Good luck Dayglo. Sympathise with your position - just the mere mention of "intend to defend" gets me anxious - I'm in the same position as you but not quite as far down the road so every step you take I'm following a few days down the road.:o I hope the other posters are right and that the "goodwill" gesture will follow. After all, what do they stand to gain financially by defending fully? It will cost them money and they will gain nothing financially from it - short or long term - your no longer a customer of theirs (and probably never will be again), they can't bleed any more money from you and certainly no other financial organisation is going to support them financially as they fight their own cause. The books won't balance - I think they'll cut their losses. It still irks me though that there is no definive answer for this. 6 years is too long for a default. There is no balance of justice - 6 years for a £40 default = bad credit and 6 years for a £10,000 default = bad credit. Especially as defaults may get refreshed every 6 months. At least a CCJ is removed 6 years from judgment - the default could stay on many more years than 6 from the original default. Perhaps if lenders were more understanding and flexible of defaults eg size, age etc we wouldn't all be pushing so hard for justice

Ok folks. Rather unsurprisingly I've not heard a sausage from GE Capital. 21 days are up on Tuesday and so it's now time for an LBA. Drafted out this one - any suggestions?

Couldn't understand this bit: So are they saying there are 2 types of default - now, where's my legal dictionary gone !

If ever there was proof that the fines imposed by credit card companies was used to make profits ....here it is: Guardian Unlimited Money | News_ | Credit card rate rise covers lost revenue, says expert This explains my rise (in interest as well as blood temperature!)

okonski I did get an acknowledgment from Hope this helps

Hi All I've just arrived home to find letters from Capital One - one for the visa card, the other for the mastercard. They decided - due to "Market Conditions" they need to raise the interest rate on my account from just over 30% to just under 35%!!!!!! I'm flabergasted - How can they come up with that rise! Can they come up with that rise?? They've given me the option of retaining the current rates as long as I don't makr any more purchases and ultimately close the account. In other words I read this as they no longer want me as a customer. Now, I know I don;t have a good rating so a balance transfer is not an option as I'm unlikely to get another card. I have been paying most of the balance off of one card, then using each month, the other I've just started making some big payments with a view to "saving" for Christmas. We've had trouble in the past but are through that but still paying the price Their on my hit list for charges recovery - they've just moved to the very top of my list! Any advice

So, If you include a small monetary claim for costs/damages etc then fee is based on amount of claim as opposed to £150 where no monetary value etc. Presumably though this can't be done through money claim online as they only deal with money only claims - is that right? Spending £30 court fees appeals, especially while I wait for my bank charges back

Ok, I've now issued my LBA via recorded delivery, sit back and wait for money claim - doubt they'll settled before that - they haven't so far

Ok - letter done and in the post (recorded delivery) - fingers crossed - although not expecting positive response but you never know Been following Dayglo's and Surlybonds threads - good luck guys

Whilst thinking about it.... With Capital Bank - I'm contending the default but still have an outstanding balance which I'm paying off. If, they contend the contract is in default and therefore by definition cancelled can they continue to charge monthly interest on the outstanding balance?? Was thinking of throwing this into the argument - if they don't remove default they can't charge interest etc and I only pay back the capital. Whilst I'd rather not pay interest i'd rather pay it and get the default removed - if you see what I mean. What do you think on this argument?

Thanks Tink - I'll hopefully get in the post tonight. Having read most of the ongoing threads it just beggars belief what these big corporations are trying to get away with. If I hadn't come across this site (via Best credit cards, cheap mortgages, personal loans, savings accounts, house & car insurance - The Motley Fool UK) I would be none the wiser and resigned to a life of a bad credit rating. The game is at foot (or whatever sherlock said!)

Had a response from O2 - more a holding letter more than anything. It asks for me to send them copies of the credit files so they can investigate further - really makes me mad this tactic - do they not know what they send the CRAs in the first place! Anyway - going to send them this letter - any suitable comments appreciated!

Thank you jonni2bad - yes I have read all the procedures and yes I have read the FAQ's.......or at least I thought I had!!!!! (must admit that was a few weeks ago now) So the answer to my question was that I was right in the first place...follow the guidelines and issue the LBA

Ok, Now had a response to partial acceptance. Not budging on the 6 month offer so nothing new there then. Interesting paragraph: :o So....is it worth doing an LBA now or should I go straight to money claim?:? Was going to issue an LBA first in accordance with set guidelines and not jeopordise case but seems academic.

