EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[UK26]

I decided to issue this first against Lowell, as doing it with Experian will prove hard, but from the experience i gain with Lowell, will be used on Experian

Issued a LBA to Mr Miles over at Experian but yet to get a response

 

now need to get ready in case they do try to defend it

 

uk26

 

really looking forward to a result in your favour

[UK26]

Question for you guys

 

to win the case, who needs to prove what?

 

Me prove the info is incorrect or Lowell prove it is correct for them to make a defence.

 

what possable defence could they come up with?

 

If i win this case, it means the process works, we all then can start issuring our N1s to Expieran etc

[foolishgirl]

Question for you guys

 

to win the case, who needs to prove what?

 

Me prove the info is incorrect or Lowell prove it is correct for them to make a defence.

 

 

It's up to the claimant to 'prove' his case, not to the defendant to disprove it although that may come as coincidental part of their defence. But the onus is on you to provide sufficient evidence/argument to convince the DJ that your case should be upheld. If you can't prove it, they get away.

[UK26]

ok, i have the evidance to back it up so no probs then

[postggj]

hi uk26

 

ill put my bit in, hope it helps

 

when i had welcome finance up in court,my poc also stated the removel of the default from the cra

even though i won and the judge told welcome to remove the entries, he said a court room was not the place to debate such matters.

 

he said i should have put it in the hands of the ico and fos first

 

just covering all the angles for you

 

hope it helps

[UK26]

but less face it ico dont seem to do much to help us

 

not delt with the fos before, so will look into that aswell

[Allwood]

I agree with you about Information Commissioners Office, I sent them my complaint regarding Equifax letting organizationd into my credit file. Equifax wrote to me stating that Wescot had no documents so they were going to removed that search, but the other search BCW would stay because it was belong to Thames and the debt was still outstanding. Now if there is a debt then it is statute barred and after sending the bank an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) the confirmed by way of letter 3 times that they had no agreement regarding the alleged debt.

 

I sent my complaint to Information Commissioners Office about 6 to 8 weeks ago and have not heard back since. I got a certificate of posting as well.

 

Will give it another week, if I do not hear from them I will contact them to make sure that they go the complaint. Now who do you complain to when Information Commissioners Office is not performing as they should:evil:

 

Good luck with your claim.

[lickthewallfatboy]

The ICO,to be fair,are extremely busy at the moment....they are swaped with consumer complaints on various issues

 

they responded to me very quickly,and positively as well

[humbleman]

but less face it Information Commissioners Office dont seem to do much to help us

 

not delt with the fos before, so will look into that aswell

 

Agreed, ICO, FOS are waste of time. I would not waste my phone call or letters.

[foolishgirl]

I sent my complaint to Information Commissioners Office about 6 to 8 weeks ago and have not heard back since. ...

... Now who do you complain to when Information Commissioners Office is not performing as they should

 

 

I'm waiting response to original complaint sent 8 weeks ago, sent 1 x reminder to which I got a 'holding' reply but at least by sending the 2nd letter I got allocated a case number.

 

Post up if you find out who to make a complaint to re. ICO that brings results - they probably need more cash to run the office in view of all the recent workload (c/o CAG?!) & I suspect GB has other things on his mind just now! :grin:

[postggj]

that may be the case humbleman

but at least you can show the court that you have explored all levels of complaint before bringing it before the court

 

it all helps

[master woody]

agree with postggi, it feels like your hitting your head against a brick wall but the dca hate TS, IC, FSA and above all the CCA 1973 WE have rights the DCAs hate that!

[UK26]

[update]

 

[UK26]

So, what are your thoughts guys?

[knoxvillain]

This seems to match up with what the ICO says. Responsibility for the data is with the lender, not the CRA.

[finlander]

if that is the case..then we must ask ourselves searching questions. Or in reality them searching questions. good ones would be these

1. If that is the case why does the ICO's own guidance state that they shouldn't register defaults when the info is disputed

2. the same guidelines state that 'a notice of correction may not be enough to protect the CRA's against a claim'.

what claim if the ICO isn't intrested?(perhaps this is a hint at the defanation angle)

 

I wouldn't listen much to what Millsy has to say... he has a tendancy to quote the bits he likes and ignore the rest. File a complaint with the ICO.. then if no luck cliam for defamation and kick the C#*p out of them.

 

in defamation actions it is upto them to prove they are telling the truth... thats more fun. Incidently you could include the ICO as a co defndant as he has neglected his duty in have the libelous material removed....

[UK26]

so is it now suggested a claim under S13 And S14 of the Data Protection Act is not the best route ?

[banker_rhymes_with]

So, what are your thoughts guys?

I think the Experian Letter is just waffle, wrapped in disinformation, laced with arrogance and with a great big helping of Threat Sauce on top...all dressed up to sound reasonable.

 

Let me translate the letter for you:

 

(1) We have a bunch of licences to make us look Official and Authoritative. I won't mention that we are just a grubby Private business publishing and selling whatever Data comes our way.

 

(2) We have invented a silly word that you can't pronounce, just to make our little club of self-serving bankers sound Official and Authoritative. Our club rules say we are right and you are wrong. I won't mention that the club with the silly name is just a Debt Industry back slappig self-admiration club that swaps notes, jokes and spittle at your expense, using our huge Database to view and publish whatever the club wants us to view and publish.

