EXPERIAN... The final battle commences

[finlander]

if the ICo refer me to the FOS then i shal send the same letter to them. If they then refer me back to the OFt then again the same letter.. whilst all this is happening. In the meantime Experian will be pi*#ing themselves laughing until it suddenly dawns on their intellectual properties that what I want is an answer or to pin down the fact that they are really completely unregulated!!!! The judge will be interested in that and so will the powers that be when the Experian lose.

[finlander]

this is quite a good article re CCa and sec127 defaults/sales..

 

Credit Today online

[finlander]

whilst we still awiat my replies I thought I would post this.... it's a DCA's reply letter sent to a mr smith (who i suspect is a cag member) and posted on credit today for DCA employees advice. It is quite good. Hope Mr smith doesnt mind me repeating it here.........

 

 

"Dear Mr Smith (if that is indeed your real name!)

 

I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.

 

Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a "begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a "formal request for payment". This is how we, at the Robbem Blind Debt Collection Agency have always, for reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.

 

Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and p!ssant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill- advised. In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin" or, come to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a debtor, with a responsibility to repay that which you have borrowed, albeit with the small matter of interest added. Which, I might suggest, is simply there in order that a profit might be made from the aforementioned transactions?

 

Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the repayments you make "go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Financial Services Industry", a moment’s rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the industry in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned shebang" yourself. The estimates you provide for the chief executive’s disbursement of the funds levied by penalties and interest, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that box-ticking façade of a Quality Assurance scheme."

 

A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don’t simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagarie of the postal system; 2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because the sheer medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.

 

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India" you would still owe us the money.

 

Please forward it by Friday.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Phuk U Mann

Customer Relations "

[finlander]

just a trhought if anyone can answer...would a freedom of information request to the OFT get the names of the 13 DCA's warned re there conduct by them. Would be interesting to have the evidence that these DCA's also supply experian and the others with default notices. The same dca's that experian trusts to tell the truth..what do you think?

 

[finlander]

THE ENTERPRISE ACT.. thats the clause... however that is all very well but there is a public intrest angle here. whilst these companies remain unnamed they can continue to ruin peoples credit standing etc... there must have bee some substance to the case against them in order for them to be warned, CRA's are relying on these people, who the oft has concerns with, to verify the truth of credit file entries... I think it's worth ago... I will try and knock a letter up to do one.

 

anyone know when they were warned?

[finlander]

looks like a good runner to me... will get a request made up asap....

 

incidently th FOIA also effects companies who have public contracts...experian has public contracts:)

[finlander]

hi folks,

 

sorry i went quiet but was in holiday with Mrs Finlander........ anyway...the story so far...

 

Milssy has written back to my last letter...it was slightly different to the one posted on here as i changed it just afterwards... you can see why when you read it here.......

 

Dear Mr Mills,

Re : Your refs ; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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 can you please write back to confirm the following points stated in your letter.

• That defamation actions cannot be heard in the County court?
  
• That there are no pre-action protocols relating to defamation actions and therefore your company has no intention of abiding by these ‘alledged’ protocols?
  
• that Experian does not require a correctly executed Consumer Credit Act agreement in order for one of it’s clients to register a default notice under The Consumer Credit act?
  
• That all defaults registered on my and my wifes account are registered in compliance with The Consumer Credit Act?
  

I would also 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,

ok so what did millsy (good old millsy) write back.

well interestingly he wrote back and said 'actions for defamation cannot be pursued in county court' , end eclosed some county court rules, and that he didn't understand the question about pre-trial protocls. full stop the end no more.

however what is always interesting is what is not said as well as what is.

Now who can guess which questions he didn't answer from that letter?

[finlander]

mmmm...

[finlander]

thats right my little ones. He didn't feel able to answer the direct question about the CCa and agreements. why do we think that is?

 

I think I have a clue.......

[finlander]

still waiting for the replies to my letters.... then it's one more to millsy...then LBA... then court.....their choice not mine;)

[finlander]

you all remember that millsy quite cleary said that..and i quote ' the county court does not have jurisdiction to hear defamation cases' and then he refered me to part 7 of the civil procedure rules... as so....

 

PART 7 - HOW TO START PROCEEDINGS – THE CLAIM FORM

 

very interestin ... then he says that this is all confirmed by the county courts act 1984... like so....

