Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

EXPERIAN... The final battle commences


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5369 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

ok I have several other threads posted and this starts at the tail end of one. I have been disputing my bank charges and my CCa agreements on 3 credit card accounts both for me and my wife. During these disputes we have incurded 4 defaults between us.

 

I have thought long and hard about how to get rid of these. the sssence is that all these accounts are in serious dispute and have been for over a year. The credit cards refuse to tke us to court as the agreements are unenforcable and the last one is a abbey current account where we have taken them to court and the trail has beened stayed. Abbey still registered a default.

 

Ok now how to get them removed???? :rolleyes:

 

My experience tells me that taking on each cmpany is

1. expensive

2.frustrating

3. very very slow.

 

so..no good then.

 

asking the CRA (experian) will rsult in

1. being told to speak to the companies (see above)

 

the information commisoner also seems to think it's ok for the CRa's and the companies to hold this info for 6 years and pass it on whether you like it or not. so sec 10 request is pointless.

 

so we are all doomed......:???:

 

not quite....

 

firstly lets have a search on google......

 

mmmmm...type in Experian... lovely and default and guidelines....

 

loads of adverts for Experian...then :eek:

 

http://www.experian.co.uk/www/pages/downloads/compliance/guidance_on_defaults.pdf

 

 

mm very intresting.... especially page 15 onwards.... such gems from the ICO as......

 

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

39 Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed. A record that a notice of an intention to file a default was sent, if not a copy of the notice itself, will help lenders to comply with this requirement.

and of course there is......

41 Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly7. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

Unresolved disputes

42 Lenders are faced with difficult decisions when considering recording defaults which are disputed by the customer. It is not our role to arbitrate in disputes between borrowers and lenders. However, when we consider complaints, we will conclude, where there is clear and sufficient evidence that a default has not occurred, that it is likely that the lender has not complied with the data protection principle which requires that personal data are accurate.

43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

44 These are difficult judgements to make. Although none of the following will necessarily be conclusive, we will take into account these factors.


    [*]Is the customer able to produce evidence that they disputed that a default occurred?

    [*]Did the customer dispute the default before the lender announced their intention to file a default or after?

    [*]What is the nature of the dispute? For instance, does the customer allege that the agreement has been breached, for example, because the goods supplied were faulty, or does the customer simply dispute the amount of the default?

    [*]What evidence has the customer produced to support their side of the dispute?


    [*]Has the lender simply ignored this evidence or have they produced evidence to support their version of events?

    how impotant is this view from the ICO?

     

    If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed.’

     

    Now.... that has got me thinking... If you ask Experian ...they say it's not their problem... but if that was the case why would the ICO think they needed a defence if they were so safe?.... :rolleyes:

    me thinks they fibbing....

    So in the way of the age old chinese expression I have decided to attack the head of the snake.

    I INTEND TO MAKE EXPERIAN TAKE THESE ENTRIES OFF.

    MY LOGIC IS AS FOLLOWS.

    1 THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING PRINTED ON THEIR RECORDS. THEY ARE MAKING IT AVAILABLE. SO THE ICO THINKS ANYWAY

    2. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING IT'S ACCURACCY. (EVEN IF THEY DONT THINK SO THE ICO DOES AND IT'S ON THEIR SITE TO PROVE IT.)

    3.THEY MUST ASK FOR EVIDENCE FROM THE BANKS TO PROVE THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SOLVE THE DISPUTE IF I PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF ONE.IF NOT THEN ITS STILL IN DISPUTE AND SHOULDN'T BE REGISTERED.

    4.PUTTING ON A CORRECTION NOTICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A DEFENCE AGAINST DEFAMATION OR AN OFFENCE UNDER THE DPA.

    If none of this is satisfied they must remove the defaults or buy me a new house with the compensation they have to pay.......

    Ok this shot is the first in the battle..... lets see if it causes a stirr....

    Dear Sir/madam

    Re : Your refs ; xxxxxxxxxx & xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     

     

     

    I have recently conducted an audit of my personal credit reports supplied by Experian.

     

    It is noted that there exists, defaults against both myself and my wife’s credit file concerning the above account.

