Jump to content

spark1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spark1

  1. I'm sure the OFT wouldn't be too happy about a DCA sharing a letterhead and Trading Name if they aren't part of the same company.

     

    I did send a complaint to the OFT about 1st Credit Limited and the wife signed the consent form, so they could dislose her details if need be.

     

    But I wouldnt be surprised if they were also fooled by the letters.

  2. Crapstone

     

    Its all in hand, 1st Credit know they tried to extract money from the wrong mrs spark, and the ICO have comfirmed this in respect

    they Breached the DPA and the FOS have confirmed they caused mrs spark distress and inconvenience by Breaching the OFT Debt Collection Guildlines.

     

    I was just interested see what poeple opinions were and if these letters Breached any Acts, because they do fool people in believing they originate from Barclaycard, when in fact they do not.

     

    Harrassed

     

    Thanks for your reply.

     

    Cheers Spark1

  3. On the 15th June, I sent a letter recorded delivery to John Varley Barclays, Group Chief Executive.

     

    Within the letter I enclosed copies of the two letters, no answer from Barclaycard they have blanked me.

     

    Barclays answered a different equiry, but like I said up to now, Barclaycard have blanked me.

     

    Spark

  4. Seminole

     

    I don't whether or not the actual account exists, because my wife has never had an account with Barclaycard.

     

    All I know is she received two of these letters, basically for two accounts.

     

    But it all come to light just recently, 1st Credit had traced their Debtor to my wife. They are in Breach of the DPA and OFT, Im just looking to see what else they may have Breached.

     

    I complained to the OFT, ICO and FOS because I thought they would work where these letters came from?

     

    Spark

  5. Seminole

     

    Sorry, I should of said I filed the complaints on behalf of my wife.

     

    Im after people opinions as to whether or not they would be taken to beleive that this letter was typed up and sent by Barclaycard, because the FOS and ICO seem to think so.

     

    But because my wife has never had an account with any company which is part of the Barclays group, I find it strange that the ICO and FOS seem to think it came from Barclaycard?

     

    Spark1

  6. Just looking for people opinions on this particular letter. The reason I ask is, I filed complaints against 1st Credit Limited with the ICO and FOS. I also filed a complaint with the ICO against Barclaycard.

     

    The ICO assessment on both 1st Credit and Barclaycard came back in my favour, and so did the FOS assessment on 1st Credit. But ive asked for an Ombudsman review on this.

     

    Both the ICO and FOS state in their reports Barclaycard wrote to my wife.

     

    Ive wrote to Barclaycard asking them, did they insert my wifes name and address on this letter, upto now I have no response, its been few weeks now.

     

    All opinions more than welcome :)

     

    scan0001.jpg

     

    Cheers Spark1

  7. Pinky69

     

    This thread is becoming more and more interesting now your refering to theft.

     

    Theft is a criminal offence and these type of offences have two parts; first there needs to be a guilty act and second a guilty mind.

     

    This bit is taken from my study book (the open university) " you may be interested to know that motive is irrelevant with regard to guilt or innocence if the intention was to commit an offence"

     

    Have ago and fill in "guilty act" and "guilty mind"

     

    No trickery Im just interested.

     

    Spark1

  8. Pinky69

     

    1, Money took under force pretences.

     

    2, Defamation of character.

     

    3, Breach of the DPA unfairly processing your data.

     

    Don't forget compounded interest on the money they took.

     

    If you get all your facts in place, I would imagine the companies involved would settle up, or you could get a no win no fee solicitor.

     

    Spark

  9. When I challenged the CRA's, they stated the ICO's opinion, that they had checked the data with the data controller, who had confirmed it's accuracy, so they - as a data controller, now, themselves - felt it sufficient to leave the data showing on my file.

    This just shows what a mockery this system is

    So long as the ICO thinks the CRA's can rely on this process, this will be the system we have to live with, kids. :evil:

     

    I think the ICO are instructed from above (government level) to accept this, because CRAs hold all the information on every person and every limited company etc and its so easy for the authorities and the financial world (the Elite) to take a look in at the press of a button.

     

    It will never change, and no-one will ever get this changed even through the courts.

     

    Heres my thread under the DPA section, the ICO assessmnets are in here, Ive got some more stuff but need to wait before I up-load.

