New attack on CRA's to remove defaults.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Untested and with much cap doffing to Finlander, Fodderstomp and other good people of the forum.

 

 

 

Sir.

 

I state that everything contained within this representation is the solemn truth.

 

I write to put you on notice that you are continuing to publish defamatory information concerning my person despite this information being in formal dispute.

 

Not only is this behavior in disobeyance of the technical guidance issued by the Information Commisioners Office, but it is in breach of section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970, The Data Protection Act 1998 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines. It has not escaped my notice that it is also libelous and I may seek to pursue you for damages in this respect since your defamatory publication of false fact about me has caused me to suffer financial loss and personal embarrassment.

 

In he first instance I suggest that you acquaint yourself with a copy of the Information Commisioners Office technical guidelines regarding the placing of defaults. If you do not have a copy there is one available on the website of the Information Commissioners Office, you will find it at the following web address.

Cantposturlssoitsworldwidewebdotico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

 

The false information that you are publishing about myself takes the following form.

 

Default 1

Default 2 etc.

 

You freely publish to any customer of yours upon receipt of a fee this information yet have not substantiated its merit in truth. I am aware that your terms and conditions involve your clients signing to the effect that any information passed to yourself is truthful and accurate and that you subject all your data to a rigorous validating procedure upon receipt. The failing here is that the only way you could possibly have of evaluating whether the information has any merit in law is through an agreement signed presumably upon opening the account with yourselves by one specific member of a Company. It is highly unlikely that a Company employing hundreds or thousands of employees who might be in a position to make information available to you is able to ensure that each and every employee is not only fully aware of this obligation but is actively abiding by it. I would therefore be extremely interested to learn what further procedures your Company takes once it accepts the information from a Company to ensure that such information is meritorious in both truth and law?

You understand that under the Data Protection Act 1998 that you must take :- 'reasonable steps' to maintain information on our database that is accurate and up to date. '

The Law implies that you must take more than one step to ensure the information yet if you take the word of the Company signatory to your terms & conditions as absolute proof I can only assume that your validation checks are concerned solely with checking every such factors as spelling, calculations, postcodes and names. There is no other way you could possibly check the merit of the information itself other than through the Company which initially supplies it you.

I am aware that you do not take any steps to verify the legality of the claim entered other than by relying upon the suppliers integrity and offer you the chance hereby to explain what processes you do follow in this matter if I state this incorrectly.

 

The issue I have mentioned that I have with your Company concerning the above default notices is as follows:

I have made no acknowledgement of the debt(s) claimed and have requested that the Company lodging the information take the necessary action to prove their claims. In the first instance I formally requested that they proved the debt existed and prove that they were entitled to take enforcement action in the matter by virtue of providing me a copy of the original agreement signed and executed and in the prescribed format, and a copy of notice of assignment from the alleged original creditor. This request was made under an Act of Parliament of this Country namely section 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and was delivered in the manner prescribed. After twelve working days plus two, I failed to receive the literature requested and the account formally entered dispute. I made the Company aware of this and they failed to reply/replied with a request for more time. I duly gave them more time yet to date they have failed to supply the documentation. Without this documentation the debt is unenforceable in Court and all collections activity should be ceased and all data sharing relating to this disputed account should be stopped according to OFT guidelines. It is quite apparent that this is not the case since the Company are still continuing to pass data in the matter to yourselves and you are prepared to publish that data at a price to any interested parties.

 

This is a serious breach of Section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 which I shall reproduce in part for your convenience.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

 

1. harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
    
   
   

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

The placing of an unmerited default against the name of a person is an action clearly taken with the intention of “coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract”, I’m sure you will quote that you stand on the moral ground here and these default notices are published solely for the Public good but there is not a Debt collection Agency in the Land who would refuse me were I to telephone them and offer immediate payment in full on sole condition that the default notice registered against me be removed. I would still be exactly the same person, “just as dangerous to the Public good” but remarkably this information would be suppressed on payment of a fee. There is no doubt that since this very damaging action is the first action taken by a Debt Collection Agency and this action can only (sometimes) be undone by the payment of monies that it is done solely with the intention of applying pressure (coercing) the individual.

Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 states

 

harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

 

It is the use of the phrase or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; that I see redress available to myself in this matter.

You would be foolish indeed to claim that you do not publish this information since this is the primary business of your Company. That this information is calculated to cause me, my family and household distress or humiliation by virtue of being refused credit or having to take credit at much more punitive rates of interest is beyond doubt in fact you freely advertise to prospective clients that these two options will be easier for them to judge if they sign up to your services.