     

    I have reviewed the Information commissioner’s guidelines regarding credit reference agencies registration of defaults. These are published on your own website within the following link;

     

    http://www.experian.co.uk/www/pages/downloads/compliance/guidance_on_defaults.pdf

     

    They clearly state the following;

     

    Data Protection Technical Guidance Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

    Accuracy of a lender’s default records

    39 Records

     

    Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed. A record that a notice of an intention to file a default was sent, if not a copy of the notice itself, will help lenders to comply with this requirement.

     

    41 Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly7. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

     

     

    43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

    As you can see the IOC seems of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the Credit Reference Agency to check that there data is accurate and not simply to refer the subject to the originator. Also if a dispute is proven then in his words-

     

    If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed.’

     

    I know intend to show how we are in fact in serious dispute with all four companies above and that these companies have been deliberately negligent in informing you of these defaults and the continued processing of those defaults would count as a ‘defamation of character’ against myself and Mrs Pearce.

     

  • Barclaycard (your ref C2 on ref xxxxxxxxxx)

Mrs xxxxxx began action to reclaim her disputed charges from Barclaycard in 2007. These proceedings were subject to county court action in Chelmsford County court. This action was stayed pending the outcome of the oft test case. This was despite our objections that credit card charges were not subject to this test case. Despite this Barclaycard refused to request the court to lift the stay. However in Jan 2008 they refunded a large proportion of these charges. During our preparation for the court action in July 2007 a request was sent for a copy of the original agreement regulating this account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). This arrived and a copy is attached to this letter. As you can see this contains none of the prescribed terms required for this to be an enforceable agreement (I have attached another agreement no 7224012305177 in order to show a correctly formatted agreement). This rendered this agreement unenforceable by a court and also rendered it not an agreement under the CCA. We sought legal advice and were told that this was a breach of Mrs xxxxxx rights under the consumer credit act and therefore we should not acknowledge any debt. A letter was sent the Barclaycard saying this. Barclaycard have mounted a constant campaign of harassment whilst refusing to take Mrs xxxxxx to court. This can only be because they are aware that this agreement is not enforceable and would therefore be rejected by a court and searching questions asked of them. The last communication with Barclaycard was on 28th March 2008 (letter attached). According to your records the default was attached on the 1st March 2008. I think that you can see that this account is in serious dispute.

 

  • Abbey National Bank account (your ref C3 on ref xxxxxxx and C2 on ref xxxxxxxx)

This was a joint account held by my wife and myself. In Jan 2007 we challenged disputed charges on this account. The whole amount shown defaulted on your system was made up entirely of disputed charges. Abbey national was served court papers and a trail date was set for August 2007(Claim Number xxxxxxx in Chelmsford County Court). This again was delayed by the OFT test case. The Abbey National registered the default after the stay was announced despite knowing that they were the subject of a court action and contrary to the banking code, which I quote;

 

The Banking Code (Section 13.6) states: We may give information to Credit Reference Agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

· You have fallen behind with your payments,

· The amount owed is not in dispute; and

· You have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

 

Also The Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance in which it states: putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive This includes ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute.

Again I think this shows that this account is in serious dispute and therefore under the Information Commissioners Office’s guide above no default should be recorded by your company . A letter is attached to show the depth of this dispute.

3.RBS CREDIT CARDS (C1on ref xxxxxxxx)

 

In July 2007, again after taking legal advice, I requested the above company provide me with a copy of my signed executed agreement under the CCA. They responded with the application form attached. Again you can see that the prescribed terms are not present and again that this is an unenforceable agreement. On legal advice I again contacted the company (letter attached) and stated I did not acknowledge this debt or agreement due to the infringement of my rights under the CCA and the removal of the protections this act offered. Again RBS have refused to take legal action but instead have registered a default with your company. Again I maintain that this account is in serious dispute and has been since July 2007. RBS have made no attempt to gain court authority to enforce this debt, as it is unenforceable.

 

Again I think this shows that this account is in serious dispute and therefore under the Information Commissioners Office’s guide above no default should be recorded by your company.

 

 

 

 

4.MBNA EUROPE BANK LTD (C8on ref xxxxxxxxxx)

 

In June 2007, again after taking legal advice, I requested the above company provide me with a copy of my signed executed agreement under the CCA. They responded with the application form attached. Again you can see that the prescribed terms are not present and again that this is an unenforceable agreement. On legal advice I again contacted the company (letter attached) and stated I did not acknowledge this debt or agreement due to the infringement of my rights under the CCA and the removal of the protections this act offered. Again MBNA have refused to take legal action but instead have registered a default with your company. Again I maintain that this account is in serious dispute and has been since August 2007. MBNA have made no attempt to gain court authority to enforce this debt, as it is unenforceable.

