EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[car2403]

right guys

 

Experian have filed a defence to my claim. They have made an application to have my case struck out + be awarded costs of £750

 

On what basis?

[UK26]

Filed an N244

 

_______________ An Order striking out the Claim Form under the Courts powers under CPR part 3.4(2) or alternatively giving summary judgment for the Defendant under CPR part 24.2(a)(i) on the grounds that (a) the statement of case

discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding; (b) the statement of case fails to comply with CPR part 16.4(1) in that it sets out legal arguments only but sets out no facts about the case; © the statement of case makes allegations as to notices of certain facts or wilful default but fails to particularise them as required by paragraph 8.2 of the practice direction to CPR part 16; (d) the statement of case pleads for an order under section 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 but fails to specify for which data the Claimant seeks an order; (e) the statement of case pleads for an order for damages and compensation but fails to particularise any such amounts as required under CPR part 16.3(2) or the requirements of section 13 of that Act.

4. Have you attached a draft of the order you are applying for? f Yes

[UK26]

All documents relating to this case will be posted under a new Thread later today.

[humbleman]

Very unusual for a defendant to go for a summary judgment, if you haven't provided them with sufficient information then the right thing for them to do is ask for further/better particulars. This is obviously scaremongery tactics.

 

Ideal opportunity for you ask for a summary judgment, if they are unable to prove that the creditors have your permission to process the data.

[UK26]

full details of my case with Experian can be found over at

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/164122-uk26-experian-limited.html#post1763697

[UK26]

Does anyone have the link to the ICO Page where it says, CRAs placing dispute markers is not a defence?

[peter123]

I've been following your thread and I love your avatar!!!!

[Sparkie1723]

Does anyone have the link to the Information Commissioners Office Page where it says, CRAs placing dispute markers is not a defence?

 

 

Compliments of sparkie

7 Data Protection Act 1998 Schedule 1, Part II, Paragraph 7 applies, the interpretation of the fourth principle.

 

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 accordingly

7. 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

Version 3 Defaults: A guidance note 02.08. 2007 15

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.

 

It is an accepted industry standard to record only serious ‘defaults’ with credit reference agencies. The term ‘default’ on credit reference files is used to refer to the situation when the relationship between the lender and borrower has broken down. A record showing a series of payments as six months in arrears when this does not reflect the real payment history should not be used as an equivalent of a default. Where a code is used to describe a default or variation in payment, it should always be accompanied by an explanation in plain and intelligible terms which informs the reader of its meaning.

 

 

 

 

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

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.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[100mel]

subscribe

[noomill060]

me 2

[Avesovum]

me too excellent thread

[flintstones1960]

me subbing

[Mihail]

Subbed, vital thread.

I'm considering posting a related thread re Experian and false information from my mortgage lender.

KR

Mihail

[deedee1310]

Finlander, Sparkie, UK and All.

 

I have finally caught up with this thread, all 41 pages of it! My last posting was at page 8, so I guess it's been a while

 

WOW - is all I can say at this point. I have taken so much in and there are posts that I need to re-read, to get the info embedded in my head but thanks to all for sharing.

 

Finlander, UK I await your results with impatience and hope that the outcome is positive.

 

Warm regards,

 

deedee

[moc]

wow what a thread just read the full 41 pages keep up the gd work

[Wirral]

Under the Freedom Of Information Act I contacted Information Commissioners Office asking for the number of complaints they had received in the last 12 months about Experian.

As this information was obtained under Freedom of Information Act I see nothing wrong with sharing it here. After all it is freely available to anybody that asks for it. As Experian like to publish info about everybody else I thought why not give them a taste of their own stuff.

Experian would probably argue that the amount of complaints is a small % of the total number of queries/cases they handle. However 179 in 12 months is at the rate of 1 every other day and in my opinion is not good.

If you are considering complaining to Information Commissioners Office make sure you include good evidence as 31 cases where closed through lack of detail.

Information Commissioners Office response is below.

 

 

Information Request IRQ******

 

Dear M

 

Further to my email of ** October 2008 I am writing in response to your request for information. As you are aware your correspondence has been treated as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

You asked the Information Commissioners Office to provide the number of complaints received in the last 12 months regarding Experian.

 

The information provided below details the number of complaints raised concerning the company named, not all of the complaints were found to be substantiated. In order to assist you further, I have broken down the cases into groups to provide a brief description of the result of the complaint.

 

A search of our database, for the period 1/09/07 to 30/09/08 revealed the following results;

 

Experian

 

A total of 179 complaints were raised with the Information Commissioners Office, with the following results;

 

50 of the complaints were considered unlikely to have amounted to a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

20 of the complaints were considered likely to have amounted to a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, with appropriate remedial action being taken.

 

31 of the complaints contained insufficient evidence to permit a formal assessment of the case to be made and were closed.

 

 

11 cases are currently open under assessment.

 

29 of the complaints sought an order under section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This section of the Act facilitates a ‘Notice of Correction’ being added to an individual’s credit reference file. In 19 such complaints an order was made, and a ‘Notice of Correction’ added to the file. In the remaining 20 such complaints the Information Commissioners Office ruled a ‘Notice of Correction’ to be inappropriate.

 

The remaining 38 complaints were dealt with by way of advice.

 

 

I hope this information is helpful, however, if you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team at the address below.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Wirral

[steven4064]

Good stuff Wirral

[Hadituptohere]

Could be handy to present before a judge, I wonder what the complaints numbers are for equifax, as when I queried entries with them they did put a NOC along the defaults and then as advised by the ICO removed the defaults due to no responce from the source of the default notice.

Could be handy to use as a comparison

 

Hadituptohere

[lavamyz]

subbing... awesome stuff....

[SURFBOY]

Any more news on "the final battle"?

[thekat1979]

subbing

[Penfold92]

Excellent thread and good luck,

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Can I just ask a question here...This thread and many others discuss the whole "Default" issue and it being a precursor to enforcement etc. But if it was defined under the CCA why are they also being used for other non regulated credit accounts, like CAR's O2 account, bank overdraft accounts even energy accounts? Are these therefore an illegal use of this term, just so commonly used we have all forgotten?

 

Just a question...was thinking about it this weekend

Edited December 8, 2008 by Penfold92
spelling

[dpick]

Can I just ask a question here...This thread and many others discuss the whole "Default" issue and it being a precursor to enforcement etc. But if it was defined under the CCA why are they also being used for other non regulated credit accounts, like CAR's O2 account, bank overdraft accounts even energy accounts? Are these therefore an illegal use of this term, just so commonly used we have all forgotten?

 

Just a question...was thinking about it this weekend

 

I am inclined to agree since banks, Credit card suppliers and DCA use the default as a punishment when they have no intension of making or cannot make any legal enforcement through the courts.

 

dpick

[bobbyh99]

Can I just ask a question here...This thread and many others discuss the whole "Default" issue and it being a precursor to enforcement etc. But if it was defined under the CCA why are they also being used for other non regulated credit accounts, like CAR's O2 account, bank overdraft accounts even energy accounts? Are these therefore an illegal use of this term, just so commonly used we have all forgotten?

 

Just a question...was thinking about it this weekend

 

The guidance note by the Information Commissioners Office mentions Current Account overdrafts.

 

Common available products where exceptions (to the common standard) are justified are:

i. Long terms Secured loans

ii. Current Accounts with OD facilities.

 

So in terms of Data Protection Act, it looks like the Information Commissioners Office would allow at least the Bank Account Defaults!

 

BobbyH