 

The Act then clearly proceeds to state: It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

That you and the Debt Collection Agency(ies) in question are in concert in this matter is indisputable

 

I therefore state that you are in clear breach of Section 40 (1) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 and this unlawful action is causing me to suffer damage and incur higher costs in respect of my daily personal (and business) finances, the withdrawal and/or refusal of facilities which would otherwise be available to me. And I request that you stop this unlawful behavior forthwith!

 

Not only are you in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 but I find you in flagrant breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and such breach is causing me damages.

 

We need to be clear here as there is scope for you to try to assert the stock industry rights as law in your defence, I am familiar with these assumed rights and will not entertain them since they are exactly that “assumed rights” which have no grounding in law whatsoever. I am concerned with the legalities of the situation as you yourself should be if I choose proceed into litigation against yourselves so I suggest that you do not waste my time by trying to convince me that you have a right to process this information for any of the following reasons:

For example, if a company can demonstrate that an account was being paid on time for a number of months/years prior to falling into arrears, this is often seen as evidence that the individual concerned must have consented to the terms and conditions of a contract.

My dispute centres on the fact that this “contract” does not exist I have given the Company ample time to prove this contract exists and they have summarily failed.

 

A company will only open an account if the applicant agrees to their terms and conditions so, unless the account was opened fraudulently, the account holder must have agreed to the standard terms and conditions for that type of account.

My dispute centres on the fact that this “contract” does not exist I have given the Company ample time to prove this contract exists and they have summarily failed.You also make the sweeping assumption that if the account existed the debt exists! This claim purports to supercede and make a mockery of much legislation in this matter especially The Consumer Credit Act 1974, Your obligations under The Data Protection Act 1998, the very guidance issued by the Information Commissioners Office which I have referenced above and the OFT guidelines in the matter.Where does this leave you in such cases where the Debt Collection Agency issues notices to the wrong person as happens not infrequently? The account may have existed certainly but not to their knowledge or benefit.

 

As long as the company terms and conditions specify that they reserve the right to pass account information to a credit reference agency, a period of meeting contractual obligations, or simply opening the account, will often be deemed as evidence of consent to those terms and conditions.

My dispute centres on the fact that this “contract” does not exist I have given the Company ample time to prove this contract exists and they have summarily failed.

 

If I may refer you now to the guidance provided by the Information Commissioners Office in the matter as referenced above and in particular the following paragraphs:

Paragraph 39~ Accuracy of 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.

It would appear that the Information Commissioners Office expects the DCA to be able to produce evidence to justify these default notices. By virtue of them failing under a lawfully binding request under Section 69 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 they have already legally admitted that they do not hold such evidence.

I’m sure you are also familiar with the recent legislation on Unfair Trading which came in to force on 26th May of this year and ensures that the duties of the lender to supply information are duly passed on to the Debt Collection Agency so there is no scope for defence by blaming a third party for failing to supply them with the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Paragraph 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. Records where the accuracy is challenged can be marked as ‘under query’. This marker alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide protection against claims, including those for compensation. Agencies should therefore ask the lender to substantiate the disputed information within a reasonable time frame, for example, 28 days, and, if the lender is unable to substantiate the disputed information in that time, should suppress the information from the file.

 

By virtue of this letter I legally make you aware of this challenge against the inaccurate information you are publishing about me referenced above. I understand that you now have 28 days in which to substantiate the information you lodge against myself. I shall contact you in this matter not earlier than the 28th day from the date which the Royal Mail supply me with as the date this letter entered your possession.

If I am dissatisfied in any way with your action I shall proceed as follows.

I shall make representation to the Information Commissioners Office that you are in grave breach of their guidelines and grave breach of The Data Protection Act 1998.

The Information Commissioners Office are very clear what action should be taken where disputes are unresolved, the information is again enclosed in the guidance referenced at the top of this letter.

For your convenience I shall spell out the procedure to you.

 

Unresolved disputes

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

(I paraphrase here for the sake of brevity but shall respond to each question in turn).

- Is the customer able to produce evidence that they disputed that a default occurred?

Yes. I have several copies and originals of communications between myself and the Company in the matter and I have Post Office receipts to prove that my request for a CCA was made, the statutory fee was processed and can prove that the Company are now out of time in this matter therefore the account is in formal dispute.

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

Since I did not receive a notice to default it would have been impossible for me to dispute the default before.

- 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? ****** Fill this in yourself*******

- What evidence has the customer produced to support their side of the dispute?

*******Fill this in longer list the better for you

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

They have ignored this evidence and failed to supply any evidence to support their version of events despite a request being made by myself specifically to this end under sec. 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

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.’