Been digging around and thought I'd refer to the terms and conditions on the O2 website. This is their bit on disclosure: As far as I can see no mention of a disclosure to a CRA. Prinitng it off now as evidence before they change it!

Soz butting in. To add another 2p worth. I've been debating with dayglo on para 6.1 in another thread. I think that 6.1 is open to wide interpretation, the legitimate interest bit though is the key. I think the interest bit is the important bit - don't flame me if I've misunderstood - but are people interpreting this as in "oh that's interesting" - as in i'm a CRA and I'm interested in financial data for my business so I can have that data etc. Is the real interpretation of Interest - having a right of ownership, a share etc. In which case CRAs have no right to the data held by a data controller unless it's in the public domain. There is no contract between the data subject and the CRA - there is no interest - full stop. Ok - I'm ready for abuse now !!

worry not - that's how I understood your comment:D

Easy??!!! I've been trawling through google trying to find something similar which expalins/tests these principles but no joy yet! I've got potentially 3 to take to court hence my interest and keen to understand the principles to save myself looking a Piers Morgan in front of his rt hon:oops:

Yep - got it! So regardless of any interpretation of the first half of 6 (1) it's exception ie "legitimate interests of the data subject" cancels it out so disclosure cannot be made. As you say, contract cancelled (whichever way you slice it) therefore they cannot be acting in my best interest. Like it!

This makes me boggle!! It seems from all the arguments so far paras 1-5 are pretty much tapped off in our favour (assuming permission withdrawn etc) just leaving the interpretation of para 6. If the Information Commissioners Office is to believed then anyone who has a legitimate use of the data can obtain and use it - eg a debt collector could obtain information from banks of individuals in arrears to buy the debts and collect them. I'm 100% sure that is not right and is not intended by the Data Protection Act - you could make a legitimate case out of virtually anything. However, the DPA is about processing data. Can it be interpreted that the CRAs (the third party mentioned in para 6) are processing the data on behalf of the data controller - ie retaining a credit history and this is the reason for para 6. Or they pass a debt to another agency - they pass data to them as well (something you would not have given permission to). They could not pass the data under paras 1-5 (unless you gave them permission to do so - unlikely & there is no contract once defaulted so para 2 out as well) leaving the only option para 6 However as soon as you request the cessation of the data processing - processing must stop (enforced through the courts) and the processing through a third party must also stop. Surely para 6 only extends the processing of data into third parties - it doesn't transfer ownership of the data. The data is still that of the original data controller. I don't think I'm making this 100% clear - can anyone else expand/clarify? Am I on the right track?:-|

So depending on how you interpret para 6 this then becomes the get out clause?? Certainly they can't disclose under paras 1-5 as none of these are satisfied

Just a further thought - I think I'm confusing myself: If pursuing a request to stop the data being disclosed under s10 - distress etc and that the company can continue to disclose information on the basis that if any of the conditions at Sch2 paras 1-4 are met (which they won't be able to prove assuming consent is withdrawn and contract cancelled as Surly points out). What is the purpose of Para 6 in sch2?? - does this override the previous paras? :confused: :?

Certainly the letter from the Information Commissioners Office is not very supportive. However it is intersting to note that the majority of comments are "views" and not fact. I don't think you should be put off your case. I would like to know the expertise and level of the author of the letter and what legal advice they have sought in compiling and interpreting etc. I think Surly's blow by blow explanation in his letter still stand though on each clause in Schedule 2. I think though your approach through Vodafone is the right one - if you can stop Vodafone providing your data, the CRAs will be obliged to remove the data as they have no legitimate right to have the data. This though does require some careful thought and interpretation - something I think Information Commissioners Office are struggling coming to terms with. In it's broadest sense does this entitle anyone in business to share information with others in business so that they can cary out their business - in which case this could be arugues for virtually any business to business sharing. I'm pretty confident that that is not what the act is implying or there for. Any views? Is the Information Commissioners Office saying that as long as one of the clauses is satisfied then business can do what they want with your data?

Ok, sorry! I thought as original thread was about two different organisations and different approaches that it would be better to keep seperate - I'll keep everything in my original

I've sent the notices off but still early days - they got them this week. My fingers are crossed/ They have 21 days to action before asking for enforcement etc