EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[thecteam]

what a result Dipply75

 

this has to prove they don't have a clue about what they are controlling on there database.

will be going down the route again i think. but as of yet still waiting on replies.

 

think Mr Hancock is out of his depths and his advisors are deciding what course of reply to furish me with, to try and force the issue as closed.

[fergal71]

I am absolutely fed up with all this s**t, can we not pool some money together from this site and get a decent barrister to win a case against the credit reference agencies and set a precedent. I am trying to fight too many battles and hitting the same wall.... I for one would be happy to donate for this case to be fought in the courts... come on martin lewis and cag lets do this like we did in HULL.....

[hme.4x4]

I second that...I'm in the same situation

[itsamomentintime]

hi folks.... early in the morning but I am working nights.......

 

I have an update.......

 

Millsy has written to me.... (good ole millsy)

 

well he says that their enquiries ar on going but so far Abbey and RBS have told them their data is accurate.... hahahaha....

 

However MBNA didn't put their default on it was done by link finaincial...... naughty link... anyway when challenged ...or asked ... they withdrew it... so that default has gone. However Millsy warned me (good ole millsy) that MBNA night reinstate it when they get the account back. Millsy is still looking into the other defaults (well one actually) and will let me know.

With my best interests at heart Millsy (good ole millsy) says that me and the wife can put a notice of correction on our account and has even worded one for us.

 

So im going to write back to Millsy and except his offer of a notice of correction pending the last bits of his rigerous investigation.

 

why? ... well lets put it this way......... Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake....as Napoleon said.......

 

A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

 

Sun Tzu 'The Art of War'

 

its official. millsy must be reading this thread and is trying to be as nice as possible, as he knows the game is up. good luck fella!!

[thecteam]

with all the libel defaults on my credit file i can only get a mortgage at present that is 11.59%

 

a court action is a great idea. smash them out of the water and make the financial industry situp and take note. just think they might all be working together to control interest rates for loans, mortgages and general finanace. how shock would that be.

 

what you mean they dont. its just finding the links and the proof of it. its got to be out there somewhere. they swap between jobs in these companies. they dont lose touch with friends. we all know how it works. brown envelope here brown package there. no one will mind. unless they get found out.

 

rouge traders never mind cowboy builders and plumbers. watch this bunch of rouges.

 

this is just me guessing by the way i have no proof of what i say about this. just gets you thinking.

[Allwood]

Of course they work like you said thecteam, all they have to do is make a telephone call and then it is done no needed to leave a paper trail. It would be interesting to get a log of their calls to their other friends in the banking industry. :o

[Greenpea]

thecteam

you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours,the old boys network.

It's all corrupt, Show me where there's money and I'll show you where there is curruption. You don't have to look far eg the premire football league. Now proving it is a different matter,

[Dipply75]

I know, I mean how ridiculous is it.....This is your information, yet you are the only one that cannot change it willy nilly. You have to follow ridiculous rules, rules made up by the same companies (just companies, not government agencies or authorities) that play with your info and make a fortune from it. And where did these rules come from? Law, guidelines even? Nope, standard practice.

 

In other words suits at the top sat in boardrooms and decided how they would work this. Not us, not the law, not idiots we voted in. The Information Commissioner wants to pull the finger out and do something about these companies openly abusing our rights - before it all becomes very public and very embarrassing for him.

 

Hmmph, there, rant over

[thecteam]

just sent Experian another email. have given them more than 28days grace to get in touch with barclays mortgages to remove one or both of the defaults they have on my file for 2 different amounts on the same day. one of them is wrong or both.

 

lets see what response this gets.

 

the only credit card i can apply for is a vanquis one. i have applied for it to see if i get it. if i dont i will be asking why. if they say the defaults i will ask if they read the notice of corrections on these defaults.

if they didn't i will want to know why. and then will be contacting Experian to explain why i cant even get a vanquis card. anyone should be able to get one of them cards. but at 34.9% interest it is a bit steep.

 

all because Experian had libel statements on my credit file.

 

watch it experian i aint finished with you.

[knoxvillain]

Vanquis probably wouldn't tell you why you got turned down, they'll just send you the standard leaflet on requesting your credit report from Experian.

 

I was able to get a Capital One credit card with a £200 limit on it with 3 defaults at the time of application.

[thecteam]

Vanquis probably wouldn't tell you why you got turned down, they'll just send you the standard leaflet on requesting your credit report from Experian.

 

I was able to get a Capital One credit card with a £200 limit on it with 3 defaults at the time of application.

 

 

thats true clean forgot they aint allowed to say why. can never understand why they are not allowed to say. maybe its another one of them made up laws.

[knoxvillain]

Probably part of the contract between the banks and the CRAs.

 

"we'll let you shaft consumers using our CRA service if you refuse to tell them why they can't get credit so they have to come give us some money to find out how you've screwed them over."

[thecteam]

Probably part of the contract between the banks and the CRAs.

 

"we'll let you shaft consumers using our CRA service if you refuse to tell them why they can't get credit so they have to come give us some money to find out how you've screwed them over."

 

pretty much sums it all up mate. i hope i do get refused. even though i have a score of over 737.

