I have further reasons now to ask for different angles on my using the theft act against the RBOS in my claim. And I ask members to think, consider, argue, for,/against every angle that can be thought of. Here's the situation now My fight is against the RBOS, in their list of documents in disclosure, they have stated that ...they will be presenting a PAPER copy of the WHOLE of my crdit file (dated 6/01/06 ), to copy this file I believe is unlawful anyway, that is not my main issue here. Bearing in mind that I have never had any dealings with the Nat West OR any of its own affilliates, The RBOS got the NAt West to access my credit files held by Equifax by using a search method called a CM search, this type of search NEVER shows on a normal credit file ( I discovered the search as it had left a "footprint" on my partners credit file .....mine ...no trace on that date. It was intended to be secret but they slipped up. Now the Nat WEST copied my credit file, and passed it over to the RBOS. I have managed to squeeze out of Equifax an actual translation of the record of the electronic recording of these "searches made" one was made by the RBOS on 21/12/2005 . The other was made by the NAT WEST on 6th Jan 2006, now because my credit file is MY personal property ( it contains all info about me) I sayt hat the Nat West have stolen my personal info and passed it on to the RBOS with the deliberate intention of me never finding out.......BUT I did ....by just pure luck......anyone disagree that I can't have both Nat West and RBOS for theft of information. Just think if you are in an office somewhere,, solicitors accountaants anywhere and you copy some info you see that will "come in handy" to you, and taake it out and use it/ pass it onto someone and you get caugght I,m sure you''ll get done for theft??? Thoughts please Sparkie1723:?: :?:

Here are two things a creditor must not do. not being circumspect and discreet when attempting to contact the debtor whether by telephone or in person disclosing indebtedness to third parties, especially neighbours, relatives or employers. If your neighbour can say that as you state they were of the belief it was you they were talking to and that she was told ANY details of you debt and gives you written proof of this , then they have serious questions to answer. Sparkie1723

tifo & sherlock are dead right they are registerd I was searching under 1&2. 1&11 thats how I came to give incorrect info my apologies to all Sparkie1723

The RBOS have several listed and registerd dat controllers on the ICO register Mr Alex Lion is only one of them......He is the controller who is listed as the BUSINESS sector, the name of the Controller for the private sector is Joyce E. Tudor, she is the one to contact if its about your banking info. Sparkie1723

If you take the first sentence and tis is how laws are interpretated it reads this "The tracing of consumer and commercial debtors debtors and the collection on behalf of creditors." It specifies here consumer and commercial debtors...we know who consumers are they are defined in law as the public a commercial debtor s a seperate entity form a consumer they are the directors of companies who have gone gone garuantors for loans and such for a limited company or export payments VAT and Company taxes and the like. That is what the first sentence allows them to do. This is the sentence that covers consumers and commercial debtors,these commercial debts are the only ones a director is personaly liable for. The second sentence says exactly what it says they can only purchase trade debts including rental & credit instalments payments from business,i.e business rents, rates trade credit agreements for plant machinery motor vehicles etc etc that have been taken out in the business name...these are the debts a director is NOT personally responsible for. also what is called in business franchising of your business debts you sell the value of your credit sale invoices to a DCA for APPROX 68% of the value of your invoices. A consumer debt is not a trade debt it is a financial contract to a supplier of a Banking service and these contacts are not commercial debts are not trade debts. These are the sort of arguments to put forward when fighting these creeps Sparkie 1723

I welcome your comment but I would say that as having been a businessman myself and a self employed one who has in fact first knowledge of sole proprieters selling their debts to raise business cash to DCA's in fact in the mall business magazines it it well advertised so your interpretation that they can only buy registered businesses has a flaw in it there are main classes of business 1 trading business such as export import Garages, Shops Electrical Plumbing etc etc etc 2 Other businesses such as professional Solicitors, Accountants, Marketing, Telecommunications, etc etc etc 3 Manufacturing industry business Consumer and banking iindustries classed as provision of services I'm only trying to find outs for people in trouble through DCA's Sparkie 1723