 

 

 

Part II Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings

 

Actions of contract and tort

 

15 General jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort

 

(1)Subject to subsection (2), a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action founded on contract or tort F1 . . ..

(2)A county court shall not, except as in this Act provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine—

F2(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b)any action in which the title to F3 . . . any toll, fair, market or franchise is in question; or

©any action for libel of slander.

F4(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annotations:

 

Amendments (Textual)

 

F1Words in s. 15(1) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F2S. 15(2)(a) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F3Words in s. 15(2)(b) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F4S. 15(3) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

 

C1S. 15 excluded by Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34, SIF 77:1), s. 39(4)

 

S. 15 extended by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(1)(l)

 

Now notice the f2 etc.... says repealed...when you enquire deeper it says repealed by this....

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

 

 

and that is here....

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)

 

the most relevent part is....

 

Transfer of proceedings between courts

(1) The following section shall be substituted for section 40 of the [1984 c. 28.] County Courts Act 1984 (transfer of proceedings to county court)—

“40 Transfer of proceedings to county court

 

(1) Where the High Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it are required by any provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be in a county court it shall—

(a) order the transfer of the proceedings to a county court; or

(b) if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement, order that they be struck out.

(2) Subject to any such provision, the High Court may order the transfer of any proceedings before it to a county court.

(3) An order under this section may be made either on the motion of the High Court itself or on the application of any party to the proceedings.

(4) Proceedings transferred under this section shall be transferred to such county court as the High Court considers appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned.

 

Now would you say that there has been an attempt to mislead me?.... I think so... and I think that is a bit naughty........

But..I knew that was happening anyway.... ... when someone is building their own gallows...don't interupt them....

 

[finlander]

you all remember that millsy quite cleary said that..and i quote ' the county court does not have jurisdiction to hear defamation cases' and then he refered me to part 7 of the civil procedure rules... as so....

 

PART 7 - HOW TO START PROCEEDINGS – THE CLAIM FORM

 

very interestin ... then he says that this is all confirmed by the county courts act 1984... like so....

 

 

 

Part II Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings

 

Actions of contract and tort

 

15 General jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort

 

(1)Subject to subsection (2), a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action founded on contract or tort F1 . . ..

(2)A county court shall not, except as in this Act provided, have jurisdiction to hear and determine—

F2(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b)any action in which the title to F3 . . . any toll, fair, market or franchise is in question; or

©any action for libel of slander.

F4(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annotations:

 

Amendments (Textual)

 

F1Words in s. 15(1) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F2S. 15(2)(a) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F3Words in s. 15(2)(b) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

F4S. 15(3) repealed by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(8), Schedule PartI

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

 

C1S. 15 excluded by Legal Aid Act 1988 (c. 34, SIF 77:1), s. 39(4)

 

S. 15 extended by S.I. 1991/724, art. 2(1)(l)

 

Now notice the f2 etc.... says repealed...when you enquire deeper it says repealed by this....

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

 

 

and that is here....

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)

 

the most relevent part is....

 

Transfer of proceedings between courts

(1) The following section shall be substituted for section 40 of the [1984 c. 28.] County Courts Act 1984 (transfer of proceedings to county court)—

“40 Transfer of proceedings to county court

 

(1) Where the High Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it are required by any provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be in a county court it shall—

(a) order the transfer of the proceedings to a county court; or

(b) if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement, order that they be struck out.

(2) Subject to any such provision, the High Court may order the transfer of any proceedings before it to a county court.

(3) An order under this section may be made either on the motion of the High Court itself or on the application of any party to the proceedings.

(4) Proceedings transferred under this section shall be transferred to such county court as the High Court considers appropriate, having taken into account the convenience of the parties and that of any other persons likely to be affected and the state of business in the courts concerned.

 

Now would you say that there has been an attempt to mislead me?.... I think so... and I think that is a bit naughty........

But..I knew that was happening anyway.... ... when someone is building their own gallows...don't interupt them....

 

[finlander]

ok..as millsy didn't answer my questions.... attempt no 2...

 

Dear Mr Mills,

Re : Your refs ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for your recent letter of the 27th August 2008 and it’s interesting contents.

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

I hope you will appreciate that once these replies are with me I will be contacting you again to discuss the points you have raised in your last two letters.

I have noted your comments regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court and the County Court. I must say that as a qualified solicitor I am mystified as to why you have quoted County Courts Act 1984 when this was repealed by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

However we will leave that discussion until my reply from The Queens Bench Division is received.

