Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

'C.R.A.'s Archiving Our Data Over 6 Years Old'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4170 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This thread has emerged out of Sosumi's 'C.A.G. S.A.R. Club' thread and would likely have never started without it. Sosumi's thread got so big and branched off in so many directions it probably got a little confusing for any new viewer that wanted to trace back issues with clarity. So, appreciation to sosumi for this thread. It was in the said thread that I asked the following question:

 

Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean going to court if it comes to it basically.

Edited by renegotiation
New thread created out of much longer and older thread.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a long thread! The answer might be in it somewhere I know. Can a CRA legally hold (even if not visible on your file) information on you over 6 years old if you are determined to not let it do so? I mean court if it comes to it basically.

 

It's my view that they never delete anything - it's just removed from view.

 

Proving that would be almost impossible, unless you could find a whistleblower to give you concrete evidence it happens.

 

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible, but I can see why you would want incorrect/inaccurate visible information corrected.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why you'd be worried about information that isn't visible

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm dealing with the incorrect visible stuff at the moment as it goes. That's hard enough! :lol: :lol: :lol: I just don't trust them one bit with my old debts and believe things may well get worse in the future. Your answer hints, I hope, that from a legal perspective I could force them to remove any data they held on me over 6 years old. Is that right then?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely an SAR should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

 

Newborn

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

 

Newborn

 

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should show whatever they hold on you, however old.

 

Yes, I was going to send off some SAR's.

 

Data can only be held for a purpose, once there is no purpose it has to be destroyed, whether visible or not.

 

In theory! They tend to think they are a law unto themselves though.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You jest, I did an Access request to a High street bank a year ago and got things which mysteriously vanished the second time around, especially the important bits. Lucky I kept the 1st one.

 

Like a proper tombola!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi andrew1 and renegotiation,

 

I was being a bit niaive and simplistic with my answer.

In the perfect world my answer is correct.

But if the law changed tomorrow and Experian etc were able to publish a 20 year credit history you can bet your bottom dollar they've got it ready!

It's just not published.

While a debt is outstanding they will argue that they can keep the data indefinitely until several years after it is FULLY repaid.

Partial repayment will keep the remainder of the debt live, even if 'full and final'. (Zombie Debt).

 

Newborn

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies Newborn. I'm just talking about my unpaid debts. They were all left unpaid around 6 years ago and longer. The defaults went on at varying stages after that. I want to know if they have a 'right' to keep this data on file for longer than 6 years or not. If they don't have this right, and my SAR's show that they do have information on me older than 6 years, I am going to force them to remove it in court. Let's face it, it will probably have to be done in court knowing their arrogance. I think i've done my time so to speak. I do have a case right?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The data protection act allows the retention of data if it is it in the 'interest of the data controller' (creditor or DCA) to do so. They just can't publish it on a credit file after 6 years have passed.

Also, bear in mind that the OC will also keep any data 'in their interests', which they can then pass on to the DCA whenever they want anyway.

If the information cannot be published and it is statute barred (??) I don't think you have a problem, unless the law changed overnight to allow them to publish the data. It would probably not be retrospectively allowed anyway.

 

Newborn

Beaten:

RBS: £4,500

AMEX: £4,200

Barclaycard Visa: £12,100

Barclaycard M/Card: £12,600

(Including the numerous DCAs they have set on me.)

PPI reclaims (into my bank account): £25,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is they would find some 'dubiously legal' way of making this adverse data hinder me in the future. The question is if noone uses it then why do they keep it? I will see what the SAR's show up. Thanks again.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, this latest discussion is theoretical - what happens in practise is that these companies flaut the law, DPA or not, and those less knowledgeable accept it as "being the way".

 

I'm sure we can all remember the time where we didn't question what goes on, but I feel the tide is turning now.

 

Incidentally, the CRA's claim a "legitimate interest" in the information given to them by their clients, because their other clients use that information for "legitimate reasons". This wouldn't stand up in Court, but who takes the CRA to Court? I haven't. The onus is on the data controller - which the CRA is, but only vicariously, via data feeds from creditors, so are effectively second hand data controllers themselves. Correct the direct DC, then use s.14(1) and s.14(3) to correct the CRA.

 

Until these practises are challenged formally - which won't happen, as they settle out of Court before any precedent is set - this is the system we have to live with.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets challenge thae law of precendent then ;)

 

If you can get a case to a level that sets a precedent, you'd be making legal history. It isn't going to happen, as they will back down and settle before you get there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

We need to ask for a huge settlement that they will never pay to ensure it gets to court...

