Jump to content

luicluic

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    12
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About luicluic

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I am suing the Bank already. Both are liable. CIFASicon is the Data Controller and do not have any immunity when they insist to share wrong information they ought and were made aware it is wrong. I am afraid, that consumers can sue CIFAS is a reality and CIFAS is not immune at all. They are jointly liable when they refuse to act to prevent harm. This is not about the details of my case, it is about the premise that CIFAS can very well be held liable. They know they can indeed... To be clear, I know I can sue the Bank and this is already in process..
  2. I am suing the Bank already. Both are liable. CIFAS is the Data Controller and do not have any immunity when they insist to share wrong information they ought and were made aware it is wrong. I am afraid, that consumers can sue CIFAS is a reality and CIFAS is not immune at all. They are jointly liable when they refuse to act to prevent harm. This is not about the details of my case, it is about the premise that CIFAS can very well be held liable. They know they can indeed... To be clear, I know I can sue the Bank and this is already in process.. [h=3][/h]
  3. I am seeking advice from more than one source and will double check on this. I have ample time before I commence.. What is surprising is that CIFAS knows from its published materials and research paper that its system and approach is full of loopholes and is unjust. Yet, it leaves its decisions with - in my experience - cowboys who say they are Compliance Officers or Senior Compliance Officers..
  4. The professional advice concurs with that given by fkofilee in terms of action in the Consumers Rights Act. I follow this advice. However, I am satisfied in view of the professional advice to pursue CIFAS in the High Court or in the ECJ for Defamation and the breach of the DPA. All I need to prove is that the information within the marker are wrong, I made them aware they were wrong and that they failed to put things right. It won't help CIFAS their false feelings that they are beyond the law. It is unfortunate CIFAS is not public authority even though they falsely pretend to be one. I would have otherwise sued them in the Human Rights Act.
  5. CIFAS must be liable when you tell them with evidence that they are sharing wrong information, inaccurate or misleading information but they fail to take measures to put things right in order to protect its member's (bank or insurance or whatever) from legal action. Its compliance officers identify with the Banks customer service and they rarely go against the Bank decisions. The Bank effectively pay their salaries...isn't it. CIFAS somehow thinks it is beyond the law but it is not immune at all. Its objective is nobil and I personally support it but they get it wrong sometimes and I am sure that there are many victims for its markers due to lack of training within their funding banks staff..who are hungry to file markers and have traditionally believed they can get away with the implications..
  6. You have a point. I do not adopt the professionals' advice blindly. There is no harm to seek second opinion. Indeed the site team's response concurs with the advice I received. So, no point of pursuing action based on consumer rights act.
  7. Certainly, they are qualified. I will not take the risk if I am not confident. CIFAS is a company registered in the company directory, it is not a Public Authority and even if it were, you can sue CIFAS. If you can take the Home Office to court, I do not understand why you cannot take CIFAS to court when they act in upper-handed manner and are so negligent such that it causes consumers distress and reputation damages which are avoidable. This Action Group may provide its insights after some reflection. The key to any action are within the Defamation Act and the DPA. I am still at early stage but have identified the Cause of Action which I will be pursuing. Sorry, I could not provide many details as I am concenterating in putting together my stuff.
  8. Thanks for your opinion. I do not intend to argue that here. CIFAS is a company like any company subject to the rule of law. I wrote briefly about the Consumers Act and the site team answer concurs with what I was told that they are not. I will follow his opinion and focus on the Defamation Act and the DPA Act. It would be beneficial to know on what basis you think the advice I got is wrong. CIFAS decisions are subject to the FOS jurisdiction and it is certainly subject to the Court review if they were subject to the FOS.
  9. I sought legal advice from multiple sources. CIFAS is liable for hosting and sharing defamatory information which they were told with evidence it is wrong. Having made in-depth research and sought consultation from multiple sources, I am in no doubt that CIFAS could be held liable in Defamation and the DPA Act. It is a question of fact to be determined by the Court, which is the route I have chosen to get competent relief from our justice system not from their so called compliance officers. CIFAS was meant to decide complaints independently and not to follow the company which finances its business but id did not. It is either there has been fraud capable of being offence or not. I have come across another story in which CIFAS is also being pursued in Court for a marker. I think there is some progress. Because reputation and employment are at stake, the claim is certainly for more than £10,000.0 A defamation claim for any amount must be heard in the High Court anyway even for £1000. County Courts having no jurisdiction to decide defamation claims. Each case is unique and this is my understanding after extensive research and the advice sought.
  10. I did sought legal advice, Both the company and CIFAS are liable and both will be sued. CIFAS is liable once a complaint is filed before it and it acts recklessly to favour the company and continues to share defamatory information which are wrong knowing it is wrong. It is not any different from defaming someone in newspapers or on the internet.
  11. This is what I also thought. However, CIFAS is subject to the Defamation Act and the DPA Act which I will be relying on as they insisted to share a warning against me in a Saving Account Application that was made 100% with my correct identification information and documents. CIFAS is sharing a marker against me in a saving account application which made in my correct identity and which has no question of money laundering. Saving accounts are not a reporting matter if made in one's correct identity. CIFAS acted incompetently and recklessly and is liable in Defamation and DPA Regulations. I encourage every victim who genuinely believes has an unwarranted marker to take legal action in the High Court..
  12. CIFAS handled ny complaint against an application fraud warning in a reckless manner. I decided to take CIFAS to Court. I would like some insights as whether or not CIFAS is subject to Consumer Rights Act 2015 for service provisions? My second question is: are there precedents of consumers taking CIFAS to Court?
×
×
  • Create New...