EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[delboytrotter]

All this needs is one person to take them to court, and defend themselves with regard libel, they will have to prove the info is truthful, which if they are unable to persuade a judge they are telling the truth then the whole thing will collapse,

[knoxvillain]

go for it then

[Sparkie1723]

Taken from the cteams reply from Mr H

 

I do not see the relevance of Wilson v. First Counties Trust in this instance and would suggest that you obtain professional advice regarding the full background and circumstances of this case and subsequent referral before using this as a basis for your claim.

 

The relevance of this is that if the creditor cant supply an properly executed agreement the there is no debt/money owing its a "gift" as stated in that judgement and you cant default a gift, therefore Experian in their turn are at least breaching the Third and Fourth Principle of the DPA by processng defaults late payments on monies that are considered to been given to the data subject /"alleged" debtor. Then follow up to MR H with,

 

Lord Birkenhead LC). Khopararor v The Woolwich The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case,and I would uphold the master's award of general damages of £5,500.

 

sparkie

[thecteam]

Cheers Sparkie1723

 

this guy is really pushing it. im trying to get this sorted out but they keep closing doors on me.

 

they really are abusing there powers now, its time we the public that keep them in there jobs by having bank accounts knock them back down to size. or into the poverty trap that the best part of the country are in.

[Allwood]

Does anyone know how long the CRA's clients DCA friends keeps searches on their file for - I have been informed it is a person report for 6 years and it is there for everyone to see.

[babybear39]

Don't mean to butt in here thecteam, but you'd have been better off quoting House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

[thecteam]

Thank you Babybear will be adding that to my next response with him.

 

i aint finished even though they think it is.

[Sparkie1723]

Does anyone know how long the CRA's clients DCA friends keeps searches on their file for - I have been informed it is a person report for 6 years and it is there for everyone to see.

 

double posted sorry mate

sparkie

Edited August 1, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Does anyone know how long the CRA's clients DCA friends keeps searches on their file for - I have been informed it is a person report for 6 years and it is there for everyone to see.

 

CRA's keep records of "searches" for 12 months on your actual credit file ..then they remove them, they do not "delete" them ....they archive them.

 

sparkie

[finlander]

Just to let everyone know..Millsy has replied..his letter is long, complicated and as far as I can see completelt deviod of any arguement that will stand up in a court. I will draft a reply and send it on to him in the next few days. watch this space;)

[car2403]

Just to let everyone know..Millsy has replied..his letter is long, complicated and as far as I can see completelt deviod of any arguement that will stand up in a court. I will draft a reply and send it on to him in the next few days. watch this space;)

 

Oh, don't be a tease - post it up, can you?

 

[davefirewalker]

Oh, don't be a tease - post it up, can you?

 

 

Seconded.......

 

Dave

[Dipply75]

Its obviously juicy, go on!

 

My god, what did I do with my time before CAG

[Allwood]

CRA's keep records of "searches" for 12 months on your actual credit file ..then they remove them, they do not "delete" them ....they archive them.

 

sparkie

 

Hi Sparkie - this is not what they have written their letter say "an Outstanding Debt" search indicates that an organization has undertaken a search in an attempt to reconnect with a customer who has gone away leaving an unpaid debt.

 

 

This "Outstanding Debt" search will be visiable to any lenders who subsequently view your credit Report and will generally be considered negatively.

 

"Outstanding Debt" searches will remain on your credit report for 6 years from their recoded date.

 

Now there is no outstanding debt and again Equifax has given it an incident Number.

[davefirewalker]

Its obviously juicy, go on!

 

My god, what did I do with my time before CAG

 

I think you and I (and several others) need to get a life...

 

I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here

 

Dave

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie - this is not what they have written their letter say "an Outstanding Debt" search indicates that an organization has undertaken a search in an attempt to reconnect with a customer who has gone away leaving an unpaid debt.

 

 

This "Outstanding Debt" search will be visiable to any lenders who subsequently view your credit Report and will generally be considered negatively.

 

"Outstanding Debt" searches will remain on your credit report for 6 years from their recoded date.