I've been doing some more checking on the Lowell Companies and found something in their reigstrations that might be the loophole for everyone. On the licence issued by the Information Commissioners Office it states the purposes for which they process data All of the Lowell Group have this as what they do and can't do in the purpose relating to debt Lowell Portfolio I Purpose 2 Debt Administration and Factoring Purpose Description: The tracing of consumer and commercial debtors and the collection on behalf of creditors. The purchasing of trade debts, including rentals and instalment credit payments, from business. The way I read this is that they have a licence to Collect consumer debts on behalf of a creditor. And this is the important point for everyone to think about. The purchase of trade debts, including rentals and instalment credit payments,. The way I read this is they have made a little legal "error" and it means that they can collect a consumer debt on Behalf of a creditor....BUT they can not purchase a consumer debt......... ONLY.... business debts. If that is the case then all the consumer debts have been bought against what the licence say they can do, and they are stuck with them and can't chase the debtor on behalf of the creditor because the creditor no longer has the agreement What can folks out there make of that????? If that can be made stick I 'I'm sure other DCA's have used the same wording and could affect a lot of people getting their money back off these sharks. sparkie1723

tifo, thats a good find it took me a little while even with the info you gave for me to find it.. I typed 1 and still came up zero untill I realised it was the letter I that little difference threw me NIce one sparkie

I've corrected my post but it doesn't matter too much, The other question is... is it Lowell Finance Ltd ...OR Lowell Financial Ltd that are hassling you ... now that could make a lot of difference??? I'll tell you what way I'd go in a pm if thats OK??? Sparkie1723

CG7 First Point .....Id like to say is that when Barclaycard sold this debt to Robinson Way....Robinson were not ....and still are not registered as a data processor with the Information Commissioners Office. Under the 1998 Data Protection Act and... are not on the Information Commissioners Office register of data Controllers . "Processing" data now..... means the obtaing of information and the holding of information. (They are still not regstered by the way) Processing data without a licence is a Criminal offence, Robinson way committed a crimal offence when they accepted/ bought the debt along with your personal information. Barclaycard by assigning the debt and your personal informtion along with it, also committed the offence because they are responsible for the vetting of the companies they pass your information to, Furthermore Robinson Way have committed a further criminal offence by passing the debt and again your personal details, data and information on to Lowell Finance Ltd. Things get worse from what I can find out and discover Lowell Finance Ltd are also not registerd with the Information Commissioners Office as data processor, and if what I have found out is correct Lowell Finance Ltd are also committing criminal offences by obtaing your information, and processing it further. In other words you have got the lot committing these offences and then threatening you with a doorstep collection visit. You can take action through the courts against all three and claim compensation from all three of these Idiots. You can also report them to the ICO for them to take action under section 55 or 61 of the DPA and they are having a purge on DCA's who aren't registered at the moment, because they are a lot of them Sparkie 1723

in a court case there are three bundles 1 for the judge 1 for the defence 1 for the claimant each must have a copy who ever it is the defendant or claimant must be able to produce the original to show that all three copies are copies of the original, as copies can be and have been "doctored". If the original cannot be produced as I said BINGO ...no case to answer. meagain ...the only real good cause Ken has is Ken thats why he laughs so much and wants to be chancellor of the exchequer so he can be near his money

a little bit more Because the RBOS are subscribers to the BCSB code of principles they are aslo incorporated into their own banking code of principles Sparkie1723

First of all they say the debt was written off , then they say they made a C*** *p and left it open, then they say your credit file will show partially satisfied.....They must be joking Principle 2 of the Banking Code Standards Board states "A Bank must organise its internal affairs and management systems with skill, due care and dilligence" Principle 9 states "It must organise and control, conduct and manage its affairs in a professional manner" In their own admission in that letter they have breached these two principles and ADMITTED it. write and tell them this and say in your view and their own admission they are guilty of professional negligence. Sparkie1723

