I'm sorry I don't know what statute barred means. don't get confused between a 'Default Notice' as defined under the CCA which is a gateway to enable a creditor to reclaim all monies owed under a credit agreement in the event a debtor falls behind with payments, and a default as defined by a credit reference agency in a relationship with one of their customers or data subscribers. They don't have to send you warning of a default - in reality the default notice is a warning in itself that unless you do a,b and c they will do x,y and z. There is no template letter for this as every case is so specific to an individual. An SAR may help but I think that might be sledghammer to crack a nut. I would get in touch with welcome and just ask them to explain the sequence of events from their point of view and see what happens then. If they don't help, then send an SAR to them and force them.

This is very strange. Can you think of any reason why they stopped requesting payments and then just defaulted you? THis is unusual behaviour for any lender. I'm not an expert in the in the Consumer Credit Act other than i know if they can't produce original credit agreement then the debt becomes unenforceable. If you borrowed money and didn't pay it back then I can understand why they defaulted you. I would put your side of the tale in a letter and send it to Welcome and ask for a written explanation of thier side and then see where you stand. a strange one indeed. Good luck

here it is in context

i'll try to find the exact quote from my case - hope justinp doesn't mind his thread being hijacked! it's all in a good cause!

This is the, in my opinion, completely useless 'legal guidance' issued by the ICO on this very paragraph. (sched. 2 para 6)

Hi Glenn, I think we've discussed this before somewhere (hazy memory) but in preparing for my upcoming hearing with v/f and reading the DPA so often I'm afraid I agree with the ICO (in fact the act is crystal clear in this regard - I just can't believe so many folk missed it in the summer) that consent is only one of 6 criteria that may be in place for processing to be lawful. All any data controller needs to do is show that the conditions described in Schedule 2 Paragraph 6 are met. I can see almost ANY data controller claiming this as the basis for lawful processing of personal data. It's back to who has the greater legitimate interest.

I think I can help clear up some misunderstanding here. First of all, as a utility supplier British Gas' supply service is NOT a regulated product as defined in the Consumer Credit Act. They do not have to conform with it in any way. Secondly, and this is the bit that most people seem to miss, there a at least two sorts of 'defaults' - maybe more but we'll kepp it simple for now. The first type of default is the one defined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 80 something from memory. This is a gateway mechanism that allows a creditor to proceed with collection of all outstanding monies owed from a credit agreement. In this case, CCA doesn't apply so there is no reference to this type of 'default' notice. The second type of default is the one that causes people harm and this is a flag or marker that is sent electronically from a data controller (or subscriber) to a Credit Reference Agency that, based on their opinion alone, you have 'defaulted' in some way and that other lenders ought to be aware of your payment history. As for needing your consent to 'process' your data under the DPA, I'm afraid they are quite correct in that they do not need your consent. For processing to be lawful they must meet just 1 of the set of criteria described in schedule 2. There are 6 available sets of criteria. see the link below. Data Protection Act 1998 To move forward we need to do 2 things. 1) establish is this business of an exemption for BG in certain cicrumstances has any merit at all (I doubt it) and 2) assuming they are processing your data lawfully, establish on what grounds they are doing this. Sadly, my experience of the ICO has left me rather bitter towards them (my issues i know!) and I'd be reluctant to ever rely on them to assist in helping to establish data processing scenarios in your favour.

only you (ok and maybe Welcome) will know wether this is right or not. it would appear that you should have paid this loan off by March 2002 assuming you kept up to date with payments. On the basis that you have a default (and for the moment lets assume that this is accurate data) issued 11 months later it would appear that you had not paid off the loan. In my opinion, blaming one company for your failure to maintain payments to another is not likely to be a successful road to go down. You have suggested that this data is inaccurate - how do you know? You must get a clear picture of your payment history with Welcome. If the debt is clear then you can issue a S.10(1) notice to require them to cease processing personal data that is causing unwarranted substantial damage or distress. In terms of Welcome Default and Nationwide charges please seperate these two issues in your mind. first things first.... get hold of a copy of your payment history with Welcome and establish whether or not a) it's accurate and b) any outstanding balance good luck.

ok you've said what the balance of the card is now - do you know what sum the default was for? to be honest - I would include the default rmoval as part of the bank charges claim - what's the worst that can happen? they may offer you the charges refund but refuse to remove the default. In that case, use the money to pay as much off the balance as you can, wait until you've clearewd the debt and then go down the S.10(1) notice to cease processing data that causes unwarranted harm and distress route. Allyxia, what a star, succesffuly argues in court to have a ccj set aside when the charges were about half (from what I can remember) of the ccj amount. She may be able to help further.

really mr two first names man? I sent the letter to him and ms. C yesterday. Normally Ms C at least acknowledges receipt of correspondence but mr grumpy pants never does!

