Jump to content

FruitSalad1010

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

FruitSalad1010 last won the day on April 27 2023

FruitSalad1010 had the most liked content!

Reputation

107 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It appears to me the landlord is asking for evidence beyond your word that you intend to move out in the near future, something I would do myself as landlord rather than just accept that "X" say they will be gone by this date can they just stay a little longer, then weeks become months become years. Also housing chains collapse and delays can be lengthy. The landlord may consider they have to continue with the eviction process to protect their position, they may also seek to recover any of their costs from you. From what the agency is asking it appears the Landlord may be willing to come to an agreement based upon on the fact you are clearly taking steps to move to another property. Providing evidence that you have had an offer accepted on a property will probably result in the Landlord weighing the cost/benefits of continuing eviction through the courts, and its just a guess but I imagine they would assess it isn't worth it, especially if they are going to use solicitors. I wouldn't provide more information than has been requested, they are asking primarily for evidence that you are in the process of buying a property, you may have guessed the reason why they want to know who your solicitor is. They are not asking you to provide an estimated completion date (the Landlord may not be bothered) nor are they at this stage asking to agree a date for you to move out. You could try sending a copy of the offer acceptance and give them a chance to stew on that before providing your solicitors details, be mindful that your solicitor would likely charge you for any additional work so even if you were to provide your solicitors details you could instruct them not to respond on your behalf.
  2. They may well see the matter as rectified but you are entitled to request their view as to whether CEL complied with its data protection obligations. Just because the matter is rectified does not mean CEL acted in accordance with the law. I think you will find the ICO will be of the view they did not. You have evidence that you notified CEL of their error and you can include that within your complaint.
  3. The current draft is a bit of a muddle between a letter of claim and a letter. If you want to make it a letter of claim make it clear from the outset, otherwise there is no need to give them notice that you will claim and it would probably be better not to mention going to court. @FTMDave is very good at driving home points to private parking companies, see what they have to say. Have you started a complaint to the ICO?
  4. I made an edit above which you may not have read so I have instead reproduced it here. It would be best to check the order of the tree. My understanding is CEL will have used DCBL as their legal representatives albeit we know they are almost one and the same, then DCBL used a third party to trace the Defendant. If this is accurate then in my view CEL are top of the tree.
  5. I agree with @lookinforinfo I don't think the figure of £3500 is unreasonable, just that it is worth considering cost bands if going it alone. I also agree the contents of your letter is good, my personal take is I would save it for later after getting knocked back as it will add a lot of weight to a letter of claim and perhaps focus their attention. I prefer to give organisations an opportunity to display their integrity, they will know what they have done is wrong and could easily curtail this straight out the gate. When they knock you back they already start to appear unreasonable and then your letter of claim will set out exactly why you seek the money you do and what will happen if they don't pay. There have been similar claims brought for distress for inaccurate credit entries. What makes your case more significant is that rather than a simple marker for non payment the recording of a CCJ is rather more serious. Using a no win no fee would certainly reduce the burden on you and I expect it would lead to earlier settlement, it would save you time and a lot of research but it would also mean a portion of your compensation is paid to them. The Court may take a view to award damages on what actually happened, not based upon what you think might have happened if the error wasn't corrected. This would lower the value of compensation awarded to you, however the Court may also award punitive damages as a clear signal of its displeasure as to the Defendant's actions and to steer them to take more care in future. CEL essentially got away with it thanks to your diligent monitoring of your credit file. If you had instead sleep walked into being denied a mortgage or having been offered more costly borrowing then I think the claim would include those losses and the court should look to remedy them. I don't think its been mentioned yet but what would certainly bolster your position is submitting a complaint to the ICO. It will take longer but in the likely event the ICO issue a view that CEL has breached their data protection obligations your claim is a slam dunk in terms of liability.
  6. Low value part 7 claims under the value of £10,000 are likely to be allocated to the small claims track where costs are limited. Not the fast track where costs are often budgeted and agreed for complex claims in order to prevent parties from trying to win purely by out resourcing the opposition. Even if a claimant indicates they are willing to submit to the court's decision for deciding compensation I personally don't believe this destines a low value claim to the part 8 track. £3,000 is a lot of money but perhaps not so when viewed through the wider eyes of the entire court system. My understanding, and of course there is plenty of information out there, is that a part 8 claim is utilised for suing for an action such as performance of contract. The reason the water is muddied is because in order to sue for access to data it would be necessary to issue a part 8 claim. However a successful claim for distress arising from having access to data withheld essentially leads to a finding that the Defendant hasn't complied with its obligations and so while the court order wont specify performance it is clear what the Defendant must do to comply with its statutory obligations. I also expect the Defendant would dispute matters of fact such as how the distress was manifested, how it affected the Claimant and how of course how much ought to be paid as compensation as a result. My view is that is isn't unreasonable to specify what you think the value of compensation should be but also set out that ultimately you are willing to submit (which of course you would have to anyway) to the judge's discretion as to what the value of compensation should be and therefore the claim is suitable as a part 7 claim.