 

I think this shows that this account is in serious dispute and therefore under the Information Commissioners Office’s guide above no default should be recorded by your company.

 

The circumstances above outline the reasons why I object to any of these companies filing defaults against myself of my wife’s names. We have constantly sought the mediation of an independent arbitrator in the form of the courts and have been frustrated at every turn. It now appears that the Experian and the other credit reference agencies are being used to blacklist our name because we have stood up and asked for our consumer rights to be upheld.

 

This is making our lives difficult in the extreme. In the last 3 weeks our bank, which administers our current account, has withdrawn our chequebook after a ‘credit review’.

 

An application to Alliance and Leicester for a current account after the ‘credit review’ by our current bank, the most basic thing needed to function in this word has been turned down because of your company (see attached letter).

 

As you are aware, I am afforded principled rights under the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act), Schedule 1, Part 1 ("The Principles") in relation to the manner in which my data is collated, stored and processed. Of particular note, are Principles 3, 4 and 5:

 

“3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

 

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.”

 

In our case, the companies registering these defaults are still processing data after the cancellation of the contract and in the majority of cases where no enforceable agreement exists. Whether or not this is a simple renewal process of the default flag, daily or by other timing factor. As that contract is no longer in situ, then my written permission has also ceased from the date of cancellation.

 

This is confirmed in Principle 2 of the Data Protection Act, which states:

"2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."

 

I emphasise the term "specified and lawful purposes" as in ‘those specified within the contract’, and no more. I also emphasise the term "shall not be further processed".

 

I have taken the matter up with the companies concerned, and they had claimed that they had a

“legal right” to maintain this type of adverse entry for up to six years. When I challenged them to quote me the exact Statute that includes this so-called “legal right”, they remained remarkably quiet. Only after my continued insistence of disclosure did they eventually concede that, whilst they have no statutory right, it is
“standard industry practice” but they added that they are “allowed to by Law”. After further challenges, they finally admitted that unless this was a County Court issue, their term actually referred to contractual Law, but continued to emphasise that it was “standard industry practice to record default entries for six years.”

 

As a highly educated company secretary for a Credit Reference Agency may I respectfully presume that you likewise recognise that “standard industry practice” does not correlate with “legal right”?

 

Further investigation has also led me to conclude that the only six-year data ‘retention rule’, to which they may adhere to, is in relation to information in the public domain, e.g. Bankruptcy Orders/Discharges, IVAs, CCJs, etc. These are kept in the public domain for six years. But, these are sealed orders issued by a judge through the Courts who oversee the ultimate jurisdiction in all matters relating to Law, be it the criminal code or the Common Law. It is not up to Credit Reference Agencies, or lenders, to decide legal issues.

 

In addition, agencies may also hold information that is deemed ‘in the public interest’ for the avoidance of credit fraud or deliberate repayment avoidance; I refer, of course, to CIFAS and GAIN entries on a credit file. My former accounts were not subject to any such marker, nor is any alleged former civil contract with these companies a public matter.

 

After scrutiny of all the relevant legislation, including the Consumer Credit Act (As Amended), the various Financial Services Acts and the Data Protection Act, etc., it is clear that there is absolutely no legislation that allows a lender or supplier to collate, process or distribute any other information unless there is express written permission from the data subject.

 

In fact, Section 10 of the Data Protection Act awards the real authority, regarding privacy of data, to the data subject, not the Data Controller. The Act is also very clear as to the rights of the data subject in respect of withdrawing permission to continue data processing and disclosure:

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

However, there are some exclusion provisions for Data Controllers, and Section 10 does continue with various exceptions to subsection (1) above, and these are quoted, in full, below:

 

10. - (2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met,

or

(b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.

 

To paragraph (b), I can only presume that none of the companies mentioned above nor Experian have applied to HM Secretary of State for an order allowing an exclusion, which leaves both them and yourselves with the only remaining possibility of requesting an exemption under paragraph (a).

 

So, we must turn to the exemptions permitted in paragraph (a) to find where your Data Controller may invoke his perceived exemption to the Data Protection Act, namely, those listed in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2. I have reproduced these exemption paragraphs, in full, below:

 

“1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.”

