EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[finlander]

But regardless of that ...isnt this...

 

House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

 

the final part of the wilson saga...

[finlander]

bluesmartie,

 

We have covered this before.. we understand that improperly executed ids not the same as undenforcable and carries a risk of enforcement. we however are only dealing with unenforcable and defaults made of unlawful charges not and i repeat not improperly executed.

 

Also I remember reading that in the house of lords appeal above the law lords recognised that the penalties for unenforcable were SO DRACONIAN that they could only have meant that the primary legislation did delibertly deny the creditor to any of the original funds as a sanction.

 

and therefore it was compatible with the HRA

[finlander]

[finlander]

But your arguement doesn't make sense. A true copy is for the purposes of a CCA request. Great. But when they send you a signed application form with no prescribed terms then they have already shown their hand and that they don't have enforcable agreement. That is what I have. Even then if you get to court on a copy with no signatures but all the prescribed terms 'true copy' they still have to produce one with your signature at court or you have never even entered the agreement lawfully.

 

Otherwise what would be the point of an agreement?

[finlander]

and as i said .....we however are only dealing with unenforcable and defaults made of unlawful charges not and i repeat not improperly executed.

 

Unenforcable only...........not improperly executed......

[finlander]

Its no just diputed charges. Its unenforcable CCA agreements as well. If they are unenforcable then the defaults etc must follow the same fate. The problem with improperly executed is the judge can, and has said in several cases he will, make an enfircement order if asked. It appears they are willing to do this unless you can show you have been significantly disadvantaged by the agreement (not likely).

 

Unenforcable is stone dead unenforcable. for all the reasons the law lords stated and if you have a rather grubby application form with no prescribed terms and your signature on it they are rather knackerd. I have three.........

[finlander]

I will take my risks. If they want to break the law with a forgery then thats there decision and their look out. I know where the applications came from and if there was a 'reverse' side possible. Hope they remember as well or we move into criminal territory then.

[finlander]

do you have threads for these cases.... forewarned is forearmed as they say. and forearms is better than two;)

[finlander]

if there were they wouldn't necessarly have all the prescribed terms on them. so what do we do now? application form, t&c and no prescribed terms on either......... do they claim that the prescribed terms were fully available for inspection at their branch on the top of Mt everest?

[finlander]

any threads for these cases?

[finlander]

Thanks Dave:)

[finlander]

ok...quick reply to Milsy (Good ole Milsy)

 

 

Dear Mr Mills,

Re : Your refs ; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent letter of the 31 July 2008 and it’s interesting contents.

At this time I am awaiting replies to enquiries made to The Information Commissioners office, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, The Queens Bench Division of The High Court and The Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Once I have received replies to these letters I shall be responding to your letter in full.

In the meantime I would like to state that as of this day your company continues to defame my an my wifes names and would request that you disist immediately,

Your truly,

I think you can see where we are going with this. I'm not going to post the enquiries I have made of the fine people above as I don't think Experian need to know that yet until they have dug the hole a little deeper.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave......' as the saying goes

[finlander]

on the link attached we have started a campaign to get an oft investigation. I urge all people who read this thread to post the letter to the oft and sign the petition.

 

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

[finlander]

No need to apologise ... its giving us an idea how these people operate.

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GOTO THE OTHER THREAD ON THIS AND SIGN THE PETITION AND POST THE LETTER. IT'S VITAL WE START MAKING A NOISE. GET YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, MILKMAN ECT TO DO THE SAME. THAT WILL REALLY STIR THE HORNETS NEST. POST THE LINK ON OTHER BLOGS AND TELL EVRYONE ON ANY FORUM YOU READ ABOUT IT. IT TAKES THEM 5 MINS BUT WILL GET RESULTS. THE GOVERMENT STOPPED ROAD CHARGING WHEN THE PETITION GOT SO LARGE THE COULDN'T IGNORE IT.

 

as for me I am awaiting replies to my enquiries before I return to good ole Millsy with an ultimatum ..............