Edited by renegotiation
Content Of Post Changed To Link Up Thread Better.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written strong letters to all the CRA's asking them for definite confirmation of their policies on data over 6 years old. I await their replies with interest. No replies as of yet.

 

I had a bit of an argument the other day with an Equifax manager as it goes. I was letting off steam about them turning up on my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from Barclaycard. He told me it was moral that creditors should know where their debtors were. I told him I agreed that it was moral for creditors to know the location of their debtors, BUT (a) it wasn't their job to do that, especially in the clandestine manner in which it was done!!! and (b) even if it was their job to do that, WHICH IT WASN'T, they certainly had no business passing on telephone numbers of debtors to disgusting DCA's that harassed folk in their own homes at all hours of the day!!! He seemed to shut up after hearing my comments and didn't know what to say!

 

Experian are the first to reply and here is their response. Yep, I was right! Here it is:

 

IMG.jpg

 

My experience of CRA's so far is:

 

Experian - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in both telephone calls! Good work Experian!

 

Equifax - 2 telephone calls. Lied to completely in one call. Moralised and lied to in the other! Good work Equifax!

 

Callcredit - They don't seem to be contactable by phone apparently! Otherwise, I think I know what I would be hearing. Anyhow, I complained about 2 incorrect default dates from one company. They were down as 18 months later than the identical defaults on my Experian and Equifax credit reports. They wrote and said the ***2*** dates had been amended. I wrote back and requested another credit report. Lo and behold, only 1 of the dates had been amended! Good work Callcredit!

 

That's nothing but lies and incompetence. I await the replies from Equifax and Callcredit on default data over 6 years old with interest. My question is if it isn't any use to anyone why do they keep it? They don't have grounds to keep it do they? I thought they were supposed to keep data for 'only as long as it was necessary'!

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they admit that they archive the information rather than delete it after 6 years.

They might claim that's so that they can check back on stuff, do SARs etc.

However the act says they should only keep information for as long as it is relevant, then delete it, not archive it.

 

Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

These 3 companies must have a hell of a lot of data on people are they suppose to send you archive stuff as well as the data up to six years. Also do they send it to people in ordinary post when a SAR is sent to therm. It must be very heavy and cost a lot of postage. I am not not worry about their cost but may only send it out second class and even if they send it first class people may not get it for weeks later due to it been so heavy. Why do they keep old stuff that is older then six year old as I alway thought that it would automatically fall of their computers when it was six years old. Do they go thought it and look at what is worth keeping. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal experience with Experian has been that they DON'T automatically drop stuff unless you check your credit report - which after all is what THEY want you to do MONTHLY (there is an article stating that one day it will be necessary to do MONTHLY checks - WHY????) if I can find the article I will post the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'O' Yes, of course they want everyone to do a monthly check, think of all that revenue from us the punter, I feel sometimes that they have a lot to do with data going missing, it is a money making racket and that is a fact. :-?

 

These people are less than honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make the ICO my first port of call and see what they say. Then, I need to draft a good letter for my CRA SAR's. I'll just wait and see what Equifax and Callcredit have to say. I'm thinking I should have no legal difficulty forcing them to remove my data that no longer need. I just don't trust them!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I received a wholly inadequate reply from Equifax a few days back and absolutely no response from Callcredit whatsover. My original letter template was completely unambiguous so the feeble reply from Equifax and lack of reply from callcredit are likely to be answers in themselves. Hmmm. I wonder what that answer could be? :):):) I have sent a copy of my original letter to Callcredit (registered mail this time) demanding a response and another unambiguous letter to Equifax asking for a fuller answer! Just for the record, I have pasted Equifax's lacklustre response below. They have basically just stated what most of the nation knows and ignored my question.

 

 

 

IMG-3.jpg

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are like blinkin politicians the way they answer these questions - never a straight answer! You ask them a question and they come back with " No, the question that should be asked is......." then go on to answer that one ( with a touch of " The fact of the matter is...." :mad: ) Jeez they make you mad!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez they make you mad!

 

Yes, but they certainly picked the wrong person if they think i'm just going to skulk off.

 

sue the companies giving them the information, I say. (I have!)

 

I plan to do all I can. I got a lot of things on my plate at the moment! One thing at a time for me. Still got to start my CCJ set aside as well. :):):)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...