 

Now there is no outstanding debt and again Equifax has given it an incident Number.

 

HI Matey

I see what you are saying but it not shown on your report after 12 months ...the "outstanding debt" search is done in the CRA Archive files and that is where these records are kept. its a special search that banks etc carry out ...these are ones that you never know about...as they are not recorded.....trust me:D "he said":D

 

 

sparkie

 

sparkie

[babybear39]

I think you and I (and several others) need to get a life...

 

I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here

 

Dave

 

Ermm...I'm on summer break from uni, does that exscuse me

[foolishgirl]

Certainly not BB. You should be doing what all proper students do with their spare time - boozing & sleeping!!

[babybear39]

Certainly not BB. You should be doing what all proper students do with their spare time - boozing & sleeping!!

 

Unfortunately, I cannot...

 

See this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/154289-whoever-insulted-me-try.html#post1642561

[finlander]

Ok a brief summary.........

 

Millsy was being vey obtuse........ basically a bit insulting and said 'go on sue us then'

 

oh by the way sparkie millsy says you can't sue for defamation in the county court!... well must be true millsy said it:rolleyes:

 

I will give a much more detailed breakdown later......... but I think I will be taking him up on the sueing bit.

 

will post more soon.

[zosaphine]

Ok a brief summary.........

 

Millsy was being vey obtuse........ basically a bit insulting and said 'go on sue us then'

 

oh by the way sparkie millsy says you can't sue for defamation in the county court!... well must be true millsy said it:rolleyes:

 

I will give a much more detailed breakdown later......... but I think I will be taking him up on the sueing bit.

 

will post more soon.

 

 

Ahhhh good ol' Millsy :D

[babybear39]

Magistrates don't deal with defamation so it wold have to be county or crown court depending on whether it's civil or criminal

[Sparkie1723]

Ok a brief summary.........

 

Millsy was being vey obtuse........ basically a bit insulting and said 'go on sue us then'

 

oh by the way sparkie millsy says you can't sue for defamation in the county court!... well must be true millsy said it:rolleyes:

 

I will give a much more detailed breakdown later......... but I think I will be taking him up on the sueing bit.

 

will post more soon.

 

 

Well, well, well Millsy must have had the Law changed just especially for Experians sake, wonder if he has told the Lord Chancellor about it????:grin:

 

sparkie

[mackembulldog]

Slightly different slant on this guys.

 

I have 2 defaults on Equifax (MBNA & Hillesden) both the same debt and I've disputed both though havent CCA'd MBNA. The debt was £3500 which, with charges totals over £8000 of defaults as both are listed as separate entities.

 

I have 1 default with Experian which is the same Hillesden default as held with Equifax.

 

Given that Hillesden's is not lawful (?) as its the same debt surely both companies would have picked up on this and not added the default in the first place. This proves that they don't check the validity of the claimed information from the DCA surely?

 

These 2 defaults are what has stopped me from obtaining any credit let alone a mortgage on what is or has been a faultless credit report for the past 3 years. Without going into the whole background of the MBNA issue, where do I stand with these CRA's? Admitedly it was my credit card with MBNA but my ex wife fraudulently ran up charges on it (my tough luck I guess). Do I go for the libel slant straight away (Ive just emailed them to have the Hillesden one removed first).

Having just found this thread, I have to say Im a little confused with all the previous posts and how to proceed. Anyone actually had Defaults removed??? I never had any sort of agreement with Hillesden in the first place and received NO notification of a default from either party until I found them on my CRA reports.

[thecteam]

if they have brought the original debt, sent you a notice of assignment, then a deed of assignment and have the original consumer credit agreement you counter signed.

they can mark your credit file.

if thats the case the MBNA default must be removed. the original defualt date stands no matter who owns it.

 

if how ever it hasn't been sold to Hillesden then only mbna can mark your file. they are only agents for MBNA and have no rights at all to mark your file.

 

if you read some of the info in this thread you will be able to explain to Experian and Eqifax that 2 defaults for the same debt isn't right at all. better off speaking with Hillesden and telling them they best remove the default marker from all credit files they have placed it on. as they have no rights under the cca 1974