I was an impatient soul when I started and wanted everything sorting out there and then. I also chased up a poor response to my S.10(1) notice with Vodafone before going to court. In hindsight that was a mistake on my part. It just gave them a second chance to reply with a better response that they could then refer to in court providing they could persuade the court to accept it after the 21 day deadline which they may or may not be able to do. If I was you, and I'm not not - lucky you, I would not give them a second chance. The Data Protection Act section 10 is clear regarding the process. Don't give them a chance to argue that the conditions described in Schedule 2 para 6 are met and therefore processing shoulod continue (it just makes your task harder!) I'm also not entirely sure that they have actually 'breached' the Data Protection Act in the sense that you seem to be suggesting (I could be wrong here but it's semantics to be honest) I have tried this approach 3 times and you may or may not be aware of what happened with each 1. 1) DCA - removed the default without recourse to court (although this was moorcroft and back in the early days of last summer before many firms had got their acts together) 2) Natwest - removed the default within 14 days of the N1 being issued 3) Vodafone - complete swines, fighting all the way and we're due in court in March this year. I may win I may lose but you should be aware of the limits of my experience before deciding what to do -good luck.

ok you need to understand something fairly crucial but sometimes it's difficult for people to get their heads around. There are 2 types of default. 1) as defined by the Consumer Credit Act. This is a sheet of paper that must contain certain pieces of information before any creditor can take further action to recover a debt such as pass it to a DCA or similar. Other than the aggro of falling behind with payments/debts and being passed into the murky wolrd of DCAs there is no automatic link to 'defaults' on your credit reference file which currently hurt you for 6 years regardless of wether you settle the debt or not. 2) Defaults as defined by Credit Reference Agencies are markers or flags on your credit file and can be placed there by creditors, lenders etc at will without recourse to any legislation whatsoever. It is merely their view that you have 'defaulted' on some credit account. They do not have to send you a piece of paper, they don't even have to tell you about it - they just have to take reasonable steps to ensure that it is accurate. Now then - S.10(1) notices are to stop data processing where it causes substantial damage and distress and that it is unwarranted etc.... let's look at section 10 in more detail to understand exactly what it is you are trying to achieve. ok? so - you have sent your notice. Under S.10(3) they have 21 days to either comply or give you justified reasons for not complying. DO NOT CHASE THIS UP UNTIL THE 21 DAYS HAS EXPIRED. after this period, simply exercise your right under S.10(4) and ask a court to order them to comply. They will have had their chance to explain why they haven't but it will be too late. Make sure you can prove that a) the processing of data is causing you substantial harm (increased cost of credit etc.) Good luck.

How lovely to see you too. Just having a little dip back in the water (note to self -must not let it take over my life this time though!) feeling smug - just beat Aardvark (remember him?) 9-1 in the week before we join our first competitive league.

ok. first things first, the N1 is merely a form that you start the process with. There is no hearing, as such, associated with the N1. It is the opportunity for you to explain to a court, and subsequently the defendant, (the court will send a copy of it to them for you - although you will have to produce the copy if you know what i mean!) You are describing 1) what the defendant has done 2) what you want to happen as a result 3) the value (if any) of the claim 4) which court you would like it to be heard in. in terms of the Particulars of claim, the ones I used weren't very good really in hindsight. They relied too much on the consent issue. In your case I would write something along the lines of 'failure to comply with S10(1) notice, and you are exercising your right under S10(4) to have a court order to enforce their compliance' or somthing like that. If you need more help with this let me know - based on past experience with Natwest, the will prbably remove the default without a hearing.