In light of the factors taken into consideration, there is no doubt in my mind that the case would be found in my favour.

 

 

 

I shall also make representation in the matter to the OFT in the format of:

Representation that you are in flagrant breach of OFT guidelines.

Representation that you are in flagrant breach of The Data Protection Act 1998

Representation that you are in flagrant breach of The Administration of Justice Act 1970

 

I may also take the following action at this stage if I find your stance unacceptable.

 

I shall also serve you notice to cease and desist publishing libelous and damaging false information about myself or face action for Libel through the County Court system.

I shall lay charges before the Clerk at my local Court that you are in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970

 

If you read the guidance I have supplied you with you will see that your only defence in this matter is to prove that the information you publish about me is true. The guidance clearly states that now I have made you legally aware that the above mentioned account(s) is/are in formal dispute that they will be expecting you to provide evidence that the default is valid. It is no longer for me to prove that it is invalid.

The only evidence acceptable to the Court will be a true copy of the signed executed agreement under the CCA1974 in the prescribed format together with a full copy of the terms and conditions applicable at the time of execution and a copy of notice of transfer proving that the agency are legally entitled to pursue the matter. These are the very least I shall myself be requesting from you in a Section 18 CPR request before any Court date it is imperative that you get them from the debt collection agency at the earliest and certainly within the allotted 28 day period the Information Commissioners Office expect you to complete your investigation within. Failure to produce any one of these items will likely cost you the case.

I offer you a simple choice here.

 

At the opening of this letter I stated that everything I state herein is true.

Your most likely defence is to state that everything your clients tell you is true because one member of that company at some time in the past signed an agreement with yourselves.

I offer you the choice of believing me and withdrawing the damaging information until such time as the company who lodged it can prove it in a manner you feel will defend the name of your company in the event of litigation.

Or:

Continue to publish, you will then have 28 days to prove (and make no mistake here by virtue of me herin making you aware the burden of proof is now upon yourselves)that the information you publish is true.

Failure to prove in a manner acceptable to the Courts will result in litigation, likely prosecution under the AJA1970 and an unwinnable case raised against you for libel.

 

 

 

 

****For Equifax letters only****

 

I also serve you notice that I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority in a matter of false advertising.

This is in respect of the following product and claims contained within your advertising for this product.

Risk Navigator.

Positive Insight* Data

Delinquent Insight* Data

Default Insight* Data

 

I take exception to the following advertising slogan.

*Insight is Equifax’s database of Consumer Credit Agreements.

 

This implies that your database is an accurate and authorative representation of Consumer Credit Agreements and is being sold and advertised on these grounds.

I have complained on the grounds that it is not accurate.

I have made representation that it is instead your own particular interpretation of a database of CCA’s and that being unchecked by yourselves and influenced by the input of 3rd parties who all have a vested interest in coercing further parties through the use of this very database it should be marked to this effect.

I have suggested the ASA enforce you to put this disclaimer each time you advertise the word Insight in relation to your database.

“Warning this database of Consumer Credit Agreements is subject to inaccuracy caused by the failure of the database holder to ensure records within it are legally valid or accurate”.

I can see no argument with that, can you?

 

Yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[angel_1]

wow Toulose le debt

 

at this time of the morning, that was really fab to read, no not being sarky just awoken and you are quite right - time to fight for our financial reputation

 

im sure others more knowledgeable will come along over the weekend, but me being a bit of rebel, im liking your idea

 

so will subscribe and who knows many thousands of your letters will arrive on their desks next week, lol

 

anyway food for thought and lets hope its something we can all try out

 

have a fun weekend ciao for now MAZ:D

[havinastella]

your first letter was good, this is amazing!

 

JOgs

[tifo]

excellent letter

[Dipply75]

Wow, I cannot wait to see a response to that letter - and you are bang on with the false advertising.

 

They simply cannot have it both ways - advertise and sell on the basis of accuracy, yet state its not up to them what is recorded, check nothing and say cannot change anything without the companies say so lol

 

Tied themselves up in knots methinks?

 

I will also be asking when it was exactly that I gave them my permission to then package my info up various ways and make money off it for marketing etc?

Edited August 6, 2008 by Dipply75
tired lol

[master woody]

Subbing

[Surfer01]

Me too!

[fuzzybobble]

Me three

[btonbadger]

can't wait for the response!

[angry cat]

subbing

 

AC

[falcon185]

Subbing

[tendogs]

Me as well,

 

Dogs

[2Grumpy]

Bet you get a standard letter back from someone who doesn't (or pretends not to) understand your letter saying that they comply with the DPA and they are data processors and not the data controller!

