EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[finlander]

england is known as the libel capital of the world... the reason? Our libel laws are amoungst the harshest and most punishing in the world for those who publish false stories. Look at Robert Murat. Why do you think that he sued the english papers for repeating allegations made in portugese papers?

 

because his solictors knew that if it was taken to an english court then god help the papers.......

 

If you don't believe me look at this......

 

IFEX ::

[finlander]

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

[finlander]

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

 

[finlander]

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

 

 

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

 

CreditExpert.co.uk

 

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

 

mmmmmmm ......

[finlander]

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

 

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

[finlander]

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

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

 

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

[finlander]

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

[finlander]

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'

[finlander]

... time for the beginning of step 2...........

 

this letter being sent to Millsy (good ole millsy) tomorrow and the board...

 

 

Dear Mr Mills, (good ole millsy:p)

Re : Your refs xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent letter of the 18th July updating us regarding the disputed entries on our credit files.

I note from your letter that both Abbey National (AN) and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBOS) have confirmed to you that the data you are publishing is in fact correct in their view and the defaults remain. I assume that your enquiries are still on going regarding the remaining entries.

Can you please confirm the following and forward to me the relevant documentary evidence to support the information you provide;

1. The evidence supplied to you from AN and RBOS that these alleged debts exist, are enforceable under the CCA 1974 and a copy of the signed executed agreement (containing all of the prescribed terms) they have forwarded to you to prove the truth of these defaults under the CCA1974.

2. The legal arguments offered to you by the RBOS and AN to counter the arguments put forward in my first letter to you. These arguments must have convinced you of the accuracy of these records and I would be grateful if I could benefit from their enlightenment as well.

3. What enquiries were made by your company in order to take ‘reasonable steps’ to verify the accuracy of the data you are publishing.

4. the definition of ‘default’ currently used by your company. In this I mean in order for a default to exist what are the required conditions, under what legislation is the default governed (for instance CCA1974, Data Protection Act etc) and what a prospective lender may be expected to deduce from a default entry. By this I mean a default obviously has a meaning it’s not just a inert entry so what does the ‘default’ actually mean to a party supplied with a credit check result.

Whilst I await your reply to the above questions, and your continued investigations into the other default markers, I would like to take up your offer of a ‘Notice of Correction’ on our accounts. The wording you have supplied will suffice. I am dubious as to whether this will make any difference to any future credit applications being declined but do intend to find out. Over the coming months I will be making applications to companies I know use Experian credit checks in the hope of finding out if a ‘Notice of Correction’ has any positive effect at all. Who knows if we are really lucky we might get a chequebook from our bank. We shall see.

I now think it is time to move onto more procedural matters.

As you are probably aware the Defamation Act 1996 requires both parties to engage in certain pre-trial protocols in order to attempt to settle their dispute.

Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his foreword to the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims identified the value of creating Pre-Action Protocols as a key part of the Civil Justice Reforms. He hoped that Pre-Action Protocols would set effective and enforceable standards for the efficient conduct of pre-action litigation

Lord Irvine went on to state that –

"The protocol aims to improve pre-action communication between the parties by establishing a timetable for the exchange of information relevant to the dispute and by setting standards for the content of correspondence. Compliance with the protocol will enable parties to make an informed judgement on the merits of their cases earlier than tends to happen today, because they will have earlier access to the information they need. This will provide every opportunity for improved communications between the parties designed to lead to an increase in the number of pre-action settlements."

It is against this background that a Pre-Action Protocol for Claims in Defamation is submitted. This Protocol is intended to encourage exchange of information between parties at an early stage and to provide a clear framework within which parties to a claim in defamation, acting in good faith, can explore the early and appropriate resolution of that claim.

There are important features that distinguish defamation claims from other areas of civil litigation, and these must be borne in mind when both applying, and reviewing the application of, the Pre-Action Protocol. In particular, time is always ‘of the essence’ in defamation claims; the limitation period is (uniquely) only 1 year, and almost invariably, a Claimant will be seeking an immediate correction and/or apology as part of the process of restoring his/her reputation. Because of this limitation period and the fact that your company has finished it’s investigations into AN and RBOS I think it is time to set the wheels in motion.

I have attached to this letter a copy of the Pre-Action Protocol and if you would allow I would like to take you through it now.

As you can see from the attachment there are several steps before we meet in court. The first is a letter of claim. I think you will agree that my first letter more than covered this and explained my case and also supplied you with documentary evidence.

