Jump to content

Hondaman56

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

16 Good

1 Follower

  1. Well, I've received another letter today - and it looks like it is their response to my SAR request. Problem is, they've summarised charges on my present current account only, and then summarised a list of items NOT included - such as interest! In my SAR I specifically itemised ALL the accounts I wanted full data for, INCLUDING any manual interventions. So, they have not complied with my request. I am writing back just now to explain that they have not complied, and the meter is still running! To be fair, they destroyed the (HSBC) cheque that I included for their fee...... They really do seem to be incapable of replying to letters sent. Perhaps they go through some change when entering the parallel universe that is banking in the UK?
  2. Pete I wasn't seriously suggesting criminal activity to get into the press - it was precisely what you said - an expression of frustration. I agree entirely that negative publicity is not what is needed - hence my "smile" at the end of the comment - and indeed, that positive publicity is harder to find. My course of action at present is as suggested below; in that I will complain to the ICO, FOS, and ensure my SAR is lodged viz. my credit card as well as the bank accounts. Thanks again.......
  3. Thanks Castlebest. Have put an SAR for full info on the crdit card today - can't believe I forgot to do that with all the other row going on about it up to date! I've sent Colin Langdale a letter today with the SAR indicating my intent to report HSBC to the ICO, to the FOS, and "possibly" to start a court action - not necessarily limited to just refund of unfair charges. As regards media - yes, an angle is all important. I suppose "stealing" (sorry, unlwafully removing/using their claimed right of set off even though the account was in dispute) the rent money only allows a certain amount of hardship. I did, when the whole issue kicked off, head straight to the local police station. I told them I wanted to report a crime of theft. They told me it was a civil matter. I asked them how long it would take the to get to [location of branch] if they had a report of the windows going in. They told me 15 minutes - it is literally a minute and a half along the road. Anyway, I told the officer behind the counter I'd wait for them. They didn't seem to get it.........maybe I can get it into the press that way lol! Seriously, though, I will keep my thinking hat on for the angle - maybe a mass request from everyone on CAG to Watchdog or something......
  4. Well, isn't that a royal pain! So, since Section 247 repeals, among other things, the above useful piece of legislation, what equivalent protection is provided in its place I wonder? I guess it goes back to the Data Protection Act after all? Thanks Meshi
  5. Pete Thank you. Yes, annoyed is probably understaement of the day at present....8) I have just completed the obligatory draft letter to Mr Colin Langdale at the above mentioned Gate to Hell. However, I will err on the side of caution, and probably re-write the entire thing tomorrow. No doubt it is presently full of invective that will leave me wide open further down the road. Just a thought - how does it go with threatening full media attention at this stage - my instinct to be honest, is not even to reply to these jokers, but simply to issue a Letter Before Action on the credit card matter (bearing in mind there will be two more following, one on each of two current accounts), and go straight to the media with it all at the same time...... Whaddya all reckon?
  6. UPDATE: I have today received a letter on the credit card matter. You just have to hand to them their evident skill in (a) missing the point entirely, (b) denying that what is factually in front of their noses even exists, and © their ability to consistenly acknowledge any act of inpropriety on their part. I am now absolutely positive that bank staff get trained in the same place traffic wardens do. Today's letter, a reply to my very comprehensive letter outlining where, and why, they were wrong, including proof, and pointing out the relevant law, states that the writer is "sorry" I have found it necessary to complain AGAIN! Also, that "despite her best endeavours" I remain dissatisfied - really? What, after losing all my claim papers (which were personally delivered into branch staff hands), ignoring my requests for replacement papers, ignoring the fact that I put the account into dispute on 14 Dec 07, the fact they have defaulted the account since, that they stole £950 from my account causing charges on top (which charges they have NOT refunded) and the absolute fact that they deny ANY wrongdoing whatever would leave me dissatisfied???? Whatever would make them think that? Oh, poor HSBC! They also have the bald temerity to state that HSBC "does not recognise that the account is in dispute" - I'm not entirely sure what understanding sending them a letter stating that I disagree with the account status, - that I am disputing it would bring them to - perhaps a letter before action will encourage a different reognition. The writer further confirms that the account will not be recalled from our friends MCS - well bully for her - I've already told MCS that I refuse to deal with them as HSBC have NOT followed the rules. She then states that she cannot comment why Norwish Union would consider the case (note she puts this in quotes) despite non receipt of my original claim - well, who's fault was that, again? She also notes quite clearly that payments were maintained on the