 

(3) We like the word Identity Theft, because it scares people. We like that. When they get scared, our expensive and now desperate marketing entices people to come to us because we give the impression we are Official and Authoritative and are there to help them. I won't however mention that we expolit these Identity Theft fears just to entice people into contacting us so that we can Data Harvest their ass.

 

(4) I'll now waffle on about the Data Protection Act, just to divert your attention, make me sound clever and, hopefully, convince you I know my way around this better than you (or your mates on CAG).

 

(5) Lastly, if the rest of my Letter doesn't work, then do wind your neck in, matey. I can't call the bit about £3,000 in costs a Threat, but that's exactly what it is. It's a Threat designed to put you back into your little box.

 

Love and kisses,

Millsey

 

Cheers,

BRW

[UK26]

I think i pi**ed him off

 

From: Dave ******* [mailto:dave@**********]

Sent: 16 September 2008 18:03

To: 'Mills, Andrew'

Subject: RE: *******: *******

Sensitivity: Private

Hi Andrew

I will provide you with a full and final response within a couple of days.

Regards

Dave *******

From: Mills, Andrew [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 16 September 2008 17:35

To: Dave****

Subject: RE: **********: ********

Sensitivity: Private

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. Kindly address the papers as I have indicated in my letter.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Mills

Head of Intellectual Property & Litigation

Solicitor & European Trademark Attorney

Experian | Landmark House | Experian Way | Nottingham | NG80 1ZZ | United Kingdom |

T: +44 (0) 115 828 6425 | M: +44 (0) 7854 116 179 | F: +44(0)115 828 6342 | [email protected]

From: Dave ******[mailto:dave@*******]

Sent: 16 September 2008 17:30

To: Mills, Andrew

Subject: RE: *********: *******Sensitivity: Private

Dear Mr Mills

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding my complaint.

I will now send the relevant paper work to Peterborough County Court to which you will receive within the next few days.

Regards

Dave *********************

From: Mills, Andrew [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 16 September 2008 17:16

To: dave@*********

Subject: RE: ****************: ********Sensitivity: Private

Dear Sir

Please see the attached letter.

Yours faithfully

[BlueSquirrel]

When I called up Lloyds this week to activate a new card, they talked me into accepting a new service called Privacy Guard which guards against Identity theft and I get a credit reference from Experian for only a pound. Is this another wily way of doing something underhand from our little friends?

[finlander]

so is it now suggested a claim under S13 And S14 of the Data Protection Act is not the best route ?

 

 

I don't think I ever suggested it was...the trouble with the DPA is it is enforced by the ICO who has all the sympathy in the world with the CRA's. It is easy for him to rule that anything is reasonable if he feels like it...which he often does because they buy the lunches.The judge often bows to his greater knowledge ignoring his waistline!

 

The defamation act however says that it has to be TRUE!!! now that has nothing to do with the ICO and everything to do with the judge and the facts. It's a whole different world for MIllsy and the happy folks at EXPERIAN. Whats more they have to prove it's true

[humbleman]

Agree with BRW

 

We all know that the CRA's are talking a lot of Cr**. It will only take one person to take them to courts and they will have to give way.

 

They simply just can't keep on saying that it is not possible to verify all the information since it is time consuming, its simply not a good enough excuse.

 

Now can you imagine a newspaper, printing a story without verifying its accuracy.

[Allwood]

I totally agree, it is peoples livelihoods and homes that are at risk when CRA's information on their so called data base is not correct. If information on their data base is not incorrect then they should remove it immediately or until it is verified. If found to be inaccuracy then the CRA's in question should be fined for putting that information on their data base without making absolutely sure that was correct in the first place.

 

CRA's actions can cause so much misery to peoples and young families due to them making money out of people data which is not correct.

[UK26]

I have had enough of Experian now

I really want to take them to court

Any suggestions or Amendments on my Previous N1 Issued to Lowell??

 

Dear Mr UK26

 

Thank you for your e-mails received on 15 September 2008.

 

I am aware that you are now in correspondence with my colleague, Mr Andrew Mills, who will be providing you with an update in relation to the CapQuest defaulted account recorded on your credit report.

 

We have yet to receive a reply from Lloyds TSB to the query that we raised with them on 4 September 2008 but will notify you once we are in receipt of a response.

 

We have previously queried the defaulted account with Lowell Portfolio and the details were confirmed to be accurate.

 

As the account has not changed since this time we will not be raising a further query with them as we have already fulfilled our legal obligations and complied with your rights by disputing this data on your behalf.

 

Please direct any further correspondence to Mr Andrew Mills.

Kind regards

Paul Lever

Consumer Compliance Manager

Directors' Office

[Sparkie1723]

Agree with BRW

 

We all know that the CRA's are talking a lot of Cr**. It will only take one person to take them to courts and they will have to give way.

 

They simply just can't keep on saying that it is not possible to verify all the information since it is time consuming, its simply not a good enough excuse.

 

Now can you imagine a newspaper, printing a story without verifying its accuracy.

 

 

 

Exactly humbleman....the first rule of libel is ,,,,,if you cant proove it dont print it

sparkie