EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[finlander]

if it's available to english creditors it doesn't have to ... take them to english court. it's been published here....... just like Mr Murat.....

[knoxvillain]

so I suppose that would let me go down the same route with the CRAs in Scotland right?

Thanks for looking that up btw

 

Wouldn't I have to use a Scottish court though since I live in Scotland?

Edited July 17, 2008 by knoxvillain

[finlander]

well... that depends if you have an address you use in england... Mr murat lives in portugal doesn't seem to have stopped him.....

 

[Sparkie1723]

so I suppose that would let me go down the same route with the CRAs in Scotland right?

Thanks for looking that up btw

 

Wouldn't I have to use a Scottish court though since I love in Scotland?[/quo

 

In truth it is the United Kingdom Law Libel and Defamation with just slight differences, as the example 12 months in England 3 yrs in Scotland.

 

sparkie

[knoxvillain]

Maybe I'll let one of you guys go first and then I'll follow suit in Scotland if you're successful

[Sparkie1723]

Anyone (besides me) who intends to take any CRA on ...I suggest you contain and word in your LBA to them, something along the lines of....

 

In this action you will be required to produce to the court the irrefutable evidence that the information you have passed on to third parties who have viewed my credit file, that infers/insinuates that I am a Defaulter on agreements and that it is a warning to others that I am to be avoided in the making of further similar agreements/credit facilities as I am proven to be unreliable and of doubtful character and that my financial credibility is highly questionable and I that should be avoided./shunned is in fact both accurate and true.

It will not be accepted by the Court to merely say you relied on the supplier of the information that it was correct, The Data Protection Act may allow some discrepancy but The Libel/Defamation Laws will not.

That excuse is no defence under theses Acts.

You can add to it to strengthen it to suit your own case.

 

sparkie

Edited July 18, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[thecteam]

will add this to the next reply i send to mr hancock , once he has replied to the reg7 i sent. think he has someone looking over it for him.

[car2403]

Anyone (besides me) who intends to take any CRA on ...I suggest you contain and word in your LBA to them, something along the lines of....

 

In this action you will be required to produce to the court the irrefutable evidence that the information you have passed on to third parties who have viewed my credit file, that infers/insinuates that I am a Defaulter on agreements and that it is a warning to others that I am to be avoided in the making of further similar agreements/credit facilities as I am proven to be unreliable and of doubtful character and that my financial credibility is highly questionable and I that should be avoided./shunned is in fact both accurate and true.

It will not be accepted by the Court to merely say you relied on the supplier of the information that it was correct, The Data Protection Act may allow some discrepancy but The Libel/Defamation Laws will not.

That excuse is no defence under theses Acts.

You can add to it to strengthen it to suit your own case.

 

sparkie

 

Remember, though, that a dafamation claim will not be dealt with in the County Court.

[Sparkie1723]

Remember, though, that a dafamation claim will not be dealt with in the County Court.

 

Car2403,

Sorry to correct you,

It appears that you have not read the whole thread or you would

have seen this I posted earlier,....no offence mate:cool:The majority of people have believed it is only availavable for the rich and famous, at one time it was but all that has changed, you can sue for libel and defamation inthe County Court, and it is absolute fact 80% of libel/defamation claims are settled out of court because if it goes to court it nearly allways ends up a massive damage awards for the claimant.

 

sparkie

 

THE 1996 DEFAMATION ACTOne of the aims of the Act was to make libel actions more accessible to the public. Libel still remains the only civil action for which you cannot get Legal Aid but if plaintiffs are willing to accept damages of £10,000 or less they can take advantage of the new 'fast track' procedure. This, of course, makes newspapers much more liable to be sued.

 

S8-10: New summary procedure

 

The summary procedure under Ss 8-10 of the Act aims to assist the ordinary litigant by controlling and reducing the role of the jury without abolishing it - thus making libel more predictable, more accessible and quicker and cheaper for the ordinary litigant.

 

In a suitable case a plaintiff wanting a quick apology and modest damages will not be forced to incur huge legal costs in getting them.

 

Claims will be dealt with without a jury.

 

The court may dismiss plaintiff's case summarily if satisfied it has no reasonable prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.

 

Equally, Court may give judgment for the plaintiff if satisfied there is no defence which has a realistic chance of success.

 

Summary relief consists of any or all of the following:

 

* Declaration that the statement was false and defamatory

 

* Order to publish suitable correction and apology

 

* Damages not exceeding £10,000

 

* Injunction restraining further publication

Edited July 18, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[finlander]

INTERESTING THAT EXPERIAN WON'T ALLOW US TO PUBLISH LIBELOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS......

 

 

We will apply for a ruling if we do not want to include your note of correction because we think it is defamatory, frivolous or scandalous, or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

 

CreditExpert.co.uk

 

Interesting that this means they except that they ar PUBLISHING and that this could lead to LIBEL actions.........

 

mmmmmmm ......

[finlander]

QUITE INTERESTING AS WELL.........

 

Understanding and Complying with Data Protection and Libel Laws - Facing the Legal Challenges of Providing Internet Access in HEIs - Organised by The JISC with support from UKOLN

[tifo]

one year in England and Wales

 

Only one year?

 

They publish our data for 6 years as an 'industry standard' and we can only sue for 1 year? Doesn't seem fair ....

[tifo]

Interesting that this means they except that they ar PUBLISHING and that this could lead to LIBEL actions........

 

From Defamation Act 1986.

 

"author" means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;

 

"editor" means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and

 

"publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.