account up to the date of my claim..........which they claim was not received! She then apologises that this is not the response I was expecting......that she trusts this clarifies the bank's position, that little can be gained from further correspondence into the matter, that the bank has confirmed its position and will not change, and that this is "our final decision". She then states that I can escalate the matter to the "Manager" of the team, or refer, as indicated in my letter, to the Financial Ombudsman. What a pile of effluent, frankly. Assembled congregation, I would like to assure every single one of you that I intend to pursue HSBC to the Gates of Hell, and beyond. They have done me a significant wrong. I had a credit card account with a blance of approximately £2600 against a £4000 limit in Sept 2007, when I was made redundant. I am working again, but, in that time, not only have they lost claim papers hand delivered to them, subsequently ignored both written and verbal communication, stolen money from me, but they have also managed to increase considerably the balnace, defaulting me at £4610, and now denying they have done any wrong at all. How very dare they. I will, this evening, write to Colin Langdale (again) in which I will set out my position - reiterating briefly the facts, pointing to the evidence they've had, and accompanying it with an LBA - for the entire balance, damage, and costs. I may also indicate that I will complain to the national press - as I feel inclined to do so, and I will liberally mention the harassment (MCS, DG) and hardship they've caused. And, I suppose, I will continue to try to open another bank account somewhere else.....
  7. Remind them of their legal duty under the Data Protection Act. As you say, theey have been happy to take your money, and will send to the address you've lodged with them - if that's on the Electoral Register, against your name, they have no issue. They do not legally need ANYTHING with your signature on it. Regards
  8. Hi Margaret Your contract is probably with the insurer underwriting the cover - not with PC World - they would only act as agent in this case, although they may have sold you the computer. You probably have a case for failure to perform, for compensation and for damages - so long as the time frame specified in the agreement for repair has passed, and no rememdy has yet been forthcoming (or does not go far enough to satisfy the rights of the agreement. A lot may depend on the agreement you signed, and requested repair under. In any case, they cannot argue their liability is limited to nothing - which is what they're trying to do by blaming the courier. I'd be liaising with this insurer underwriting the policy at this point as a next stage to see what they have to say.
  9. Not strictly true. Any image (or voice recording) may be admissable as evidence if it can be shown that there was a reasonable likelihood of belief that a recording (voice or video) was likely to be made [of an incident, or event]. Of course, the data needs to be provably authentic too. A written statement, notice, or poster advising that calls (or video) are generally recorded suffices as notification that you may be recorded - and continuation (of speech or motion) provides tacit agreement to be recorded in most cases. No CCTV system in the UK would be legal otherwise. Obviously, in the case of a telephone call this will not work - hence the recorded statement on many call centre telephone systems that your conversation *may* be recorded. Final note - there are circumstances in which a recording obatined without subject permission can (and is) used in evidence. Clearly, that would be difficult to substantiate in the case of a missing computer, however.
  10. Thanks Sharpman Useful in that it led me to the Limitations Act, 1980. Section 24 states: 24. Time limit for actions to enforce judgments. — (1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable. (2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due. I can comprehend this being the basis on which CCJ information is retained on a credit reference file for six years - it would be a matter of public record for that duration, and hence *could* be used, published, or otherwise obtained by any person. I am unable to equate this Act to the reporting of financial data to Credit Reference Agencies, however - defaults, late payments, and such are not judgments (apart from in the eyes of financial institutions). The only information I can find so far (other than for court judgment) is in effect Principle 5, which neatly avoids timescales, but provides an arguement that can be used both ways - namely that Personal Data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. It would follow, that for information other than Judgments, there is no legal basis on which data is reported for six years - but rather, is "kept as long as necessary" for the purpose of financial reporting on an individual or individuals? Surely there must be some statue which prescribes an absolute limit on this kind of data retention? If not, clearly, a serious challenge needs to be made in respect of the CRAs making available (not necessarily retaining or storing, just making available) much of the data they collect about an individual for such a length of time - six years surely being a period which would cause both distress and damage - as per s.10 of the DPA? It is a puzzle, to be sure - and you know, I may just ring the CRA's one after the other tomorrow and ask them on what grounds they make available this data for the length of time they do.......