What concerns me more is that you have not answered two of the questions I put to you regarding the Consumer Credit Act and it’s implications.

I will again repeat these questions and ask for an unequivocal answer to both if I could.

Is it true that;

• Experian does not require a enforcable Consumer Credit Act agreement in order for one of it’s clients to register a default notice under The Consumer Credit act?
  
• That all defaults registered on my and my wifes account are registered in compliance with The Consumer Credit Act?
  

I cannot understand what would be the difficulty in answering these simple questions. It cannot be a matter of ‘company confidentiality’ but a simple matter of adminstration. These questions have not, as you have stated, been answered in your previous correspondence so I would appreciate you doing so now.

Can I clarify. I do not want a rambling statement about ‘previous payment history being evidence of an account’ and would ask that you simply limit yourself to answering the questions above.

If you refuse to answer these question I would like a detailed explanation of why.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

I would also 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,

[finlander]

uk26,

 

what is a brief summary of your case? is it one involving penalty charges, identity theft CCA agreements etc?

[finlander]

Hi UK26....your quote .......What the betting a court would rule this does not apply to CRAs.

 

My latest experience with the Courst as litigant in person is .....I wouldnt bet against what you said.......imagine the chaos if a case was successfull under these New Regs..................the system will be careful in what they allow and what not, but we can only try and beat them using all we can against them..... one day someone will succeed ....then the fireworks will really start.

 

sparkie

 

sparkie I disagree,

 

I don't think we need to get paranoid when it comes to the courts. So far they have helped us greatly in defeating banks and as the recent test case shows they are not afriad to do so even when it's going to cost the banks billions in the middle of a credit crunch.

 

However what the courts won't stand , and they have shown this in the past , is a sloppy case. It is not the judges job to argue our case's for us but to decide on the arguements in front of him. I.E. if you dont make the right arguement, or fumble the one you do make, then he will rule against you.

 

thats why we have to stick to basic, simple facts and argue them well.

 

The facts of this thread are just that...

 

1.CRA's regulated and controled by CCA

2.No enforcable CCA agreement then No default as CCA no longer applicable

3.default does not say 'bad debtor' it says, in their own definition, 'you have failed to keep to the terms of your agreement'

4. definition of agreement in the CCA? 'A properly regulated agreement containing all the prescribed terms signed by both parties'

5. Is a default notice a true statement then? no.

[finlander]

sparkie and C team and the rest of you good people,

 

The wilson v first counties verdict was overturned. The statement made in red above doesn't apply. However it was appealed and i beleive it was lord birkenhead who stated along the lines that parliment intended 127 to deprive the lender of all rights under the CCA but allowed them other avenues to pursue a debt although it wasn't apparant what if any these other avenues could be. the appeal was upheld and is pre-cedent.

 

IN SHORT... THE LENDER LOSES ALL RIGHTS UNDER THE CCA. AS THEY COULDN'T SEE ANY OTHER REMEDY THEN THEY LOSE ALL THE PRINCIPLE SUM.

 

This is important as it effectively gets rid of the proposition that the default marker is a pre-cursor to enforcement. How can it be when enforcement is barred?

 

In an update I still havn't heard back from the ICO. this is either because;

 

1. they have lost the letter

2. they are hoping I will go away

3. they are overwhelmed with enquiries (usual excuse for gov agencies)

4. They don't know what to reply without dropping themselves or the CRA's in the POOH.

 

I think a reminder letter is going to be sent.

 

For those of you wanting a mass complaint then go to the thread mentioned earlier and SIGN THE PETITION AND SEND THE LETTER AND GET EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO AS WELL.

[finlander]

thanks foolishgirl,

 

Im thinking about writing a letter on these lines,

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am writing to inform you that I am so overwhelmed with writing compalints that I havn't had time to write to you yet,

 

your truely

 

Mr Finlander

 

[finlander]

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

[finlander]

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

 

 

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

 

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

[finlander]

update....

 

strange letter back from millsy... still wont answer my question regarding registering defaults without a cca and if this is company policy...just keeps stating he has already answered that when he hasn't. I smell panic....... oh good........

[finlander]

sorry you havnt heard from me for a while. Thanks for al the input here. the fight goes on and we have reached that stage when I have to stop posting details to prevent the enemy knowing the next stage and how not to fall into it.

 

good luck everybody and I wil let you know when the battle is won...