 

RBS rang me up the other day threatening me with a home visit.. I told um to s#d off ...do enjoy that..QUITE STRESS RELEIVING

[finlander]

This is quite good fun...reading how experians investors feel.

 

EXPERIAN Discussion EXPN EXPN.L - Interactive Investor

 

[finlander]

LOOK AT THIS..VERY INTERESTING

 

(2) Private information:

(j) Default Information. The information consists of details supplied to Infolinkby its customers of credit transactions where debtors have defaulted. These details are retained on file for three years. Customers are warned by Infolink only to supply this sort of information in clear-cut cases. They should not notify a default where a debtor is disputing his liability to pay. If the customer subsequently notifies Infolink that the default has been satisfied, thisfact will be added to the record; if the customer notifies that the default wasregistered in error or should be removed for some other reason, all references to the default on the file will be cancelled.

 

it comes from the information tribunal definition of when a default should be withdrawn.

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

[finlander]

wrong link.....

[finlander]

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/infolink.pdf

 

THATS THE RIGHT ONE PAGE 8

[finlander]

Your so going to enjoy these... how the other half live...

 

an article from creditbiz......

 

Debt Collection Services Directory and Portal

 

Telephone Collection Calls...How important are they?

 

Getting paid on time by customers / debtors is an important component in the success of any company and collection agency.

Handled effectively, telephone collection calls are a great opportunity to remind the customer /debtor of the need to pay on time and can even be an opportunity to promote future sales. Handled badly, the same calls can alienate customers / debtors and cause friction between the credit and collection department.

Here are ten tips to help credit & collection professionals make the most out of their collection calls:

1) Know your customer. Before you pick up the phone, make sure you know important facts about your customer, such as:

• Are they a large, medium-sized, or small business? This is important because the size of the company will determine who your payment decision-maker will be. The smaller the company the higher the level of decision-maker. For example, in a very small business the payment decision-maker will probably be the president of the company or owner. In a medium-sized business try to reach the controller or general manager. In a large business your best target decision-maker may be the accounts payable manager or supervisor. Remember if you don’t involve a decision-maker, don’t expect a decision.

• What is their payment record with us? The history of the customer’s payment record may help you understand why your account is past due. If they usually pay on time but have not on this occasion, there may be a dispute or grievance. In this instance, be sure to check with the customer that there is not a problem before you demand payment. If the payments are getting slower each month, your customer may have a cash flow problem and a more assertive approach may be needed.

2) Have a positive attitude. Calling customers / debtors and reminding them of their unpaid bill is not always a fun-filled task. But it never has to be an unpleasant experience. Be upbeat and professional. Your mood will be contagious. If you sound interested and enthusiastic about your job, you are much more likely to get a positive and satisfying result. Remember, if you don’t sound interested in what you are saying, the other party will not be interested in hearing it.

3) Be an active listener. As soon as you get through to your customer, listen, listen, listen! Be sure to listen to their name and to make a note of it for use during the call and for the next call if needed. Listen to the mood of your customer. Their mood will to some degree affect the pace and tone of the call. Listen to what they do say and what they don’t say. Cutting a check does not necessarily mean a check is being sent! Take notes and refer to existing notes. That way you will stay focused and be an active listener throughout.

4) Ask the right questions. One of the most common questions asked by collectors is "When will you be sending a cheque?" It is also one of the dumbest questions because it abdicates control of the outcome. The only time to ask a customer when they plan to send a cheque is when you are not concerned by whatever date they give you. If all you are doing is cash forecasting, the question is fine, but if you are trying to facilitate fast payment it is the wrong question. A better question might be, "Will you be mailing the cheque today?" or less assertively, "Will you be sending payment this week?" In both of these examples you are still maintaining control of the time frame and are less likely to be manipulated by the answer.

5) Follow up progressively. Each collection call to your customer should have a theme.

For example: Call #1. Benefit of the doubt. Remember some customers / debtors will pay you because you brought the matter to their attention.

Call #2. Firm and assertive. If the first style doesn’t work, your next call will be designed to cause the customer to pay you to get you off their back.