  11. Hi Gang I have another question, which someone with law knowledge will hopefully know the answer to - Reading through most of the available literature, seeking advice in the way one does, the general understanding is that information about a person and information concerning him kep in public record is available for a period of six years. What legislation provides this right? I've had a look through the County Courts Act 1984, and cannot see a timescale for any judgement entered. I've looked at the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and cannot see any relevant statute there either. I'm not aware of the DPA providing any timescale for retention of publicly accessible data - because the DPA, as much as anything is about storing the data, managing it, and giving it to the correct people....insofaras the DPA is relevant it is only, I believe for the purpose of ensuring data is not kept longer than necessary. Who decides how long "necessary" is? Any pointers gratefully received....
  12. Hi All I understand the terms "Default" and "Termination" to have different legal meanings - but; What is the position in law where an account or agreement is placed in Default, and the account is subsquently indicated as being closed? Is that legally the same as termination of the agreement which would have been in place to operate the account? If it is determined as such, then it would also appear to me that every Credit Reference Agency is essentially in breach of the CCA 1974, Section 174(1). No information obtained under or by virtue of this Act about any individual shall be disclosed without his consent. Surely when an agreement is terminated, the creditor cannot continue to enforce rights under an agreement is has terminated, and by terminating an account (closing it) has surely stated that no agreement continues to be in place by EITHER party? Specifically, if a creditor terminates an agreement, under what legal instrument do they continue to make reports to a credit reference agency, or indeed, continue to keep updated records about a person? By revoking the agreement, are they not also, either specifically, or by implication, also giving up any right to use permissions given by the debtor in force during the agreement? Does anyone know of any case law regarding this at all? Thanks.
  13. If your 40 days are up - i.e. since Littlewoods cashed your cheque, then its time to get the Information Commissioner involved - by all means send Littlewoods a letter stating that their failure to comply with your request for data (your SAR) has resulted in a breach of the Data Protection Act. Make sure your letter is aimed at the "Data Controller" for Littlewoods. I would be getting the IC involved now, as that will add wieght at least to any case you may bring against them.
  14. Pete You've effecitvely already executed the SAR by obtaining your files. What you need to do now is challenge the information with the organisations who have placed the information. You may need to speak with each of the agencies to find out more detail - it would be likely that information on one is similar to that on the other. Defaults *can* be challenged for a few reasons - such as where you did not receive any default notice, or where the account was actually settled prior to the date of default. In any case, once you have details of who placed the default on your file, write to the Data Controller for that organisation - e.g. say a default had been registered by A BANK PLC - you may find the correct address to write to here - but if not, find a contact number, phone then and ask for the address of the Data Controller - if they do not provide this, they are breaking the law (Data Protection Act). You should receive a reply in a fairly short space of time, letting you know they will (or why they won't) comply with your request. Where the information is evidentially incorrect, they have a duty to correct it - again, Data Protection Act, and pssibly other legislation too. Keep us informed - and keep fighting!
  15. Hi Pete I may well be corrected if I'm wrong here, but: A notice of correction is not the way to go. It can do more damage than help in the long run, because unlike other information, it does not come off your file when the item the notice addresses does - it stays on until you request its removal..... and can affect future credit by pointing out that you had a problem in the past, after the issue has gone. In your situation, from what you've said, you've started the correct way - in that you've been in touch with the insurer, and your former employer and requested the correct information. What you need to do is ensure that what the insurer told you is put in writing as soon as possible. You have a defence in court then if it ever comes to it. Once you have that in writing, and a written notice that the insurer will settle your HP, you then need to tackle the issue of the entry on your file. I would be inclined to send a letter to the finance company, accompanied by a copy of the letter from the insurer stating what you've written in your post (or words to that effect) and pointing out that the information is inaccurate in the circumstances. I'm not sure that you have a case under the DPA, but you may well have a case against either of your former employer, or the insurance company, for defamation, though you would need everything in writing setting out each party's position first to determine that. Most especially you would need to find out how, why, and when the insurance company came to believe you were fit for work, and no longer entitled to benefit from your policy. Keep us posted.
×
×
  • Create New...