 

Accordingly, the bank is the author and the CRA the editor, not a publisher as their info is not available to the public. It could be said that the CRA is publishing the info as an editor of the info the bank sends it as the author.

[finlander]

Well that depends on the definition of a section of the public. I mean all people who do credit checks arn't banks... they can be employers, landlords etc. It just means that they pay for it. Well people pay to goto the cinema and they are still 'the public'.

I think it means that the publishing doesnt happen if it is only available to 'in house'.

 

If I am wrong why would experian themselves descride a notice of correction on their system as 'publishing' ?

[Sparkie1723]

Well that depends on the definition of a section of the public. I mean all people who do credit checks arn't banks... they can be employers, landlords etc. It just means that they pay for it. Well people pay to goto the cinema and they are still 'the public'.

I think it means that the publishing doesnt happen if it is only available to 'in house'.

 

If I am wrong why would experian themselves descride a notice of correction on their system as 'publishing' ?

 

IMHO finlander you are correct in your logic.

 

If an individual has say 2, 3. 4, incorrect defaults on their credit file and no "outsider" ever sees those defaults....there is no "actual" harm or damage done. no publishing... no defamation.... no damage....BUT as soon as that file is searched by a third party it becomes "published."...and I believe I have pointed this out before.....that is the instant of libel/defamation.

 

 

sparkie

[tifo]

In addition, over the past few years, another element has entered the English legal arena: 'no win, no fee' litigation, by which losing claimants do not have to pay anything to their lawyers. If they win, the lawyers are entitled to charge far more than their usual fees ? up to double. Until no win, no fee, libel claimants had to find their own money (a lot of it) to finance a court case.

Are there really 'no win, no fee' solicitors who might take our cases on with the CRAs, especially if there are a lot of us with individual claims or a class action, or on an individual basis?

[finlander]

i also think that the fact their clients 'pay' for their services is no relevent or takes the clients out of the definition of public. After all the public buys the daily mail but that doesn't stop them being publishers

[car2403]

Are there really 'no win, no fee' solicitors who might take our cases on with the CRAs, especially if there are a lot of us with individual claims or a class action, or on an individual basis?

 

The Bars Pro Bono Unit probably would.

[Allwood]

It costs so much to take those disreputable agencies to court and the **** knows this therefore they will treat us joe public like puppets and treat us like we are the ****. After all their roots that the agencies emerged from was DCA's and they still carry on DCA's practices with impunity from the law.

 

Unless the government dose something about them we have no hope becasue the ICO will not do anything tangible for us so we have to put up with them controlling our lives.

[lickthewallfatboy]

this seems to be a tough nut to crack,but it seems there could be light at the end of the tunnel here for a lot of people if this strategy is successful.....I would love to see the arrogance kicked right out of them

[angry cat]

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Equifax Customer Services"

 

 

I am enraged, as I requested that Equifax remove the inaccurate defamatory data that Link are processing...

 

The original creditor was MBNA, they sold the debt to Link whilst the account was in dispute over PPI and S78 CCA.

The alleged Credit Agreement has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable;

I have pursued Link for documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the debt, however, I have not received any proof; Link do not have my consent to process but Equifax refuse to remove siad data.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

Edited July 19, 2008 by angry cat

[itsamomentintime]

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Equifax Customer Services"

 

 

I am enraged, as I requested that Equifax remove the inaccurate defamatory data that Link are processing...

 

The original creditor was MBNA, they sold the debt to Link whilst the account was in dispute over PPI and S78 CCA.

The alleged Credit Agreement has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable;

I have pursued Link for documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the debt, however, I have not received any proof; Link do not have my consent to process but Equifax refuse to remove siad data.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

 

 

court is the only language they understand

[humbleman]

I realise that this thread is about experian. However, I would appreciate your views on the followng the following letter that I have received from Equifax, which is in response to this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1588841.html

 

Dear AC

 

Re: Credit Agreement - Link Financial MBNA

 

The Client concerned has investigated the accuracy of the information above and has verified its accuracy. In their response they have advised they have supplied documents to you directly as requested. Any disputes regarding charges should be directed ro MBNA. Therefore, the information remains unchanged.

 

This information is supplied and owned by our subscribing clients and as such we do not have the ability to amend the information without written authorisation from them. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your dispute we suggest that you contact the company concerned with any additional enquiries and they will advise you further.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

AC

 

They are talking a lot of you know what,

 

Now can you imagine if they played ball, they would have no business left, cos that will mean that everyone on their file will be kosher without any defaults.

 

It takes just one person to take them to task and they are doomed. Just like the penalty charges up to know banks were challenging their customers and now the things have changed.

[Dipply75]

Hi angrycat. i had basically the same crap from them. I challenged them to confirm what investigation and verification, specifically, was done with my information and they said they would not tell me as they have contractual obligations to the company in question and it is confidential!

 

I have actually just managed to get 3 'outstanding debt' searches removed after fighting tooth and nail but get this....

 

Not because they were wrong, inaccurate, not allowed etc, oh no. I accidentally discovered that the company that did the search did not actually have an account with Equifax. I told them about this and suddenly, searches removed - without approval from the company I may add.

 

Thing is, their staff were putting their internal messages to each other on my online dispute discussion (don't think they meant to lol) so what they were talking about and what they were officially telling me were completely different.

 

ALL going to the information commissioner, as it is very revealing. They really are conniving, sneaky gets.

 

I'd better go and get print outs of this now I think of it - just in case!

[lickthewallfatboy]

court seems to be the only answer for these gits