A photo copy is acceptable in a court ....Provided the original is produced also ..........if the original is not there BINGO....... Sparkie1723:D

Some further information this firm of solicitors are do not hold a license to process data and are committing criminal offences under the Data Protection Act (see below ) the Information Commissioners Office has just issued a bulletin aimed at solicitors who are not registered and warned them in no uncertai way as the Information Commissioners Office regard the fact that solicitors being who they are should be more aware of the need to register than most others Write to these solicitors and tell them to cease their harassment IMMEDIATELY and tell them you are reporting them to the Information Commissioners Office NOW and telephone the Information Commissioners Office Notifications dept and tell them that these solicitors are not on their register and under the circumstances whe you explain the the Information Commissioners Office will take action against them under section 55 which is one of the very few sectins the Information Commissioners Office can and does have the power to prosecute. NOtifications no at the ICO 01625 545740 e-mail [email protected] Sparkie1723 * There are no entries that match your search criteria. Name Bryan Carter Solicitors Address 56 Baker Street Weybridge Surrey Post Code KT13 8AL A COPY OF THE DATA PROTECTION REGISTER This site houses a copy of the public register. It is updated daily.

Sorry to here about your sis 's and your tragedy iI agree with lookin and would like to add call the OFT direct in London Lettes do take a little time I am certain that if you speak to an advisor direct you will get a much speedier re- action by the OFT, from what you have said you really do have an exceptional case for Phsycological harassment and a real good case for compensation that would clear your sisters debts completely under The Protection from Harassment Act of 1997 against both Capital 1 and the solicitor acting for them. If you have get written consent from your sister giving you the authority to act on her behalf and provide them with a copy of it they cannot refuse to speak and deal with you, your sister has the legal right to appoint you to act on her behalf, as if it were she, they were dealing with. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. The direct line to the OFT is 020 7211 8765. Any help I can give you just PM Me Sparkie1723

Sechari Clark & Mtchell are what they call the "in house" solicitors of the BLack Horse group Limited & Lloyds TSB Asset & Finace Division ltd, is your problemmwith BLack Horse Ltd and which company is it actually there are about 9 in the whole group??? Sparkie1723

I have had personal dealings with BUchanan Clark & Wells they will be reluctant to show you that they hold any information on you because they know in doing so they will be compounding the fact that they hold the infomation without a data processors license to do so, give them a warning to that fact. Sparkie 1723

itsamomentintime, I've posted a lot about Buchanan Clark & Wells Ltd, to enable them to hold any information about data subjects what so ever a company ( DCA's as well) must hold a data processors license obtained from the Information Commissioners Office and be on their register and the address given to the Information Commissioners Office for inclusion on that register must be/shall be of their reigstered office, BCW ltd reg Office is 24 George Square Glasgow, that address is not registered with the Information Commissioners Office therefore by not having a legitimate or more to the point even a license at alllicense they are commiting offences under section 17 (1) of the Data Protection Act, they are commiting further offences by using the data processors licence belonging to an affiliated company AVANCE LTD, data processors licenses cannot be used by someone else nor are they transferrable 13 October 2005 Two companies fined for flouting Data Protection Act Two companies have been successfully prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office for failing to notify under the Data Protection Act 1998. in both cases they were given the maximum possible fine of £5000, and ordered to pay£300 towards prosecution costs, by Manchester City magistrates yesterday. Corporate & Trade Limited and General & Commercial Guarantee Limited who both trade from premises at First Floor, 130 Church Street, Preston, failed to notify with the Information Commissioner’s Office that they processed personal data. The companies are debt collection agencies. Corporate & Trade Limited were written to on five occasions and General & Commercial Limited on three; both companies failed to notify as a result of these letters. Under the Data Protection Act organisations that process personal information may be required to notify with the Information Commissioner at a nominal cost of £35 per year. Sparkie1723