I think therefore we are now at the next stage ‘DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO LETTER OF CLAIM’.

As you can see there are several requirements to this letter.

Ø Whether or to what extent the Claimant’s claim is accepted, whether more information is required or whether it is rejected;

Ø If the claim is accepted in whole or in part, the Defendant should indicate which remedies it is willing to offer;

Ø If more information is required, then the Defendant should specify precisely what information is needed to enable the claim to be dealt with and why;

Ø If the claim is rejected, then the Defendant should explain the reasons why it is rejected, including a sufficient indication of any facts on which the Defendant is likely to rely in support of any substantive defence;

Ø It is desirable for the Defendant to include in the Response to the Letter of Claim the meaning(s) he/she attributes to the words complained of.

I would like to draw your attention in particular to the following;

If the claim is rejected, then the Defendant should explain the reasons why it is rejected, including a sufficient indication of any facts on which the Defendant is likely to rely in support of any substantive defence;

A simple ‘ They have verified the accuracy of the data’ is not sufficient.

It is important that these protocols are followed before legal proceedings commence as the court take an extremely dim view of any party who fails to abide by them and may take this into consideration when awarding damages. I have nothing to hide from these protocols and assume your company does not either.

Therefore I would be grateful if you could please write a ‘ Defendant’s response to letter of claim’ and forward it to us as soon as possible.

Please also confirm that the ‘Notices of Correction’ have been placed on our accounts and the date they were applied. I will notify you of all credit applications that are refused because of you company’s entries in order that you make keep your records accurate for the court proceedings.

I would like again to state that your company is publishing defamations against our names and unless these are removed immediately legal action under the Defamation Act will follow.

Yours truly,

Mr & Mrs Finlander.

CCC

John Peace

 

Chairman

 

Don Robert

 

Chief Executive Officer

Paul Brooks

 

Chief Financial Officer

I thought lets send it to the board to give them something to read during limo rides.

[finlander]

oh by the way I have written to my MP as well ... just to see wht they will do....

 

lets all hold our breath.....

[finlander]

letter to MP,

 

short sweet and not hopefull....lol.........

 

 

Dear Mr Whittingdale, (My MP.... seems like a nice bloke...U can find your at the link at the bottom of the page)

I am writing to you to draw your attention to a serious matter, which I believe is impacting on millions of people throughout the country. I refer to the power held by financial institutions (FI) and Credit Reference agencies (CRA’s). I have bitter experience of the damage they can do and hope that you may be able to make some enquiries into their practices.

In order for you to understand let me explain what has happened to me.

I was a victim of attempted identity theft approximately 2 years ago. After this I took legal advice and was told to request from all my creditors a copy of all the correspondence they held about my wife and me. I therefore sent out requests under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

One of the requests I asked for was for a copy of any CCA agreements that lenders had. These were duly sent through and were sent to my solicitor.

I was surprised when my solicitor advised me that 3 of these agreements were illegal under the act, as they did not carry the ‘prescribed terms’ required.

As a MP I am sure you would agree that the CCA 1974 was not drafted simply because parliament had nothing else to do that day. My solicitors advised me that without these terms my consumer rights were in danger and that I should write to these FI’s ,demand a properly executed agreement and refuse to acknowledge any debt until this was provided. This placed these accounts in serious dispute as I was in fact alleging these institutions had breached the criminal law.

Since this time I have been in a constant battle with these companies who have intimidated my family and attempted to extract money from me despite refusing to provide a lawful agreement or take me to court. I have constantly demanded they take me to court in order to allow a judge to arbitrate this case. They refuse.

However I have recently discovered that these companies have registered defaults against my name with several CRA’s. This is contrary to the banking code, the law and is a defamation of character. It has meant that I have had my chequebook withdrawn from my bank, been refused basic credit and will be unable to re mortgage my house when my fixed rate runs out in November.

When I challenge these companies they simply say ‘take us to court’ knowing that I cannot afford the time or money to do this. These defaults will stay on my and my wife’s records for 6 years. That is the same as a County Court Judgement even though the FI’s refuse to let a judge anywhere near the dispute.

I have suffered this because I have stood up for my rights against a rich institution.

I also discovered that the CRA’s have a default registered against me by a bank simply because I challenged my bank charges! Even though I am banned from taking the bank to court because of the OFT test case they have continued to ruin my good name and I have no recourse.

I do not believe that I am alone in this. I believe that this is happening to millions of people across the country. Complaints to the Information Commissioner are met with apathy as his office appears to all to close to the CRA’s.

