standing The letter you received is a standard letter...fulfilling their duties section 78 blah blah.... but surely you made a request under section 77-79, which they totally ignore.

AC we all know that this is p... take. But as long as they are comfortable in the knowledge that the statutory bodies are unlikely to take any action, I am afraid they won't change. I almost feel that there should be a petition to stop them from renewing their credit licence, signed by everyone that they failed to supply the information under s77-79 of CCA 1974, and bring this to the attention of OFT and the minister in charge. most of the lenders have commited 100's of offences and for them to be let free is frankly not on.

I think if the lender used an agreement headed REGULATED BY CCA 1974' then they have waived their rights to the limit of 25k. IMO

When you insure any vehicle they will usually ask you if you are the registered owner/keeper as long as you answered correctly, doesn't matter in whose name the car is, as long as the dirver has insured the vehicle.

hope all works out in the end

open word document click insert click picture choose the file .jpg click ok

sparkie. I agree that they need the consent of the data subject, thats why I choose my words carefully, can do a search on you, by law they are not allowed to, but they have the ability to do so. However if they did a search without leaving a footprint, you or I wouldn't know about it anyway. Its just like they are not supposed to default you whilst they are in default themselves, but they still do. If you get the jist. canobeans exactly(you got your post in, whilst I was busy doing mine)

Anyone registered with the CRA's can do a search on you without leaving a FOOTPRINT as they call it.

lel It was a question not a confirmation, sorry wasn't clear

for ltd co's. aswell?

Absolute B....s... they are merely seeking as much info. as possible about people, to build up a unique database. They just have to verify your details on the voters register and if it matches they shouldn't ask for any more.

excellent news:D

What legal duty?

THIS IS GROSS....... NO wonder Experian don't give hoots about any compliance, they are building the d-base for the government.

as long as they haven't defaulted you, dont bother. Alternatively offer then 5% ex-gratia, gesture of goodwill, provided they remove record from CRA

This is their standard reply. Have a look at this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-326.html#post784693

This is what peter bard on the big thread posted Please also note that Ian McCartney the minister in charge of DTI has confirmed that It is also a breach of the Act and the Regulations to send the application form rather that a “true copy” of the Agreement.

This is a new one and very original, has been confirmed by the Director of Card Operations

Totally agree, consumer have no choice but to settle for the best of the worst.

has she already signed the contract, if she has then just tell her, you got no one to stand as a guarantor

If i got such a reply this is would be my reply Dear Monkey Cut the crap out, I know my stuff and if you are not able to provide a signed authorisation for retaining or sharing my info (basically fire a S10) you have 7 days to desist failing which I will issue you with proceedings to ensure that the courts force you do so. Yours .....

anyone can act for a company as long as he/she is authorised by the company.

It is generally regarded that once an account has fallen behind 3 months(6 in some cases) the account is defaulted. Whether a lenders marks your file as such or not. So if you had missed 3/4 payments say in 01-2001 and the lenders has put like 888888888 on your account, you can write to the lender and ask them to remove the data completely since you can argue that there are only allowed to keep the data for 6 years from when the account defaulted.

Why is it that CAGGERS that are claiming charges are not applying for Summary Judgements, this will speed up the claim. Since the banks are known not to defend the claim to trial.

the primary role of a bank is to borrow money at a lower rate and lend at a higher rate. The profit from this activity should be sufficient to cover the overheads and the staff costs. It can be argued that whilst calculating the cost of intervention to stop a DD or bounce a cheque etc should not involve any other overheads except for variable costs such as staff or material used such as ink, paper, postage etc. I would guesstimate that it would take no more than 1 or 2 mins of someones time to perform such an act. If the banks attributed any overheads towards performing the above tasks, then they would be at a loss if all of a sudden every customer starting running their affairs in order and they were not able to recover the shortfall through penalties.