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/215195-spark1-fiels-six-complaints.html

     

    Cheers Spark

  10. stuck at page 62 then, has anyone successfully stopped the cra's from processing their data when the provider of that data is still saying to do so against best evidence from other party??

     

    Ive only just realised this thread existed. Lee Hanock in the Directors office at Experian removed searches from my wifes Experian credit file, even though the company which put them there never authorised him to do so, he made the decision himself.

     

    This is what p!sses me off, the ICO always state that Experian only hold and process the data information supplied to then and can not remove it.

     

    Its a no win situation imo, the ICO will always protect the CRAs. Ive had six assessments back from the ICO and all of companies complained about, apart from Experian complaint were found to have been in Breach of the DPA.

     

    Now bare in mind in one of those complaints Experian displayed incorrect information for approx 10 months, the ICO still stated they did not Breach the DPA, only the companies which supplied it did. The information being displayed was incorrect linked addresses, now it was blatantly obvious my wife could have not lived at those addresses in question because in the public records which Experian have access to it clearly shows how long she has lived at how current address.

     

    Now another bit what p!sses me off is, in carrying out their assessments the ICO used the public records in so much that the companies which carried out searches should clearly see the person they were looking for was clearly not my wife because records showed my wife had lived at her current address for x amount years and therefore she could not be the person they were searching.

     

    To sum it up, Experian should have clearly seen that all the incorrect linked addresses on the wife file were that INCORRECT. WHY? because public records the ones Experian have access to clearly showed my wife had lived at her current address for x amount of years and therefore Experian should of realised this when we challanged her credit file, but they never, they came out with the same old story, but on the other hand Lee Hancock removed the Searches.

     

    So there you have it, the ICO will always protect the CRAs, because it only takes one person to get a decision and the flood gates will open.

     

    Spark

  11. After that letter, we had the SD sent by Connaught Collections UK Ltd signed by MR D SILCOCK, mind you Silcocks signature was something similar to this P.P. Ahaddle.

     

    By this time the original 1st Credit Limited had turned into 1st Credit (guernesy) Limited 1st Floor Dorey Court, Admiral Parl,st Peters Port, Guernsey, GY1 6HJ.

     

    Then after the SD, the Bankruptcy Action Letter and on and on. Even carried on for abit even though the FOS had took the complaint on, thick skin or what.

     

    Heres a link to the ICO assessments, the FOS complaint is going all the way to the Ombudman, even though the Adjudicator awarded compensation.

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/215195-spark1-fiels-six-complaints.html

     

     

    Spark

  12. I had a similar problem (well the wife did) with a couple of DCAs trying to get her to pay for debts that had nothing to do with her.

     

    I would get your mum to write a letter saying, she does not owe any money for any such powergem bill, and please remove her surname and residential details from their systems, and just get her to print her name at the bottom of the letter.

     

    Send a copy to both DCA's and a copy to powergem, OFT, and with the powergem one, write a letter telling to them to inform their DCAs to leave her alone.

     

    If it carries on and they keep sending letters, then she can complain to the ICO and FOS. Make sure you keep all letters as evidence.

     

    Spark

  13. Questioner

     

    Its good stuff aint it :) and the thing is, its might give other forum members an idea how the ICO interpret the DPA.

     

    Under the DPA I can take legal action through the courts and I would of thought the ICO assessment would add weight to my cases. But for now Im going to let the FOS deal with the companies involved.

     

    Spark

  14. Questioner

     

    At the end of the day its the unknown which causes fear, once you get in control of the situation, theres no fear :) have a look under the DPA section, Ive just posted the ICO assessments on my cases.

     

    Spark

  15. In 2008 on behalf of my wife I filed six complaints with the Information Commissioners Office . All the complaints related to Debts which have nothing to do with her what so-ever.

     

    The complaints were against;

     

    GE Money, Booker Management Services Limited, Experian.

     

    Barclays, Barclaycard, 1st Credit Limited.

     

    Complaints concerning two of these companies were filed with the FOS, and there could be more to follow. These complaints have been upheld by the FOS Adjudicator, however I have asked for the Ombudsman to review the complaints, even though compensation was awarded for distress and inconvenience caused by the two companies.

     

    Below is the outcome of the assessments carried out by the Information Commissioners Office.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Cheers Spark1

×
×
  • Create New...