I f you request that the data is removed by the CRA’s then despite how much evidence you provide the FI’s are simply asked ‘is it true?’ If they say ‘yes’ then the default remains.

I enclose copies of the letters sent to the companies involved. I have no hope of justice at the moment so have decided to sue Experian for defamation of character unless these defaults are removed.

In these difficult times it seems unfair that FI’s can circumvent the law, ruin peoples reputation and good name knowing that the little man cant fight back.

Yours truly

MR FINLANDER

link for mp is here look right th the bottom of the page on the right...type in postcode...... write to yours....... start complaining.....

BBC NEWS | Politics

[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

[finlander]

thecteam,

 

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

 

[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........

[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.

[finlander]

Car2403,

 

Thanks for the info.... I am just looking into something but I think...and Im pretty sure that your judge has just shot the lenders and the CRA's in the foot with his judgement... give me a while and i shall divulge my thoughts........... Have you got a written record of his judgement you could post?

[finlander]

Ok…. Sorry about the delay… just wanted to check something with my spy in the enemies ranks… and they (notice not using gender. Hello experian..still reading?) agree.

I know it's a small claim and not binding but it covers a valuable point on the definition of a default. Something i asked EXperian for in my last letter.

Ok the scenario is Car2403 turns up at court with GE’s solicitor lurching behind. Now the judge says that GE has an unexecuted agreement BUT it is capable of being enforced on the order of a court. GE still doesn’t ask or want this. However moving quickly on the judge says that the default itself isn’t and enforcement under the act so he won’t order it removed. There is some doubt about the amount defaulted due to penalty charges but he isn’t prepared to say if that makes them unfair or not till the OFT test case is finished. All clear then. GE’s sol shout ‘yaboo sucks’ at Car2403 and then runs off to the wine bar to celebrate.

All is well… except…

Lets look at it again. The judge is right. A court can make the agreement enforceable and he states that if asked he probably would do this. In order to oppose that order Car2403 would have to show that he had suffered due to unexecuted agreement. Quite difficult to prove. So he rightly then said that if he would order it enforceable then the CCA rules apply.

Ok moving onto the next bit… penalty charges. Well that’s up to the judges again. If he wants to wait for the outcome of the OFT case then he can. But it does mean that Car2403 can go back to the court over the default WHEN the oft win. So all hope not lost.

Ok now this is the interesting bit that I had to confirm… Car2403 reports the judge said..

‘Looking at the Default Notice, he decided a Default Notice is not a form of enforcement under the CCA - it's a precursor to seeking enforcement, but doesn't amount to an enforcement action.’

Oh dear oh dear oh dear…. Poor CRA’s and lenders.

I think the judge has got it right. He has defined EXACTLY what the CCA wanted a default notice to be. A means to and end. The default notice is the means ..the end is the enforcement by a court. So what if the agreement is unenforceable in its entirety. In order for the default notice to be issued there should be two musts.

• That there is a reasonable time frame to enforcement (eg it should be put before the court asap)
  
• There should be a realistic chance of a court enforcing it.
  

If neither or one of these exists then as there is no end and the means becomes it’s own end. It becomes a method of enforcement. It becomes a denial of the right to trial. A penalty inflicted by a body with no lawful authority.

This makes perfect sense. The CCA never meant defaults to be held for 6 yrs. They are only meant to be a tempory marker until a court enforces action. But the CRA’s and lenders have turned them into their own form of CCJ. Something never intended.

Interesting as well that GE have a precusor to enforcement against Car2403 (the default) but when they were standing in front of the judge they still didn't ask for a ruling on the enforcement of the agreement. What more indication does the judge need to prove that the default was being used as it's own end instaed of a means.

I think that they have unintentionally got a judge to define a default for us!!!

For those with unenforceable agreements this may be the best result so far!!!!

What price clever lawyers now chaps?

[finlander]

pre·cur·sor

–noun 1.a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor. 2.a person, animal, or thing that goes before and indicates the approach of someone or something else; harbinger: The first robin is a precursor of spring.

 

[finlander]

Car,

 

I understand it's not binding but it raises the dreaded question they won't want asked. This should be used by all people questioning in future.. the questions to ask them are

 

1. Is this a precursor to legal action. If so when? timescales etc etc.and a guarantee that when you win the default is removed.(legal action lost then purpose and accuracy of a default has gone)

2. If no legal action what is the point of the default? If it is to notify other lenders it has now become a punishment on a par with a CCJ with no independent arbitration(a judge). This is flagrant abuse of the default system. Can you imagine the police charging a person with an offence(the default), putting bail conditions on him(the damage to your good name)knowing they would never bring the case to court because they had no evidence. There would be outrage. but the lenders and CRA's are doing it every day.