Call #3. Tell them their future. Some customers / debtors will only pay when you explain the consequence of nonpayment. If you have to make a third call about a past-due bill, that is the time to apply this kind of pressure.

6) Always keep your word. Credibility is one of the most important aspects of a collection call. Your customer must always believe you mean what you say. If you promise action will be taken on a given date you must take that action, or don’t say it. Also, be sure that other departments in your company support your actions. There is nothing worse than telling a customer a certain course of action will happen only to be overridden by another department or authority. Remember, when people know that you always do what you say you are going to do, they take you very seriously.

7) Always remain calm. Do not allow an angry customer to aggravate you. Sometimes debtors think the best defense is a good offense. They will become angry in order to deflect you from your goal of getting paid. Do not be tempted into an argument. That just gives the customer a reason not to pay. Remain calm, be polite and stay focused. You are in the right. Ultimately, a firm but fair approach will get results.

8) Get a commitment. Your ideal collection call will get the customer to commit to pay in full today. If that is not possible, get a commitment to something! Any call that does not result in a commitment to pay or a commitment to call back with a payment date is a wasted call. Always get a promise of something, that way all your calls have value.

9) Summarize carefully. Did you ever receive a payment promise and the check didn’t show up? If so, it may be that the customer forgot your call the moment they put down the phone or they decided you were not that concerned about the outcome. Never leave the customer unsure about your expectations. Summarize the agreement carefully, going over each point. If the solution was complex put your summary in writing.

10) Be effective, not efficient. Fifty calls a day may be an efficient call rate, but if none of the calls result in payment it was not an effective call rate. Quality rather than quantity is the key. Make each call worthwhile and your success rate will be high.

Finally, remember that you are dealing with a customer and that, usually, you will want to do business with them again. Stimulate goodwill while collecting past-due bills and you will get paid, and get more business.

 

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Total: £0.00 Debt Collection QuotesGet A Quote Now!

 

Debt Collection ResourcesDebt Collection Articles

Debt Collection Guide

Things to Know

Calculate late payment interest

 

UK Credit ReportsGraydon UK Credit Reports Equifax Credit Reports Experian Credit Reports Latest Filed Accounts Directors and Shareholders

[finlander]

Getting Paid: The Art of Positive Confrontation

 

Social Psychologists say that the three greatest fears are death, public speaking and asking for money. We're talking about the gut wrenching feeling that you get when someone owes you money and they're not paying up. This churning sensation is the main reason that many businesspeople would rather do without their hard-earned cash than risk a confrontation with a debtor. The recent bankruptcy statistics are evidence that this is a serious problem. This is why the 'Art of Positive Confrontation' is an essential part of the debt collection process. There are two whole chapters in our book devoted to explaining how to master this 'Art'.

There are stages in the business process when you really need to get your way. These include getting account information, during the telephone follow up process and when negotiating a settlement. These are all opportunities for confrontation. The 'flight or fight' reaction associated with this is built into us by evolution (to either run from the tiger or wrestle it unconscious to the ground). 'Flight or fight' is a natural reaction to stress because we all know that confrontation can have serious negative consequences, especially if handled badly. Success in getting paid arises not from defeating your debtor, upsetting them or making them defensive, but from having them do what you want - by having them pay you!

If a person has the goal of destroying their debtor or if the confrontation gets ugly, the consequences can include loss of sleep, anxiety, damaged dignity and soured friendships. And worst still this can lead to you avoiding debt collection situations altogether because you naturally want to avoid an unpleasant scene. It can also distract you from the serious business of making money or get you a reputation as an easy mark.

A positive confrontation is one that is intentionally created by you to get you the result you want within controlled limits without harming yourself or your customer. Personal dignity is a human being's most cherished possession - so, if you want cooperation, don't attack a person's dignity. In confrontation, a good grasp of the facts contributes more to confidence than your basic personality style - so keep good records and review them as part of your preparation for any discussion over accounts owing.