 

It is my contention that your supposed right of obtaining an exemption is not contained within any of these paragraphs. I have followed each in turn with my notation to give a clearer explanation, should there be any lack of clarity.

 

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

 

That consent was terminated upon the cessation of any alleged contract and, as stated earlier, I reiterate the revocation herein, and by the attached Statutory Notice.

 

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

 

For (a), there is no contract being performed, and for (b), these companies, Experian and I are not entering into any form of contract, and certainly not at my request.

 

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

 

According to the Information Commissioners Office (I.C.O.), exemption 3 includes all other statutory obligations for which the interests of national security and welfare override personal privacy.

 

These obligations allow for the provision of data to Official agencies and organisations, e.g. disclosure to crime prevention agencies (Police, Intelligence Services, etc), official Government agencies (DVLA, DSS, Passport Agency, etc.) and health authorities, etc., and for any other purpose not agreed within a civil contract.

 

We all know that the four companies mentioned and Experian are not Government bodies, nor official agencies, but for-profit companies, even though they like to think they are official. None of these companies are listed in the appropriate Data Protection Act Schedule that names the specific organisations that are permitted any such exemption rights.

 

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.”

 

With reference to the I.C.O. again, this is interpreted as anything that affects the data subject as a matter of life and death. This clause is included in the Data Protection Act to permit data, like medical records or contact details, being disclosed in emergency situations. I do not believe that my details could be described as anything like a matter of life or death.

 

So, it is clear to see that there is neither statutory provision permitting your Data Controller to assume continued processing rights of my data at his discretion, nor any exemption. I can then only assume that both you and the companies below are relying on the Common Law, and contractual law, as determined by the contract that both parties allegedly agreed.

 

However, the alleged agreements that we originally signed with the bank, only gave permission to process data during the term of that contract. I think it is fair to assume that you agree that the contract was terminated some time ago, whether or not a Default Notice was served within the remit of the consumer credit act.

 

The contract neither included any other permission, nor did it imply that your perceived 'rights' to process our data would be ‘in perpetuity’. There was also no clause contained within the contract that stated that you had any arbitrary right to continuing processing data for up to six years after the ending of the contract.

 

Also, I cannot recall any clear statement that gave my express permission for you to disclosing my subject data to third parties after the end of the alleged contract. You are no doubt aware that any non-agreed disclosure of personal data to third parties, without express written permission, is a criminal offence under Section 35, of the Data Protection Act.

 

However, if I am mistaken, and the contract did, indeed, specify unlimited time extensions, then you must provide me with a copy of those signed terms indicating where I have agreed to them. This should be sent to me as one of your enclosures, if you wish to contest the enclosed Statutory Notice. You should be aware that you have, by statute, twenty-one days in which to either comply with my Notice, or give written notice stating your reasons and why you consider the Notice unjustified.

 

In summary, in relation to the accounts, I am formally instructing you, as an authorised officer of the Experian, from this day onwards, to:

 

1) Cease to continue storing, processing or communicating my data In relation to any alleged agreements notified to you from;

BARCLAYCARD (your ref C2)

RBS CREDIT CARDS (your ref C1)

ABBEY NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT (your ref C2and ref C3)

MBNA EUROPE BANK LTD. (your ref C8)

2) remove all such data from automated process systems, as per the provisions of Part II, Section 12 (1) of the Data Protection Act, namely:

(1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for

the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.

 

Of particular note is the Acts own term “his creditworthiness”;

 

3) cease to disclose any data from the above companies to any third party.

 

 

 

Any failure on your part to adhere to the statutory timescales will automatically be interpreted as your non-compliance with the legal procedure. In that case, you will be expected to unconditionally comply with my Statutory Notice or I shall have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Court to seek an Order to that effect. Should it be necessary to refer the matter to the Court, and then I shall also apply for Court fees and legal costs against the Experian. I shall also reserve the right to seek further redress for damages as per the remit of the Data Protection Act.

 

I do not except that this information belongs to your clients and you have no responsibility for its accuracy. You are publishing these calumnies and defaming my and my wife’s names without demanding proof of the accuracy of your data.

 

As stated at the beginning of this letter I feel that the information held by your company and distributed is neither accurate nor relevant. It appears to me that Experian is being used by these companies as a method of bypassing the courts system and blacklisting those who stand up for their rights.

