That is tragic, so awful! Companies that think they can operate outside of the law with impunity should have their licence revoked immediately, restrictions amount to a slap on the wrist, but the damage to innocent human beings has already been done. Where is the justice? I fully intend to take whatever information I have and use it in the most effective way that I can. However, I have to be sure of my information first and that is why I have been asking stupid questions like: What other explanation could there be for the 'Settled' marker if not to indicate it was sold at that point? MC

Merely stating my interest in your thread and that I have subscribed to it. That way i get notifications when something new is posted

Does anyone get where I think I'm going with this?

Now I believe that it is correct to say that following a sale of a debt, no interest or charges can be applied until the debtor has been notified of the assignmet. i.e if a sale took place on a Monday and the debtor was informed (via NoA's) on the following Monday that no interest or charges could be applied during this period. I'm not certain about charges, but interest would definately be a no no! In any case, if my debt was indeed sold 05/08/2002 as the CRA file suggests, why have Citi continued to charge me overlimit charges, late fees and interest up until the NoA?

OK, well I will suggest the reason I think why. CHARGES, INTEREST AND INTEREST ON CHARGES

I disagree, I think a very overworked OFT & FOS. Yes, OK, ICO as well, but I can deal with that later (no whoops, I'm dealing with that at the moment lol)

Now look at the dates: Settled by OC 05/08/2002 NoA Citi 05/06/2003 (1st Crud 23/05/2003) And ask, why the long delay and what has been happening with my account in the meantime?

Hi CD, that is absolutely disgusting and 1st Credit got their knuckles rapped by the OFT for selling on 'Sensitive Cases' (OFT Requirements Feb' 2009). As regards, CRA files I slightly disagree. What should happen according to the ICO is that the original file be updated to reflect the new owner and the OC/DCA have to decide between each other who is responsible for keeping the record updated. In reality, what seems to happen is that the OC marks the original record as 'Settled' and the new owner creates its own entry. And the ICO is fine with this provided the informaton is correct and the original default date stands. (which mine isn't, but that is a seperate matter) In my case Citi have marked the file 'Settled' 05/08/2002, but the NoA's (which both disagree on the actual date of sale) are some 10 months later. Without complicating things unecessarily at the moment. I would like to find out: What other possible reason would the OC have had in marking the entry 'Settled', other than because it was sold. Suggestions on the back of a postcard welcome, but preferably on here! MC

Sorry bb, I really appreciate the time you are taking to reply,...........but you are missing my point. In its simplest form, my question is; Why would a creditor mark your CRA File as 'SETTLED'? There is more to it than that, but I'll just start with that. PS. If anyone else fells like chipping in please do, the more the merrier

Will do, good luck with yours too. MC

Subbing

ty bb, but I'm not sure if we are at cross purposes here. Basically I'm just asking that, the OC marked my CRA file settled 05/08/2002 10 months prior to the official NoA. Which indicates to me that 05/08/2002 was in fact the REAL sale date. Unless there is another explanation for the setled marker on that date, what other reason could they have had? LOL you must have removed the double post as I was replying and my rather more lengthy response got disappeared

No problemo, use as you see fit. I think you are right, unlikely they have got the docs. Why wouldn't they send them if they have? Because they are very busy with this type of request and they are bloody awkward! MC

Hello guest

If it helps, here is a copy of the letter I sent in reply: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Credit Card Account Number: Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request I thank you for the information that you sent me in response to my recent Data Subject Access Request, received and signed for by your company on 29/10/2010. However, you have not fully complied with my lawful request pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and as a result the disclosure of personal information is incomplete. For the purpose of S.7 DPA 1998, I have a legal right to ALL personally identifiable information that you hold on me that is not subject to specific exemptions under the act. I have spoken with the Information Commissioners Office directly, who has confirmed that the above is correct. As the ICO is the regulatory body that ensures compliance of the act, I suggest that their interpretation of the DPA 1998 is correct and not yours. Unless you disagree, in which case I welcome your authoritative comments, which I will gladly pass on to the ICO. Furthermore, please find below an excerpt from the ICO website, which I believe should clarify things for you completely: You are entitled to be told if any personal information is held about you and if it is, to be given: a copy of the information in permanent form; an explanation of any technical or complicated terms; any information the organisation has about where they got your information from; a description of the information, the purposes for processing the information and who the organisation is sharing the information with; and the logic involved in any automated decisions (if you have specifically asked for this). Your attention is drawn to the first bulleted item, which for your benefit I have underlined; this cannot be interpreted in any way other than: if your company possesses a document or data file with my name on it, on computer or in a manual filing system, then you are bound by law to provide me with a copy of it!. Unless, of course, there is a specific exemption. Failure to comply with my request in full will result in me taking the matter up further with the ICO and beyond that, if necessary and appropriate, to seek enforcement and potential compensation via the courts. I trust this now elucidates the matter with you and I respectfully request your assistance and compliance in completing my original request; for which you still have 15 of the statutory 40 days remaining. For your benefit, I enclose a copy of my original DSAR. Yours faithfully,

Hi, your SAR response is pretty much the as same the one I got from Citi. The statement at the end regarding s.7 (1) © is wrong or misleading, they told me that too so I phoned the ICO and asked them to clarify. It appears that they are saying 'we don't have to send you copies of the actual documents' or the actual documents themselves, depends which way you read it. ICO's opinion, that they are probably saying in a roundabout fashion that they don't have the documents. But they do have to send you copies of ALL documents that they possess. Unless there is a specific exemption. HTH MC

babybear, glad you got the lasagne cleaned up. Could you just clarify the above or I'm afraid I'll have to call off the engagement! BTW Your PM box is full.

@ guest

bb ??????????????????????????????

Tis OK, I can fix it, tiz my job

Hang on, I may want a divorce already bb. Are you saying there is no advantage to me or no, the advantage is mine? Who's getting confuddled?

I think I love you babybear, will you marry me? Just have to check that's ok with the g/f first.

Yup, would be SB three years ago if there has been no payment or acknowledgement in that time

ty again bb, not SB I entered into a repayment agreement in 2003 and been paying ever since. But, hopefully not for much longer and hence all my stupid questions. ATM just looking for a advice on whether the account marked settled 05/08/2002 could be construed as anything other than the debt having been sold? I can't see any other reason myself, but then what do I know!