Positive confrontation is not like a verbal boxing match; it is more like herding a cow. What you want is for the cow to go into the barn. So you gently push and prod whilst showing her the way out. In this case, the way out of the slight discomfort you create is to go through the barn door, so she does.

Now people are a little smarter than cows but the theory of positive confrontation is quite similar. In a positive confrontation you provide the other person with the opportunity to do what you want of them. You provide the other person with the opportunity to pay you without making that action into a symbolic (or actual) defeat. It's not about running away or a battle to the death. It's about getting paid and loving it!

By Martin O'Shannessy Martin O'Shannessy is Executive Director of IRIS Research and co-author of 'Getting Paid and Loving it: Your Guild to Collecting Debt with the Muscle of the Mind

[finlander]

oK WHILE iM WAITING FOR MY REPLIES TO THE LETTERS I SENT SO THAT i CAN THEN RUIN EXPERIANS CHRISTMAS BONUSES...

 

I sent this off to the ICO in order to pin them down on exactly what the CCA required a CRA to have......... It's a bit long but have a read......

 

Sir/Madam,

I write Dear regarding a matter that is recently causing me some concern and feel you may be able to help in this matter.

My concerns regard the way in which credit reference agencies such as Experian and Equifax are processing and recording default information passed to them under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. My concern is specifically regarding the 1974 act and not the recent 2006 legislation.

Let me explain my concerns and then, at the end, ask a specific question, which I would be grateful for a specific reply to. As the regulator for the CRA’s, who themselves are entirely governed by the CCA1974 and the Data Protection Act, I would expect and hope that you have thorough knowledge of the CCA 1974.

The CCA 1974 states that a credit agreement under this act must have certain prescribed terms in one document which must be signed by the lender and borrower. Sec 127 states that any agreement that does not contain all the prescribed terms renders the agreement unenforceable. In a test case before the House of Lords, Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead attached such significance to this part of the act that he said this;

‘ I turn to the statutory setting of section 127(3). The Consumer Credit Act contains many requirements about the form and contents of regulated agreements. Parliament has singled out some obligations as having such importance that non-compliance leads automatically and inflexibly to a ban on the making of an enforcement order whatever the circumstances. These obligations are specified in section 127(3) and (4). In these two subsections Parliament has chosen, deliberately, to exclude consideration of what is just and equitable in the particular case. The latter approach, enabling the court to consider the circumstances of the particular case, was adopted as the general rule in section 127(1). Section 127(3) and (4) are, expressly, exceptions to the general rule. In prescribing these two exceptions Parliament must be taken to have considered that the sanction generally attaching to non-compliance with the statutory requirements was not sufficient to achieve compliance with the duty to include all the prescribed terms in the agreement (section 61(1)(a)) or the duties to provide copies and notice of cancellation rights (sections 62 to 64). Something more drastic was needed in order to focus attention on the need for lenders to comply strictly with these particular obligations.

Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security, which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in cases of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

The unattractive feature of this approach is that it will sometimes involve punishing the blameless pour encourager les autres. On its face, considered in the context of one particular case, a sanction having this effect is difficult to justify. The Moneylenders Act 1927 adopted a similarly severe approach. Infringement of statutory requirements rendered the loan and any security unenforceable. So did the Hire Purchase Act 1965, although to a lesser extent. This approach was roundly condemned in the Crowther report (Report of the Committee on Consumer Credit, under the presidency of Lord Crowther, March 1971) (Cmnd 4596), vol 1, p 311, para 6.11.4:

'It offends every notion of justice or fairness that because of some technical slip which in no way prejudices him, a borrower, having received a substantial sum of money, should be entitled to retain or spend it without any obligation to repay a single penny.'