my advice? just go striaght to the N1

i mean in all seriousness, I'm struggling to see Vodafone's motivation for this. I wonder how much it has cost them so far? I wonder what other work has either been delayed or moved down a priority list to keep this going. They've written letters, long non-standard letters, to me, to court, to the Information Commissioners Office, they must have had a couple of case conferences at least, I'm sure there must be some form of internal 'expenditure approval process' as well. I wonder how that conversation went? "we'd like approval to spend about £5k worth of manhours and resources (conservative estimate) to defend a case with a value of zero pounds please boss" "are you sure this is a wise move?" well sir, ever since DG started his claim against us, our share price has just kept on rising? "has it?" I started my claim on mid July. On that day, V/F share price was at it's 2nd lowest point in 5 years. Since then it's gone up and up and up! "that's our new growth strategy then - obtain shareholder value by being sued" everyone a winner! "

hee hee. absolutely! feel free to add and amend as you see fit

Useful Directions for Vodafone.... From: Newbury to Leigh County Court Drive: 185 mi (about 3 hours 59 mins) 1. Head east from Bear Lane – Take one last look around your beautiful countryside and bask in the surety that you’re about to go and give one of those Northern upstarts a damn fine thrashing. 2. At A339, take the 1st exit onto A339 – Imagine the cheek, an ex-customer taking us, to court of all things without so much as doffing his cap to his betters 3. Turn left at London Road. Final check to make sure we’ve got everything… 4. Turn right at Western Avenue – A data controller with an obsession with the Durant v FSA case which can be used an answer to any question to which she is unsure. 5. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit onto A339 – a quick practice then, Why did Vodafone say on 19th August that the Consumer Credit Act applied and then on 23rd August it did not? – Answer please, “errrrr Durant v FSA?” 6. Take the A339 ramp – Also make sure you’ve brought Mr “I have two first names so that no-one can ever get through to speak to me on the phone because the operator will never find my name in the system” Legal Exec? 7. Merge into A34 – About to see a sign for the “North” which may bit a little unnerving for first time visitors… cheer yourself up with a quick game of “I’m richer than you so shut up” 8. At Wendlebury Interchange, take the 1st exit into the M40 entry ramp to The Midlands/Northampton/Banbury – Have you started to notice the change in atmosphere yet? 9. Bear left onto the M42 ramp to M1/The North/M6 – There it is… right in front of you, a sign for “the North” like it’s an actual place. Strewth. 10. Take the M6 ramp to The North West/Birmingham – You may want to wind your watch back, oh I don’t know, say 20 years? 11. Take the exit to Newton/A49/Leigh – Balsamic vinegar! Ha – you’re in my world now lord and lady muck. 12. At Winwick Link Road, take the 3rd exit onto Winwick Lane – True story, Winwick was the last operating Lunatic Asylum in the UK. They’re not all locked up y’know! 13. Turn right at Newton Road. Ahh yes, Newton Road – the volume of potato based products available here is awe inspiring. The sheer variety of fats that are used to make chips round here is breathtaking. Why not stop by and try some – don’t forget to ask for some Dandelion & Burdock to wash it down with. 14. Continue on Saint Helen's Road. There is a reasonable chance that you will have been robbed by now – or at least been involved in some kind of accident. You see, that big fancy car was a bit of a giveaway and people have been planning for the arrival of ‘out side’ money for quite some time! 15. Bear left at Atherleigh Way – abandon the car, now – just run. 16. At the roundabout, take the 4th exit onto Findlay Street – keep going, don’t drop any of the files on the way… nip into Netto to replace all your nicked stuff. Don’t expect anyone to believe that your fancy paper money is real either. Good old fashioned farthings are needed today my friends. 17. Turn right at Walmesley Road. Welcome to Leigh County Court.

well.... it was all getting a bit too serious for a while wasn't it?

having spoken to the legal exec and the data controller from Vodafone on the phone they have 2 of the three poshest voices I've ever heard (the other one is our very own Tinks, sorry Tinks but it is!) I started to think about the likely experiences they are going to have visiting Leigh County Court. And I can't help but smile a cheeky smile. For those of you not familiar with Leigh (and why on earth would you be?) it's a town that has seen better days. The court is round the back of Netto near an old rundown firestation. We're right in the middle of Chav town here - or worse - Chav wanabees! i think I have an advantage, you see the spoken word and the written word can be quite different around these parts. I don't think the plumby Banbury accents are quite ready for some local Leigh dialect. I know you read this thread John & Amanda so I thought it was only fair if i give you a sporting chance. Here are some genuine local phrases and their meaning to help you on your way - I can't wait to see your faces when it starts - you're gonna need a translater!!!

