissioners Office or their Ombudsman - i.e. FOS, Otelo, CISAS, Energy Supply Ombudsman or Energywatch - however it rarely is dealt with properly and the route is much more time consuming than dealing with most other issues and unfairly biased against the consumer - in breach of the UTCCR's & Overriding Objective, as well as HRA - so I agree that the best route is an Ombudsman type scheme run by the Information Commissioners Office.

There is a way of proceeding through the courts but it can be very costly and rarely succeeds without a crapload of evidence and legal knowledge.

My experience says that if you propose an alternative course of action you may have more success than just complaining. An alternative scheme may be an Ombudsman or Adjudicator run by the Information Commissioners Office that decides on the basis of evidence if a default is fair, and that the CRA is bound to accept that ruling. It could be funded by a payment from the company who made the default incorrectly if it was made incorrectly. Another way of partial funding is by upping the fee for the statutory credit report to £3 and the extra £1 to fund the scheme.

Regarding my last point. Some of you may argue why should we pay? You are right, but unless the consumer agrees to pay a little bit, it's not going to get passed and if consumers have to pay £50 if they lose, consumers won't use it because they'll be scared it's unfairly biased against them. However, if the cost for the credit report was increased by £1 - which hasn't been done so for as long as I am aware - which is a small amount by all standards, we would be funding it without taking a big hit. I am in no way saying it should be completely funded by consumers, businesses that make errors should also pay a penalty of £25 to the Information Commissioners Office to fund the scheme and £25 to the consumer, before any estimate of damages and irrespective of any damages. That is the only way to fund the scheme fairly, but also give a company an incentive to provide correct information.

What do you think?

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.

[Dipply75]

Petitioned signed, letter going as soon as I can get my goddam printer to work lol, and link being passed to as much of the world as i can.

As for the scheme legalpickle suggests - not a bad idea at all. When all is over, there will need to be something long term and workable in place top regulate the CRA's properly but....

I am not up for raising the report fee at all. We have apparently have no choice that these files are kept on us, they can then dictate an awful lot in your life, you have to watch it like a hawk and pay to do this....without choice as I said.

How about taking the funds from the huge amounts of money the CRA's make on the side selling our info for marketing/statistical analysis, all the other services they package it up and use it for? If the CRA have to help fund the regulators costs - they may behave a bit better to keep those costs down, no?

But then we have the old conflict of interest chestnut, hmmmmmm.

I also think that as we have no choice but for the CRA's to hold our info, we should not be forced to pay for access to it - their fees should come from the profits they make selling access to it.

	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.

	Credit Report Click link to open in new window.