  7. Did the CCJ affect your ability to take out credit? Were you planning on taking out credit but did not because you became aware of the CCJ? If so do you have evidence that you intended to take out credit? I don't think there is a need to telegraph your actions instead I think it is better to write a short letter setting out that you wish to resolve this amicably without the need for court action. Personally I would make it clear you are seeking compensation for their inaccurate data processing. They will knock you back or maybe make a paltry offer to compensate you, probably no more than £200. If they do, then I would consider writing a letter before claim setting out in further detail how their inaccurate data processing affected you and what sum you are claiming. I would also make it clear that regardless of who searched for what, as a data controller you are holding them liable for their actions including the actions of any third parties they relied upon. If they consider it was the fault of their agent then that is a matter for them. If they truly meant it and were prepared to sue their agent (unlikely) they would counterclaim against their agent at the expense of their business relationship, but do not invite them to do this. To receive anything more than a token gesture you will likely have to make good on your threat and issue a claim. The costs of issuing a claim and paying a hearing fee for a claim for £3500 could be upwards of £500. The fee's would be significantly less for a claim up to a maximum value of £3000, of course if you win these costs would be paid to you by the Defendant. Perhaps @lookinforinfo has a good reason for the figure of £3500? I expect they would defend but will prefer to attack your claim rather than defend their actions. They may try and disrupt your claim by making an application to the court to strike out your claim. This will cost them close to £300 maybe up to £2000 if they use outside counsel. Even though it is difficult to convince a judge the claim has no prospect of success they may still consider it worthwhile because 1. it could be difficult to attend, 2. it's a good way of intimidating a litigant who isn't sure of their position and 3. it may draw out a few more facts which they would prefer not to wait to find out until 14 days before the hearing. Read up on other claims on this site for inaccurate data processing so that you understand what hurdles you will have to overcome in order to be awarded your claim. This includes case law. There are almost no precedents set with regards to compensation for a data breach. It appears you have an eye for detail, so with some dedication the information will come to you. If you haven't made a claim before or many claims expect to dedicate time, perhaps upwards of 40 hours to prepare fully, and don't treat it as a fishing exercise. If you embark on a course of action it is better to do so with the intention of following through. Be prepared to explain why you brought a claim after initially offering not to if they rectified the issue immediately. I'm not writing this to put you off, I think it is commendable when anyone seeks justice against an organisation that can effectively draw upon limitless resources compared to most private individuals but it is fairer to you if you have a fuller picture of what victory may entail. Judges are certainly not against litigants and in my view are acutely aware of the issues intransigent organisations can cause individuals, however it doesn't mean they will allow the court system to be used as a whacking stick when deciding the facts. PPCs seem to get away with it either by discontinuing most of their claims before undergoing real scrutiny or by hoping to face off against unprepared litigants.
  8. Well done to your @babs71 for lighting the fire and especially well done to you for coming to this site to engage with the thread. Repairing credit files is not easy to do. In my view it is certainly worth pursuing, after all it is your financial reputation on the line. Despite the fact the companies which report to credit files are responsible and "own" the data they share with credit reference agencies they are often very reluctant to admit they have done anything wrong. Credit reference agencies will say that they are not responsible for the data they share, however it is my view they become equally liable when they are notified the data they are sharing is inaccurate and subsequently do nothing to fix it. If you are thinking about obtaining credit and probably even if you are not, contact each credit reference agency immediately and notify them that they are to apply a "notice of correction" next to the entries made by 1st Central. They often ask for some specific wording, perhaps something along the lines of "The accuracy of this information is disputed, please take care when making any decisions based on up on this information". Doing this should have the effect of preventing any automated decision making based on the information within your credit file. The best case is that a properly worded letter, probably a letter of claim will get them to act accordingly and repair your file. Have a think about how the default notice has affected you. For example has it affected your ability to obtain credit, has it caused you any distress. If so I would keep a note of this as it will be useful later on. If they dig their heals in and I would expect them to because that's how organisations tend to react, it will probably take a legal claim and while there will probably be an opportunity to settle along the way if they are truly stubborn it will take a hearing in front of a judge. I would estimate you will need to allocate between 20 and 40 hours of your time to see this through. Bank Fodder provides excellent advice and has a lot of experience in knowing which leavers to pull and I am sure they will help you see this through to a satisfactory outcome. There are always some unknowns and even if things don't go completely your way I expect you will still have gained valuable experience in standing up to these people. I would hope that your request for data is starting to ring bells to someone that you are no longer able to be pushed around and they may have some work to do.