Despite this criticism I have no difficulty in accepting that in suitable instances it is open to Parliament, when Parliament considers the public interest so requires, to decide that compliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of certain types of agreements. This course is open to Parliament even though this will sometimes yield a seemingly unreasonable result in a particular case. Considered overall, this course may well be a proportionate response in practice to a perceived social problem. Parliament may consider the response should be a uniform solution across the board. A tailor-made response, fitting the facts of each case as decided in an application to the court, may not be appropriate. This may be considered an insufficient incentive and insufficient deterrent. And it may fail to protect consumers adequately. Persons most in need of protection are perhaps the least likely to participate in court proceedings. They may well let proceedings go by default: see, in relation to money lending agreements, the Crowther report, p 236, para 6.1.19.

Nor do I have any difficulty in accepting that money lending transactions as a class give rise to significant social problems. Bargaining power lies with the lender, and the social evils flowing from this are notorious. The activities of some lenders have long given the business of money lending a bad reputation. Nor, becoming more specific, do I have any difficulty in accepting, in principle, that Parliament may properly make compliance with the formalities required by the Consumer Credit Act regarding 'prescribed terms' an essential prerequisite to enforcement. In principle that course must be open to Parliament. It must be open to Parliament to decide that, severe though this sanction may be, it is an appropriate way of protecting consumers as a matter of social policy. In making its decision in the present case Parliament had the benefit of experience gained over many years in the working of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and the hire purchase legislation, and also the views of the Crowther committee. Further, it must be open to Parliament so to decide even though the lender's inability to enforce an agreement will not assist a borrower who consents to the enforcement of the agreement in ignorance of the true legal position.’

Lord Scott of Foscote also stated in the same judgement;

‘My Lords there can, in my opinion, be no doubt at all but that in considering whether section 127(3), in rendering the £5000 loan unenforceable, constitutes an infringement of FCT's Convention rights, FCT's remedies in the round must be taken into account. If FCT is able under the general law to recover the £5000 by some means other than suing on the debt, the 1974 Act provisions preventing FCT from suing on the debt could not on any argument constitute an infringement of FCT's Article 1 rights. But it is, in my opinion, equally clear that no such alternative means of recovery are available to FCT. The decisions of this House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95 and, more recently, Dimond v Lovell [2002] AC 384 stand in the way. Parliament's intention in enacting section 127(3) of the 1974 Act was to make a loan, made under a regulated agreement, unenforceable in certain events. The courts cannot defeat that intention by allowing some alternative means of recovery.’

As the public body that regulates these agencies my questions to you are as follows;

1. If a creditor has an agreement, which has none, or some of the prescribed terms missing what right has he, bearing in mind that this would make the agreement totally unenforceable, to register a default against a borrower under an act he has already breached? The law lords consider the breach in the agreement so serious that the lender forfeits all his rights under the agreement. Doesn’t that also mean his right to register a default? Your own advice to CRA’s states;

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.

2. Is a default marker on a CRA an act of enforcement or a pre-cursor to enforcement? If it is an act of enforcement it is forbidden under sec 127. If it is a pre-cursor surely there must be a realistic chance of enforcement? If sec 127 applies then there is no realistic chance of enforcement so how can it be a pre-cursor? It is no longer a means (default notice) to an end (enforcement) but has become the end it self.

3. With the above in mind what is the real difference between a default recorded by CRA and a CCJ? Apart from the money being returned to the lender all other effects are much the same. But one has been before an independent judge (CCJ) and the other simply by a click of a mouse to a CRA with no outside adjudication. In the above cases with the original creditor knowing they have no chance of ever legally enforcing the agreement.

4. Is this not incompatible with the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998? A privately owned company is effectively passing judgement on an individual knowing that a court would not be allowed by law to pass a similar judgement. The only recompense is for the borrower, often amongst the poorest and least educated in the country, to pursue an expensive and stressful court case. If the Lender has registered the default marker surly it is for them to pursue the court case as they started the enforcement procedure with the default marker. But this is seldom done. The only time limit is SIX years for which time a default can remain on a file with no court action being taken. Is this right?

5. I a borrower has challenged the validity of his agreement and feels it may fall with in the definition of an unenforceable agreement doesn’t he have a reasonable dispute? After all he has in effect alleged a breach in the law by the lender. Ample recourse exist for the lender, often a far wealthier institution than the borrower, to have a court resolve the matter. Whilst they refuse this court action surely the agreement is in dispute. That being the case your own advice to credit reference agencies state;

‘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.