 

The case of Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119 set a presumption that in a situation of a wrongly registered default an aggrieved party should be awarded compensation of the amount defaulted plus £1000.

 

The judge explained his decision thus -

 

‘It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that history has changed the social factors which moulded the rule in the nineteenth century. It is not only a tradesman of whom it can be said that the refusal to meet his cheque is 'so obviously injurious to his credit' that he should 'recover, without allegation of special damage, reasonable compensation for the injury done to his credit'. 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, in so far as this is a presumption of fact. So the question becomes whether the authorities compel the conclusion as a matter of law that the presumption cannot extend beyond the category of trader. In my judgment, they do not.’

 

I trust that I have made my position clear, and that Experian will now make a serious effort to understand its legal obligations and effect the changes requested. Should you be in any doubt as to the your obligations as a Data Controller, then I would advise that you consult your corporate counsel.

 

I await your reply.

 

 

 

We reserve the right to commence legal action at any time


    • Haha 1

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 862
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Top Posters In This Topic

    This is going to be a long battle me thinks... thats why I have started this seprate thread for experian... but I will not give in and will post all correspondence with them. Any advice I will be grateful. I believe this is our chance to win.....:cool:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Well as far as I can tell the standard reponse from evil castle CRA is 'its not our problem we just put on what we are told by our clients'...

     

    translated this means... 'we publish what we are told... don't really care if it is true'...

     

    Now I don't think anyone else in the publishing world would get away with that...

     

    it appears that the ICO... who has told others differnet in the psat....now tells the CRA's in the link above that it is their reponsibility and if there is a dispute.. a default shouldn't be registered....

     

    My thinking is with the CCA requests unless they have given you a copy..taken you to court etc there is a dispute... If they have refused to take you to court then it seems obvious that they arnt letting the court system, an independant arbitrator, deal with the dispute but are using the CRA's as a blacklist.

     

    The ICO seems to think that is naughty...lets pin them all down and see...:roll:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    vogelrock...

     

    thats what I'm expecting back... but remember this from Experian's own site.. from the ICO

     

    Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly7. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

    What ever they say.. if they cant confirm it as 100% true........ its there responsiblity to remove it... or face the music... and dance if they want to . Thats the line Im gonna take and all the way if necessary.

     

     

    If anyone else has some intresting arguements they have put up to counter defaults under dispute do let me know. I have a while to wait until they answer so would like to get an idea of the rubbish they will come back with......:D

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    they can amend your report without the lenders consent...otherwise why would the ICO say...

     

    if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

     

    Liar liar....pants on fire :p

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    once we have defeated the evil Experian... and if needed gone thorugh the ICO and the court.. I think the others should fold easily. Once you have defeated one then the others would have to come up with a new arguement or cave in.........

     

    Simple letter...dear Mr ICO...remember that arguement I just won against experian..well callcredit/ equifax are being w*****s too.....

     

    Thats gonna be my plan anyway...

     

    but lets defeat experian first.........8-)

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    well this is fun isn't it.... Nice to see all you good people ready to do battle..

     

    I'm gonna keep this battle simple I think and just stick to Experian first.

    Go after the other two when the first victory is still fresh.

     

    so heres the paln...

     

    1. first letter sent 19/06/2008

     

    2. They will write back with... note your dispute... recommend you contact lenders (rather waste my time sticking my face in a blender) will put a correction notice on your file. please wait 28 days for response

     

    3. I will say ok. Wait 28 days :rolleyes:

     

    4. they will write back say 'sorry but lenders have said they are right and swore on their mothers grave they were' so defaults stay but will keep the correction notice on.

     

    5. I say 'b*****ks' and complain to IOC... he either finds for me... I win equifax and callcredit next... or he says defaults stay. :p

     

    6 In that case its court, damages etc.

     

    I expect it to go this way but who knows they might surprise me and do the honerable thing... I doubt it tho...

     

    BUT REST ASSURED THEY WILL LOSE..........:grin: i have nothing to lose but my chains.... they have everything to lose....:cool:

     

     

    anyway we await their reply in stage 2 as above.......

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    car 2403... thanks for that and I have had a read through this and alot of other threads. My thinking is that we tend to get to tied up dealing with the lenders and experian. My plan is simple.