 

just checked the vanquis interest is 39.9%apr. will make sure when used it gets paid straight back. no interest added hopefully. or vary little

[finlander]

is it possibly worth considering sueing the original "creditor" who can't provide you with a CCA ,when they then proceed to file a default with a CRA....the CRA then distribute that default,in effect perpetuating the libel which the original "creditor" created

This is part of the plan...CRA's first... then the alledged creditors

[knoxvillain]

Experian's 28 days are up on my request for them to have BoS substantiate the default they placed. They said they would be in touch when BoS repond so i can only assume BoS haven't responded. I've sent them a formal request to supress the default as per the Information Commissioners Office's Guidelines so we'll see if they do it or not.

[thecteam]

finlander. i used some of your letter. and sent it to experian. they noticed it was more or less the same. they aint folding mate. it has to be a class action or a test case against this lot.

 

i will stand with you in court all the way. standup people be counted or be abused by these people.

 

court is the only thing that will put pay to these money grabbing people out there.

 

they are the ones that force the mortgages interest rates up for you. your credit cards.

 

sorry if it mess your fight up. but it had everything i needed to use., i just missed one bit and he picked up on this. sorry fella.

Edited July 25, 2008 by thecteam

[finlander]

thecteam,

 

Interesting ...what did he say?.....

 

[thecteam]

thecteam,

 

Interesting ...what did he say?.....

 

 

 

im just off to work mate. once i get back i will email you his response if you would like.

 

pm me a email addy to send it to please. wont be back till gone 6pm though.

[finlander]

thecteam,

 

Don't worry about it. If Experian are going to try and use the entirely new defamation defence of 'He sent me the same letter of complaint as another person did your honour! so therefore pooh-bahh to him' then I think that possibly we could soon see the directors of Experian in the street with a 'will dance for food' sign around their necks.

 

Utter laughable rubbish.......tell them that your complaint still stands... they are still defaming your good name and to stop wasting your time or face the conseqences.. which believe me I have every intention of seeing through to the end........

[knoxvillain]

lol magically Experian claim that HBOS have now responded (funny thay happening on Day 28 eh?). I think I'll be SARing HBOS for all correspondance between themselves and CRAs in relation to my account. I want to see if they were actually contacted or if the CRAs are happy just to fob people off.

 

Still ranting to Equifarce about how fast they close cases without even asking the customer if they want it closed.

[car2403]

court is the only thing that will put pay to these money grabbing people out there.

 

I would agree with you, if it wasn't for this post; (post #74 on that thread)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-stores/110148-car2403-ge-capial-bank-4.html#post1630203

 

Sadly, it all comes down to which Judge you get on the day.

 

[knoxvillain]

Yeah, you can walk in thinking you have a rock solid case and walk back out thinking "how did I lose? the judge didn't even listen to x, y & z or even consider my other arguement". Luck of the draw.

[finlander]

car2403,

 

Looking at your thread above it would appear that your agreement was improperly executed and not, as some of us are getting, completely unenforceable (the standard application form). Is that correct? It appears it was laid out correctly but just not signed and dated etc. Trying to work out the judges logic.

[sillygirl1]

Probably part of the contract between the banks and the CRAs.

 

"we'll let you shaft consumers using our CRA service if you refuse to tell them why they can't get credit so they have to come give us some money to find out how you've screwed them over."

 

I think it would be a good government move to MAKE them tell what entry made them reject us - after all it may be an incorrect entry. I have lots on my account I am fighting one by one, several 'fall off' later this year and I am leaving them be... but any recent ones are strongly challenged. The OCs say the CRAs 'by law' ask them to report to them. I've asked to have in writing 'which law and what part of it' but nobody has got back on that point yet.

 

I also think the 6 year rule should be scrapped, it is nonsense, nobody clobbers the banks for making mistakes 6 years down the line, or at any other time....

 

I'm now in the process of completely clearing any credit lines in my life, other than the Sky TV and my mobile phone. Should make for interesting reading in a years time on my credit file.

[car2403]

car2403,

 

Looking at your thread above it would appear that your agreement was improperly executed and not, as some of us are getting, completely unenforceable (the standard application form). Is that correct? It appears it was laid out correctly but just not signed and dated etc. Trying to work out the judges logic.

 

Yes.

 

The claim was for default removal due to the charges applied, but the Judge wasn't interested in any prejudice I suffered due to being unlawfully Defaulted under an improperly executed agreement, which he should have been, considering he looked at s.65/s.127 and considered that GE would have got a Court Order if they requested one, even though they didn't bother their arse asking for it.

 

You're right in that it would have been a totally different outcome if it was irredemably unenforceable under s.127(3), but I was pointing out the "Judge lottery" that goes one, rather than the actual outcome yesterday. For instance, in the previous Case Management Conference meeting with a different Judge, he had indicated that GE should be "urged to discuss a without prejudice settlement", prior to the final hearing yesterday, as he believed the Default Notice to be faulty and accepted my argument it was invalid, therefore making the Default entry on the CRA file unlawful under the DPA. (Note, not the default entries - such as late payment markers - which probably were factual)

 

As you say, this Judge's reasoning is a little difficult to swallow - mainly because he didn't share his entire reasoning in the trial, probably to prevent me even considering appealing against his decision!