  9. Remember only the breach of a rule within the FCA Handbook effects a right to claim damages, not a breach of guidance clauses. The FCA specifies that an authorised firm has the right to set-off a debt against or with: (c) any sum payable by the firm to the consumer; or (d) any credit balance on an account held by the consumer; No where does it specify that a bank can create an unauthorised overdraft for such a purpose. I'm not sure what the legal precedent is but in my view if there's no money in an account to pay a debt then the proper course of action to recover it is through a claim, not some bogus account manipulation. I wonder if this has ever been tested and what the bank's appetite is for it to be tested. I imagine thousands of people have had unauthorised overdrafts created over the years to pay alleged debts.
  10. Does section 10 of the CCA apply in this case? OP made it clear the account never had an agreed overdraft in place, instead the bank made use of an unauthorised overdraft to recover the sum.
  11. Thank you for everything you have posted. If you are able I think it would also help others to post up a copy of the Claimant's WS and skeleton.
  12. Asked by who? Was the case dismissed or did you agree to a settlement via Tomlin Order (which you may not be at liberty to disclose). If the judge dismissed the claim then I cannot see how you agreed to any confidentiality concerning a claim that was heard in an open court.
  13. This appears to be a case of inaccurate data processing. The fact the return was accepted and the contract nullified indicates the entries made on your credit file are inaccurate. I find the world of credit reporting to be fairly murky and @dx100uk is the resident expert. My understanding is that you are required to receive a properly constituted Default Notice prior to a default being entered on your credit file. I understand you have a mortgage and therefore your place of residency is likely permanent, but perhaps you could clarify if you have moved in the last year or if there is any reason that their correspondence would not have reached you since you ended the contract. If you do not receive the response you want I think you should start detailing how this issue has affected you since you became aware of it and in particular whether it has caused you any distress. In reference to compensation I would also be keeping a record of the financing you would have expected to receive had your credit score remained as it was. Be mindful that technically creditors claim not to use a score to make decisions regarding lending but we all know this is just semantics and that regardless the entries will be what may have affected any lending decisions. Have you kept a record of what you think you would be paying/offered if the entries were not made, on what basis you have calculated this amount and importantly is there any evidence that the credit entries have resulted in you being offered more costly lending.
  14. It might be a sticky wicket to argue that windshear procedures form part of the normal exercise of an airline. The number of windshear go-arounds compared to the number of uneventful approaches to land will be miniscule and therefore arguably not part of the normal exercise of the airline. The fact Dublin Airport remained open has no bearing on whether all reasonable measures were taken. If there was not sufficient fuel onboard to make a second approach and divert safely then to divert is the only real safe decision following a windshear go-around and even if there was sufficient fuel onboard the Commander can take any action they deem necessary to ensure the safe outcome of the flight. To clarify airlines cannot dictate with totality the fuel and operational decisions of the Commander, their autonomy is protected by the Air Navigation Order. That is at least how I would argue against some of your points if I was representing the airline.
  15. Thank you for your coming back to report the outcome, I'm sorry to hear it wasn't what you wanted. I understand it may be difficult to read after the fact but I think the real issue was the diagnosis report. I recall when I first read it thinking that it reads as a stitch up of the owner and made very little of the fact that if coolant did leak it must have done so due to a problem inherent with the engine, particularly as the coolant system was assessed as intact. I recall you saying the judge suggested that the independent report should be carried out by the AA or the RAC. It later turns out the report was carried out by a company called Automotive Consulting Engineers Ltd which, unless I have misunderstood, are not associated with either the AA or the RAC and may have been appointed by the Defendant. A check of their reviews on trust pilot shows a string of negative experiences all of which have been made by car owners and not by garages. If they were appointed by the Defendant then regrettably I think this was an error and for anyone reading in the future it is important that an expert witness is not left to the other side to organise. I'm not suggesting this is what happened, but it is easy to imagine that a garage has lots of useful contacts they can call upon when they require a diagnosis report and who it might favour as a result.
×
×
  • Create New...