 

The lenders have no excuse. If aperson is genuine rogue debtor then take him to court. Its easy. takes a short period of time and the default warns other lenders whilst they get that judgement. If he is person in genuine dispute take him to court. It's easy . takes a short period of time and a independent judge will arbitrate. The default will again warn others that the debtor may be arisk.

 

But why on earth default someone and NEVER take them to court. It is blatantly a form of arbritary punishment with an attempt to avoid a court action. An therefore a blatant abuse of the system. It is niether accurate or fair and against all natural justice. I firmly believe that any judge will see this IF it is spelt out to him. Their is no other purpose in a default except as a precursor to legal acton OR as a punishment. If it is the last then only a court has the power to do that and it does with a CCJ.

 

Think what a default notice says. Its entire purpose is to say... 'PAY THIS NOW, COME TO AN AGREEMENT OR WE WILL GOTO COURT AND MAKE YOU'.

 

You cant then bypass the court and tell everyone about it for 6 years and ruin someones name. remember the 6 years is not a legal thing but 'industry practice'. What a surprise.

 

I am convinced that a default is meant to be temp maker pending legal action. It has been abused by the credit industry for a long time and I for one intend to prove it

[finlander]

correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that the points I made have ever been tried in a court. I think that we have just let them get away with it for years.

But I am sure i am right. The CCA has stages to go through to make an agreement enforced by a court if a debtor stops paying. Its very clear cut

 

1. properly prescribed agreement

2. debtor breaks agreement.

3 default notice issued to warn debtor of failure to pay.

4. default registered.

5. CCJ to recover monies owed.

All these are designed to end in a court. To get a Judgement to enable the parties to know where they stand. I don't believe for one second it was meant that a lender stops at stage 4 and then continues to register the default knowing stage 5 is impossible due to a breach of the act on their part!

 

I also believe (and my advice backs me up) that if they knowingly do this then they are defaming your good name as are the CRA's by publishing it and refusing to take reasonable steps to withdraw the defamation after they have been informed.

 

I just think we have let them get away with it through fear... but when you think about it if they are in the right and allowed to do it they are truely exceptional. It would be the only avenue of life..seriously think about it.... where you could get away with it.

 

Imagine you were a tenant and your landlord had a legally unenforcable lease. He puts your rent up and you see in the lease he has no right and that no judge would allow him to. You dispute this and the landlord says he will take you to court. You say ok. He then evicts you (closes your account) then tells every other landlord in the country that you are a bad risk and don't pay your bills(CRA's) so you can't find anywhere else to live. But still refuses to take you to court. Do you believe

 

1.he would be allowed to do this

2.wouldn't get crucified in court for libel

 

Well...now go and look at your CCA agreement and your default notice and say hello to that landlord........

[finlander]

who regulatrs CRA's? Is it the OFT or ICO?

[finlander]

the six years comes after the ICO and lenders made an informal agreement. To prove my poit it is based on the 'Rehabilitaion of offenders act'. Sound like a punishment now?

[finlander]

My big arguement is that filing a default as a punishment may breach article 6 of the human rights act. A brief look on the net shows that even luton local gov take this right seriously for all their activities. Why not the CRA's and lenders?

Right to a fair trial (Article 6) - this provision could have a significant impact in a number of areas: the handling of licensing applications and revocations of housing benefit and education appeals; in the social service field the placing of children in care, fostering and adoption, settling parental access arrangements; in planning a range of matters relating to appeal processes, the handling of compulsory acquisition of property and the investigation of potential regulatory offences.

http://www.luton.gov.uk/media%20library/word/chief%20executives/equalities/legislation/human%20rights%20act.doc

[finlander]

or this

 

EU Charter - Art 47. Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

[finlander]

Apart from my battle...which goes on.... why don't we as a group on cag submit a mass complaint to the oft regarding the abuse of default notices as a method of punishment without proper remedy?... how about it mods... a big sticky at the begining with perhaps 'copy this petition put your name at the bottom and forward to the oft and the ICO'. As I said before no other industry has this power. Why have we and are we letting them get away with it?

 

Argue with your bank and get punished for six years. no court. no effevtive tribuanal just a vested interest deciding they are OK to abuse the process!