With regard to the trustee and the fact that you are joint owners, 1......the trustee cannot touch your 50% share in the house. The charge will & can only be applied to your husbands half share . Although that gets rid of one problem a charging order can still be applied to your half , I know it sounds a bit complicated, but if you can defend /win your case and prevent the charging order then you still own 50% 0f the house. you still have ""assets" in the property that cant be touched by the trustee. You have really got to seek pro advice on this because even when your husband comes out of bankruptcy that B.....y trustee still has his 50% and its having interset applied to the oringinal bankruptcy amount .....thats the way these trustees make their money and nine times out of ten these trustees are firms of solicitors, I have seen £25,000 orininal bankruptcy amounts be over £100,000 when the time comes for the sale of the house on the deaths of the two owners and their survivors get practiaclly nothing from the sale . youve got to get rid of that trustee some how. Its a sick sad money worshiping old world this financial world Sparkie 1723 Sparkie 1723

and also dont forget BCW are committing offences which are classed as criminal under the DPA Sparkie1723

The First thing I would ask can you prove that the payment for this debt clearance ...( that the P.O was cashed?) would you possibly have kept the PO stubb, thats a long shot I know. Still never mind. Heres the good news Neither Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd or Lowell Portfolio 2 Ltd are registered with the ICO as data processors ......so if they have any info on you (and they must have to get in contact with you) they are committing criminal offences under the Data Protection Act....faiing to register as a data processor . Go to other threads to get more info Sparkie 1723

This is the search return for Lowell Portfolio 1 * There are no entries that match your search criteria Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd Enterprise House Leeds L11 9BH A COPY OF THE DATA PROTECTION REGISTER When you do contact them over this they may attempt to bluff and huff and tell you they are covered by their other companies registration WRONG data processor licenses are not transferrable from company to company or usable by other companies. They may try and move the debt over to one of their other companies .....too late if they do that they will be in bigger trouble they should'nt have had your data in the first place and if they process it further in an attempt to get out of being reported and prosecuted the directors really could face the prison sentence as well as the £5000 fine. Sparkie1723 Sparkie1723

Lowell Portfolio 1 are not registered with the ICO as data processors, there are a lot of DCA's who are incorrectly registerd but.... this lot are not registered at all. Here's what happens when they are not registered, and if they try to put you in court no judge will entertain their claim because they are committing criminal offences by processing your data. I,ll post the sections you can quote in any further dealings with them next. mind you it would be worth letting them take you to court on this one. Sparkie 1723 13 October 2005 Two companies fined for flouting Data Protection Act Two companies have been successfully prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office for failing to notify under the Data Protection Act 1998. in both cases they were given the maximum possible fine of £5000, and ordered to pay£300 towards prosecution costs, by Manchester City magistrates yesterday. Corporate & Trade Limited and General & Commercial Guarantee Limited who both trade from premises at First Floor, 130 Church Street, Preston, failed to notify with the Information Commissioner’s Office that they processed personal data. The companies are debt collection agencies. Corporate & Trade Limited were written to on five occasions and General & Commercial Limited on three; both companies failed to notify as a result of these letters. Under the Data Protection Act organisations that process personal information may be required to notify with the Information Commissioner at a nominal cost of £35 per year.

From what I can make of ths is that every financial part of the total of the whole agreement must be set out each individually i.e Cost of goods or amount of loan = £xxxxxxxx Cost of PPI £xxxxxxxx Set up Charge Costs = £xxxxxxxx other charge or fees = £xxxxxxxx Anything else = £xxxxxxx Total of all charge (Without interest) = £xxxxxxx interest rate 000% Fixed Total interest £xxxxxxxx Full total repayable £xxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------- If there are items that have a different rate they must be shown clearly and if there is a default the creditor has to keep each interest the same he can't increase any of them. for instance if there are three diffent interest rates for the different items, the the creditor can't make them up to the higher rate nor can he increase the higher rate, I could be wrong in my interpretation any other views???? Sparkie1723