This topic was closed on 03/08/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

A default and CCJ are two sperate matters, and both can be recored in respect of one account.

Nationwide are the data controller, and have the ultimate responsibility for the continuation of processing / publication. The ICO will respond with the following; http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/credit_%20agreements%20-%20data_%20sharing.pdf

Both, if the CRA does not receive a monthly updates from the data controller then they will continue to process the data to the last known update. Therefore the data will remain unchanged until it naturally expires, (i.e 6 years from account closure or default)

If the court does not received a response they are obviously unable to award a default judgement under part 12, and are more likely to give direction to disregard the part 8 Application. I am presuming that the enactment you have referenced in support of your Part 8 Application is the Data Protection Act 3rd & 5th principals, which the Information Commissioners Office and Experian deem to be upheld in cases such as this as they are “within the wider public interest” ?

This has been "borrowed" from the 1981 Limitation act where a simple form of contract has a 6 year expiry, whereas a sealed contract is enforceable for 12 years. Nonetheless you are quite correct there is no statute or lawful right to retain for this amount of time, it is just considered “reasonable” given the common law precedent sent under the limitations act.

Why is the debt in dispute?, by the looks of your post you admit the account was applied for by yourself, you suffered payment difficulties and the creditor defaulted the agreement. have you subsequently offered a re-payment plan, or formally disputed the amount owed (if you believe it contains unlawful charges) ?

N1 for an injunction, will be subject to a standard fee of £150.00

If the matter did go to court R.e the default notice issue then the creditor / data controller would likely provide a witness statement to the court outlining the systems they have in place to issue the notice, and that they have no reasonable cause to believe that a notice was not issued via this process. In this scenario the court would accept the witness statement provided they had no cause to question it, or that you could provide evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately the court service still accept the royal mail as a “reliable” delivery service, and they would not expect a notice to be sent “singed for” or “recorded” With regards to the wider case here, a court would look at three main issues; 1. was there an agreement 2. is it enforceable 3. is any benefit still owed by either party

Unfortunately the data controller / creditor in question would substantiate this process by submitting a witness statement to the court stating that the process is in place and they have no reasonable cause to believe that a notice was not issued. A little harsh, but unless the courts had serious cause to disbelieve this, or evidence to the contrary, then they would be liable to rule in the data controllers favour.

can you be a little more specific, why do you think it would be ?

quite right you can ask, and it's a lawful requirement to display them or produce them upon request, however this example is governed by specific legislation, I think you will be hard push to demonstrate a true legitimate interest in a commercially sensitive contract. Give it a go though, will be interesting to see what excuses they come up with

I think you would find they would argue otherwise!, and a court would probably agree with them. The agreements between the parties on data processing would be generic in nature, and would not identify individuals, hence it would not be considered “relevant data” within the bounds of the Act. The mechanics of how the data is processed is governed DPA, how the commercial contract is arranged is another matter entirely. Conversely if the CRA’s were a public body you could obtain this contract / data under the freedom of information act.

No, as it would be considered to be a contract in confidence between the two parties, and as third party with no legitimate interest in the private contract you would have no cause or right to obtain commercialy sensitive data. A subject access request under the DPA would only relate to data that could be used to identity the individual in question, and a commercial contract between businesses is clearly well outside of this scope.

A very expensive way to obtain something you can do yourself. Basic accounts can be found here; http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/basic_bank_accounts.pdf other “Full” accounts with “ lenient” approval criteria are as follows; Natwest “Step Account” c/w solo card Citibank sterling current account ID checks only for visa/delta debit card Norwich and Peterborough BS “Gold current account” c/w Visa/Delta debit card Business account both Natwest and Lloyds off business accounts for those with poor credit history, and discharged bankruptcy’s

Unfortunately if she has either signed directly for the loan, or as a grantor then her options are very limited. If the goods were delivered to the other parties home address rather than taken away from the store she may be able to prove that she was not personaly in receipt of them, and this would help her case if she decide to recover any sums owed to her through formal litigation with the “B.F’s” mother. In short unfortunately ignorance is no defence to the law, and if she is over 18 and has signed a credit agreement then she will be legally bound by it. If she is still with her b.f and in contact with the family then I suggest she attempts to resolve the matter amicably, or alternatively look to more formal proceedings.

Depends entirely on the T&C's of the original loan contract, and if the original court order made any specific directions with regards to the claim being stayed without liberty to remove. You should carefully review the original contract and ascertain if you are actually liable for any further contractual interest. If it does transpire that you are liable then you should ensure that any further offer is made in full and final settlement of the contractual sums allegedly owed.

There is no direct requirement for a signature to be included, the only requirements are that a notice should be compliant with S.88 of the CCA, namely; 88.—(1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify— (a) the nature of the alleged breach; (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken; © if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid.

from the responses you have posted they seem to refer mostly to the 1998 DPA, specifically S.10 & S.12 which is law. Sorry if you feel this way, but this is after all a public forum, and not here solely for your own personal benefit, the points I have made above will apply to anyone contemplating this course of action, and not just yourself

With respect, I am sure the CRA’s staff are suitably qualified and learned to make their own case assessment without the need to refer to anyone’s posts on here. The point of my original post was to inform you of the likely response you would receive based on the simple facts of law and due process which relate to your situation as explained within your original posts. Further to this it would appear that these evaluations of the law as it presently stands have also been adopted by the CRA. I’m sorry if you feel that my posts are unhelpful, however it would be nothing short of complete madness to embark on formal litigation without being fully aware of both the full process and possible ramifications.

Standard N1 to the county court in the first instance yes, as long as the creditor had clearly agreed that it was in full and final settlement, and that no further liability was owed by the debtor

no, it is far more simple, once the contract has ceased (i.e all benefits have been fulfilled or monies owed have been repaid) then unless there was specific agreement between the parties with regards to any survival clauses then neither party has any lawful right to enforce any contract term upon the other, the processing of data being just such a term. There is of course the “wider interest” argument that the CRA’s and ICO are very fond of at present, but if you directed an injunction application at the original creditor after all contract duties had been fulfilled then I would be very surprised if they were actually foolish enough to try to defended the case, and even more surprised if a court awarded in their favour.

In theory yes the above would undoubtedly suffice, however I think in practice they would just bank the cheque and continue to publish the data. This would then result in you having to apply for an injunction to prevent further disclosure. Nonetheless this would actually be relatively straight forward to resolve as once the benefit due under the original contract has been settled then I do not believe they would be foolish enough to waste time and effort to defend against a claim where they could not reasonably defend their position owing to the fact that the contract has ended, and unless the original terms were specific in regards to perpetual disclosure of your data they would be hard pushed to defend their position to the court.

Understand your proposal, however the only way this would work in practice is to obtain a signed undertaking from the other party before you provided the cheque. Of course technically they would be contractually bound by default, but without a signed undertaking how would you prove this should they fail to action your request? Good idea in principle, but without a signed undertaking it would be very open to abuse, hence why when the banks make their offers they insist you sign their terms before payment is made.

No the statement written on the cheque will have no legal standing whatsoever, a cheque is an unconditional promise to pay, just like a banknote. If you want to make settlement conditional you will need to consider other options, this could be as simple as contesting any charges on the account and then making it a strict term of settlement that the default notice is remove either by order of the court, or a simple consent order between the parties.