Hi Armsoft, thanks for your suggestion and in normal circumstances you'd be quite right. However, to be honest - I don't need to see the letter to be able to guess what it says and it merely adds fuel to this 'red herring' (mixing my metaphors here but who cares!) The letter will say something like "dear ICO, we have a case of a former customer - you remember the old test case fella from back in the sumer that got up our noses? - well, god knows how but he's actaully got as far as a hearing date so we'd better start actually taking it a bit seriously now. The thing is he's suggested that we can't ignore a S10(1) notice by relying on the conditions described in schedule 2 paragraph 6 being met. We don't believe him of course could you help us old buddies by writing a letter to confirm that he's wrong in his mad views!!!" and anyway - I'm keeping this as simple as possible now - i issued a s10 notice and they didn't reply with any of the subsequent arguments within the 21 days, therefore the court should disregard them If not, and the court allows the time extension then it comes down to who has the greater 'legitimate interest' all the arguments about whether paras 1-4 imply 5 & 6 are different etc. are irrelevant. but thanks for your thought!

ok - things a little clearer now. To be honest I think i've overlooked a document that I attached to the AQ at a time when we were certain that as paras 1-4 are specifically mentioned as 'automatic' reasons for refusing to comply with a S10(1) notice that refusal under para 6 was not allowed. if you recall this was put together in somewhat of a rush to meet the AQ deadline. The fact that I clarified my claim in the 39 paragraph document subsequently (and that this was accepted by the court as ok) I'd completely forgotton the covering letter I sent with the AQ. It said so a small amount of blushing that I appear to HAVE suggested at one point some of the things referred to in the letter above but since clarified in further letters. hey ho - lesson learned but no harm done I don't think. For those trying to get their heads around paras 1-4 and S10(1) notices - this is a key area to get right!

I thought about (a) but to be honest I couldn't be certain whether or not it was or was not an attempt to mislead the court. I stuck with 'offended' as it is both true and close enough to suggest what was going through my mind. I also, now that I've had time to reflect on it further, think it's a red herring. If you go through it bit by bit - I agree with everything the ICO has said and I'd be happy to say so in court. If Vodafone think this helps them in any measurable way I'm not sure I see how.

Yes I thought that too. It goes in the same camp as "why are they going the distance with this claim, yet rolling over on so many others?" I'm beginning to think that they don't actually fully understand my position. I think that they think I have 2 main points 1) consent is the only valid reason for processing data (if you recall this is how the whole thing started with the enclosed SB letters with the S.10notice and the particulars of claim. and 2) I believe that if they rely on sched 2 para 6 to process data then they cannot refuse to comply with S.10(1) notice. both 1) & 2) are complete nonsense for all the reasons stated above. but, I bet they think they've practically 'won' when they read the letter from the ICO listing areas where I'm supposedly 'wrong, or misled' etc. in fact the covering letter says: That doesn't sound like someone about to concede! I think I am am going to have my day in court.

good afternoon. Well maybe I was a bit hasty in the old 'no more posting etc.' - so I just thought some people might benefit from an update regarding the vodafone claim. Imagine my anticipation when I received a small letter from V/f - It could only be the long awaited "...without liability etc... not commercially sensible to continue..... decided to remove default....." well, in keeping with much that is going on at the moment, no such luck. In fact it got worse, vodafone have apparantly misrepresented my claim to the Information Commissioners Office with the intention of presenting a letter from the Information Commissioners Office to the court which suggests many things that I have supposedly "failed to understand," or "is wrong to think" etc.... I was livid that such a sneaky strategy would be used to make me appear misinformed and a bit of a chancer. So I have copied the letter to Vodafone from the Information Commissioners Office (note the New Year best wishes etc... how pally are this lot together?) You can imagine my rage at such nonsense. Rememer, I issued the S.10 notice correctly, the only response I got back within the 21 days were a rubbish letter from a customer services 'specialist' and another one from Amanda Chandler in which she failed to challenge either damages/distress unwarranted etc or that sched. 2 para 6 was valid. So here was my letter in response. It looks like we're going all the way with this one. but how sneaky are Vodafone to subtley re-word my claim to get such a response from the Information Commissioners Office?