Jump to content

Ruprecht

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About Ruprecht

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. They probably do a Table 1 search to see if you are worth chasing (to see your current credit situation) ...... Then pretend it was an error.... Can the DCA do a proper credit check legally I wonder? If the account is active the creditor can check you as much as they like I believe, but once it is deado I wonder if they can continue doing that seeing as no more credit is on offer? Edit: I am talking about a proper credit check BTW not just debtor tracing etc.
  2. On the bbc news website today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318 It says he is a "High Court Judge" but doesn't say what court he was sitting in when he made the judgment. Might be worth getting the decision/transcript...
  3. I can't find a thread here about this news article on the bbc today, anyone here involved in the action? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318
  4. So you have 5 accounts that have gone south, albeit with faulty default notices and maybe unenforceable agreements? Why do you think going to manual processing will help you in anyway? What are you trying to achieve? Maybe you could do a CIFAS protected registration, that should force everything to go manual: http://www.cifas.org.uk/pr
  5. You would be best just sticking to making a complaint to the ICO and seeing how they respond. A court claim will take even longer probably anyway. The ICO complaint is free and no risk. The CRA will simply defend saying "we don't make any credit decisions"...... Don't go near a court unless you are 100% sure you know what you are doing, best case is you may waste a lot of time, worst case is they will go after you for costs! The CRAs send large law firms to defend... If the ICO say you don't have a basis for a claim then you know it is a complete non-starter.
  6. I have always used a Part 8 Claim to get companies to comply with the Data Protection Act, that is what the ICO office says too. It would cost £150 to start a claim asking the court to make an order. Not sure if this works, takes ages to load for me: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_a_case_to_court.pdf If you are after damages too you'd have to pay extra for that part of the claim. The only automated credit making decision process CRAs do is providing a credit score to a lender I would think, do Callcredit do that?
  7. You shouldn't have to file an application for a strike out. If the court hasn't received directions as requested they should have struck it out as per the order. Maybe send the court a diary (cheeky) with your letter when requesting they strike it out.
  8. If you are not happy with just gifting it and "hoping for the best" repayment wise, maybe you should keep things simple and treat it as a gamble. Amount you are giving her/Estimated value of House x 100 = Your % share of the house The Mould is right though, look after your family within reason. There is too much "everyone for themself" these days.
  9. You can send them the Letter Before Action now and give them 14 days. Always have it look like you have been reasonable. Make sure you send it Special Delivery. Recorded sometimes doesn't work out... I think what might have happened is the only way they can have your debit card pay each month is to enter your information on some arrears payment system so it can take it. So now it looks like you are someone behind in payments making an arrangement to pay. You need to remind them that you never entered an "arrangement to pay" were never behind with payments and always made the req
  10. You are right about Equifax. All my past problems have been about searches they have allowed without my permission, no other CRA. I think they own Wescot, a DCA. O2 have done a credit search on me with them last week and I have never had anything to do with O2. I think it might be some sort of marketing search/trawl Equifax have allowed but they have recorded it as a Table 1 Credit Search. I keep asking what information they are providing to these 3rd Parties and if the 3rd Party provided my correct DOB before they released it. Never get a clear reponse from them. Al
  11. I have taken a few companies to court to force them to correct their records under the Data Protection Act. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/14) Before you can do that (the nuclear option) you need to give the Data Controller 40 days to correct the data. After that, if it remains wrong, I would send a Letter Before Action too giving them a further 14 days, by Special Delivery to the Data Controller of the company. The register can be searched here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp I would ignore the credit reference agencies and focus all of your atten
  12. If he is going it alone... might it be worth his(or her) while to send a CPR 31.16 letter and ask for the medical report? This is asking for disclosure before proceedings commence and might help out costs wise. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part31.htm I think you seriously need proper legal advice though! Check your insurance policies for legal cover pronto as per the previous post and don't admit anything before getting proper advice.
  13. Are you saying there is anything wrong in your view with this Court of Appeal judgment? Check this out: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/English_court_system.png Waksman is the 3rd rung down.
  14. The 2nd claim could bring in all sorts of arguments against it so it wouldn't be worth them re-filing. They'd have to explain why they claimed the previous copy was true when it wasn't etc. Unless they had the original who would believe them the 2nd time after they told a previous "untruth". The CCA allows them to be unbinded from providing a wrong copy under s78 doesn't it? Then again we are not just talking about complying with s78 are we, we have litigation in progress, CPRs etc. Nobody would re-file and open pandoras box surely?
  15. They would have to re-file a fresh claim. The previous claim would be dead once judgment was made as they had not complied before judgment. If they lost once and had to pay costs they might think twice re-filing against someone who wasn't a pushover. This is what happened here isn't it? Once it was dead it was dead. Even if they complied in the meantime the previous judgment was based when they hadn't complied.
×
×
  • Create New...