     

    the IOC own guidelines says that if there is a reasonable dispute then the info must be removed. I intend to prove there is a reasonable dispute. If they don't agree and refuse to remove the default I will take experian NOT the lenders to court. The lenders can say anything they like against me in the privacy of their own office it is only when the CRA's publish it that it becomes so damaging. If the lenders have stated an untruth (which I think the ICO own guidelines will help prove they have) it is upto experian to stop publishing. I think this will work.

     

    If the daily mail published an article saying finlander molests guinea pigs because barclays says so then that would be damaging. If I then challenged this and The Daily mails entire investigation consisted of asking barclays and excepting that their 'oh yes it's true' then I think you would agree they would be in serious trouble.

     

    Thats what the CRA's and the lenders are doing. They then tie us up in the 'go speak to the lender' ploy

     

    Concentrate on the publisher .. not the liar. thats my plan:grin:

     

    NO letting of the hook...just experian... Justify your data or withdraw:wink:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    No answer or acknowledgement of my letter yet.

     

    Thanks bankfodder for that link. i think that the banks that register a default when the claim is already in the court and stayed are on a really really stick wicket.

     

    THE CRA's definately are. The ICO definately says that if there is a dispute all information should be deleted. How much more of a dispute can you get?

     

    Im hoping this tactic I am going to try will work for bank charges defaults and CCA requests. Both of these must be considered serious disputes. One is subject to a test case and the other is an allegation of a breach of consumer credit law.

     

    I'm not sure how effective it will be for those without a dispute getting the entries removed and I wont be able to find out as all mine are in dispute.

     

    But for those people I would say that the ICO still says that the CRA's must be able to prove that the correct procedures were followed , default notices etc.. so it's still worth a push....

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    For experian I just wrote my SAR and got it... no other requests for extra ID... so that may be a new thing to slow you down... being honest I would give them all the ID they require. They know most of it anyway as the DVLA database has been sold as has the electoral role etc ...etc..

     

    Equifax came up with a very dodgy questionaire which was alot more intrusive. Told them to s:)d off and have written to the ICO and told him this is just a veiled info harvesting scheme. See what they say

     

    ;)

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I think wj=hen it comes to correction notices then that is the point we are about to enter the lake of treacle and get tied up by the CRA's and the lenders.

     

    Thats why in this statagy I have one tactic... 28 days correction.. fine... aftetr 28 days if info isn't deleted.... court action.. no more requests ..prevarication etc etc...

     

    If they are posting wrong info then it is wrong. No amount of correction notices , letters or blind refusals will make it go away. it's either removed or the claim is on it's way. Avoid the treacle trap by refusing to step into it!!!!

     

    remember the ICO's advice to the CRA's....

     

     

    Credit reference agencies potentially have a defence against action through the courts by individuals who successfully challenge the accuracy of data received from a lender. However, this defence is only available if the agency takes reasonable steps to make sure the data is accurate and, as soon as they become aware of the challenge, takes steps to mark the file accordingly7. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

    If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

    Ignore the 'lets write loads of letters auntil hell freezes over' tactic. :-)

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I think we might be getting distracted again and drawn into another and just as bad treacle lake.

     

    If the CRA's are asking you for more proof of ID ask yourself the following questions.

    1. could they or do they hold this info anyway?

    2. If not could they find it out?

    3. Even if none of the two above count what difference will it actually make?

     

     

    If you come to the conclusion I did, that it doesn't make any real difference, then why are they asking for it:confused:? My personal feeling is that it is a new and different treacle trap. Make you waste extra months arguing with them.

     

    If you have no-one to hide from then why not just give them photocopies asap?... THEN COMPLAIN TO THE ICO.... dont let them deprive you of your proof of defamation for another 5 to 6 months while you refuse and argue with the ICO.

     

    The DVLA, electoral role, birth certificates etc are sold to companies anyway (and certainly bought by CRA's). I agree that it is ridiculous to ask for it but as we see it's a very good tactic for delaying things.... don't play that game.:(

     

    Remember... their tactic is .... 'tie the silly punter up in knots.... get him to have a good arguement about nothing'... thus avoiding the real issue...

     

    Issue is... the lender lied... they published that lie... they remove that lie...

    or else.........:mad:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    tifo...