1. Is the customer able to produce evidence that they disputed that a default occurred?
   
2. Did the customer dispute the default before the lender announced their intention to file a default or after?
   
3. 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?
   
4. What evidence has the customer produced to support their side of the dispute?
   
5. Has the lender simply ignored this evidence or have they produced evidence to support their version of events?’
   

My analogy to the current situation is as follows.

The police arrest a man for an offence. Knowing that they do not have and will never have enough evidence to convict they charge the man anyway (default notice). They then allow the damage this has done to his good name and restrict his life by bailing him (the default marker). Then they keep him on bail for years knowing they are restricting his life and never allow him his day in court.

If the previous situation were real then there would be outrage in society. But this seems to be exactly what unscrupulous lenders and CRA’s are doing everyday to people in the case of agreements that fall within sec 127.

Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending legal action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these markers wishes to challenge these markers they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and would have take legal action against the agency to have the marker removed. This affects a persons ability to gain credit, housing (landlord checks) and in some cases their ability to gain employment.

In short a private company is depriving subjects of this country of food, shelter and warmth. The three basics of civilisation.

As a public body you have a duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now

 

I would appreciate your views on the above comments. I would also like your views regarding the Human Rights act.

Most importantly I would like your answer to this question. It is asked with the knowledge that CRA’s and Lenders have a great deal of clever solicitors who should be able to spot an agreement that is unenforceable under sec 127. And if not then should perhaps choose another profession.

Should a lender submit, and a CRA continue to process, a default marker when they are aware that the credit agreement they possess is rendered unenforceable by sec 127 (3) of the CCA 1974?

I look forward to your response,

Yours truly,

 

 

Well it might be the start of tying them down to an answer...I can't decide whether when i get my replies to this ,and the 3 other institutions I have made enquires to , I should write to millsy or just save the time and effort and start the court proceedings. Writing would be seen by the court as trying to resolve the dispute but quite frankly the rubbish they talk, although entertaining hearing an educated man talking piffle,...... is wasting time.

[finlander]

this is interesting.............

 

Why don't the banks look after loyal customers? | Mark Piggott - Times Online

[finlander]

thecteam,

 

wait and see what we get as answer.. my main aim is to pin them down on what they think is a reasonable amount of proof that a debt exists and do they need that agreement...hence the last question in the letter and asking for a clear answer. they always waffle on about 6 years etc etc... i just want to know if that agreement is necessary in their eye or not...

 

remember the default notice is issued under the CCA... if that can be done without a properly regulated agreement then if i don't pay my mate back the £5 he lent me last night for a kebab... can he register one as well under the CCA?

 

Alsio the answer that they would have done everything right regarding your consent even if they havn't got proof rather collapses as ,surely if that was true then they would have got the correctly formatted agreement right as well. And if they can't get that right how do we know they got the consent bit right?

 

lets see what the ICO office says.

[finlander]

also I have been scouring everywhere I can find for information on any successful attemt to sue a CRA for defamation... And i can't find any.... Now could that be that we are in 'unchartered territory'?

 

I don't think so... can you honestly imgine even in your wildest dreams that no one has threatened this before? There are even solicitors offering to do this.........

 

look.... Defamation, libel and slander: Baehrs Solicitors, Bournemouth, Dorset

 

 

but no judgements..... no news of it... nothing why?

 

well i reckon its because Experian are full of **** basically......... I think that this does happen and they back off and pull the reports....... in fact I am sure of it........

[finlander]

well..thats ok they can try that but the oft quite clearly states that CRA's are regulated by the ICO. Therefore I would expect the ICO to set standards for them to abide by and have a detailed knowledge of the acts that regulate CRA's. If they dont then remember government depts can be included as defendants in actions as well for their negligence........ It is the most fundemental question of the whole default thing and I would hope that the ICO would have a view....