     

    precisely...what is the difference now?.... possibly a suspicion that they may view you as a 'difficult customer' someone who's life should be made a little more complicated... after the DCA removal buisness... It's just my guess but I do think it's a tactic by them. Do you want to be drawn into that plan they have or just bypass it?

     

    I bypassed it with equifax and nothing terrible happened. ;)

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    :):):)......

     

    Its arrived...... first response from Experian....

     

    Lets dissect it....

     

    1. its address to me and the wife and headed... Yourself-V-Experian ltd.

    (very formal);)

     

    2. It notes my letter was sent to the Company Secretary (seems to have made a stir)

     

    3. States that 'this is the first time you have raised these concerns' (getting a bit defensive there and sounds a bit worried)

     

    4. states they have put a dispute notice against all entries on the disputed accounts and have raised queeries with all lenders concerned (sounds standard and what the plan expected)

     

    5. is signed by ... Now get this... sounds very impressive:cool:

     

    Andrew Mills - Head of intellectual property and litigation, solicitor and european trade mark attorney... (ohhh get you) :roll:

     

    OK... well thats what we expected....

     

    Now the next bit of the theatre is when they write and tell me they have verified the info put on by the lenders but have added a correction notice.

     

    My plan is to ask for a copy of all the info the lenders have sent in order to see what their enquires revealed...

     

    IF they refuse... ICO.. then court,.....:D

     

    OK anyone heard of Mr Mills? lets keep a record on here of the employees who write and their tactics and share... bit like they do really...:-D

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    look what I found...

     

    Justgiving - Andrew Mills - Fundraising Page

     

    good old andrew ... helping those in need... experian gave him £250.... :p

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    and this from IPrisk.com

     

    Andrew Mills, Head of Intellectual Property & Litigation, Experian Limited

     

    Andrew is a solicitor and European trade mark attorney and Head of Intellectual Property & Litigation with Experian Limited, a global business that provides consumers, businesses and the public sector with information and analysis to help them make important decisions.

     

    Before joining Experian in November 2007, Andrew was a partner and led the intellectual property & technology team at solicitors Freeth Cartwright LLP where, amongst other clients, he had advised Experian for 13 years. He was the founder of Freeth Cartwright's IMPACT blog and gets his fascination with technology from his background in electronic engineering.

    He is a committee member for two committees of the European Communities Trademark Association.

     

    Andrew's current role is a new one and he is currently focusing on brand protection in all its legal aspects, from trademark registration to dealing with domain name disputes. Whilst litigation is not heavily demanding of his time, he is seeking to evaluate and minimise the risks facing the business that present themselves in the form of litigation.

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Now all this tells me that Andrew Knows alot about trademark and domain disputes but doesn't mention anything about defamation law?...

     

    Im not so impressed now... I appear to have been passed of on a geek....:rolleyes:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    'Don't forget the vaseline for your raspberries. Good luck Millsy '

     

    MILLSY!!!!! oh my god I have wandered into a edition of LA LAW..

     

    the MILLSTER..lol..... but that link is quite good... Justgiving - Andrew Mills - Fundraising Page

     

    wonder how many of these nice people posting for MILLSY work for Experian... might check...

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    WELL.. LETS SEE.. Nicola hart does...

     

    Nicola Hart - LinkedIn

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    she used to work for stapltons tyres... wonder if she can set me up with some cheap boots for the BMW... ?

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    kike roas works for experian 'automated property valuation service'... lovely...:rolleyes:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    :lol: good this isn't it... I feel like the Millsy's friends are mine as well now... gives me a warm feeling....

     

    so if you need some tyres, your hard drive mended of Mike to value your house without looking at it... just write the Millsy......:cool:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    DIPPLY75........

     

    Just read Mr Levers letter... wonder if he knows Millsy?.... anyway I have never read such garbage in all my life........

     

    I have absolutely no intention of asking for a notice of correction or any other such rot that everyone will just ignore anyway...

     

    The poit is prove the defaults or stop publishing... yes I am looking forward to the fray........;)

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

     

    Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

    POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

     

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    style="text-align: center;">  

    Thread Locked

    because no one has posted on it for the last 5369 days.

    If you need to add something to this thread then

     

    Please click the "Report " link

     

    at the bottom of one of the posts.

     

    If you want to post a new story then

    Please

    Start your own new thread

    That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

     

    Thanks

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

      • No registered users viewing this page.

    • Have we helped you ...?


    ×
    ×
    • Create New...