[UK26]

right, ive just tryed this today, here is the respons i got

 

26 August 2008

 

Dear Mr Be********

 

Thank you for your e-mail received earlier today. Your correspondence has been

brought to my attention in the Directors' Office.

 

You have stated that everything contained within your representation is the

solemn truth and that your dispute centres on the fact that the contracts in

question do not exist. You later state that you are disputing the amount of the

defaults.

 

There is a great deal of confusion across your correspondence and I would

suggest that you seek professional legal guidance prior to proceeding with any

claim.

 

With regards to accounts being in dispute it is worth bearing in mind that any

dispute with the company concerned would need to be considered valid in the

context of the entry.

 

While you may dispute the amount of the default, this does not render the

status history and actual default status of the account incorrect. The fact

that you have advised it is the amount of the default that is in dispute

suggests that, despite your claims that there is no contract, there has

previously been an agreement between you and the company concerned and there is

potentially a debt owed.

 

We cannot amend or remove information simply because the individual concerned

claims that there is a dispute. If we operated in this way, any individual

could claim that all the adverse entries on their report were in dispute purely

as a means of improving their credit report. This would put our clients at risk

by enabling people to potentially obtain finance that otherwise would not be

offered to them.

 

We queried the HFO Services Ltd account on your behalf as per your rights under

Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In our letter dated 20 March 2008

we informed you that HFO Services Ltd have confirmed that these account details

are accurate.

 

HFO Services Ltd also advised that their legal representatives, Turnbull

Rutherford Solicitors have taken legal action against you in relation to the

outstanding debt.

 

I trust that you can therefore understand why this account continues to appear

on your report.

 

The Notice of Correction statement that you requested continues to appear

alongside this account but we will not be amending or deleting this entry when

it has been confirmed to be accurate by the company concerned.

 

Although companies are not obliged to supply us with an actual copy of the

agreement you signed, a voice recording or copies of computer records, they

will investigate our comments and notify us whether the data provided complies

with the relevant legislation and guidance.

 

The steps we take to substantiate the data we receive are considered reasonable

by the Information Commissioner's Office and if you have any concerns regarding

this may I suggest you address the matter with them directly.

 

By querying the disputed information and marking it accordingly, we have

fulfilled our legal obligations under the Consumer Credit Acts 1974 and 2006

and the Data Protection Act 1998 and are considered to be taking further steps

to substantiate the accuracy of the information we hold.

 

Under the terms of the contracts we hold the data remains the property of the

company who supplies it. We cannot amend or delete entries without a company's

direct consent.

 

You state that you have submitted a request to HFO Services Ltd under Section

79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 79 of the Consumer Credit Act

relates to the 'Duty to give hirer information'. As the entry you have

referenced is a running-account credit agreement, I believe that any request to

the companies should have been made under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act

1974.

 

Despite any confusion caused, our initial investigations suggest that the

company concerned have responded to your requests despite your assertions to

the contrary. As advised previously, it also appears that there has been an

agreement between you and HFO Services Ltd.

 

Providing details of how the account has been conducted would not be considered

enforcement action under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This is because by

supplying us with details of how an account is conducted, companies are not

attempting to actually reclaim any money or goods they believe to be

outstanding.

 

If you are in dispute with a company over the provision of paperwork this is

between you and them and does not necessarily imply that the information they

are supplying to us is inaccurate.

 

The High Court has recently dismissed a case brought by Mr & Mrs Rankine along

similar lines to your arguments (Mr & Mrs Rankine v American Express & others)

that you may wish to make note of.

 

You have referenced Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 as

another basis for your claim. I would in turn draw your attention to Section

40(3) of the same Act:

 

(3) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which

is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose-

 

(a) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be

due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them

from future loss; or

(b) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

 

 

If Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 were to be construed

in the manner you suggest then it is unlikely that any company would be able to

take any action to seek to reclaim monies they are owed. Regardless of this,

Experian are not taking any action in respect of any purported debt.

 

Credit is not a given right and the fact you are declined further facilities as

a result of information we hold would not equate to enforcing an agreement or

"coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due

under contract".

 

I refer you to Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that relates to

claiming compensation in relation to a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

13. -

 

(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data

controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation

from the data controller for that damage.

 

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data

controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation

from the data controller for that distress if-

 

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the

special purposes.

 

You will note that an individual is only entitled to compensation if they

suffer damage as a result of a breach of the Data Protection Act. A claim for

distress can only be made in conjunction with a claim for damage. Therefore, if

no damages have been incurred a company is not liable to pay compensation for

distress.

 

Although you feel that this information is to your detriment, it would be

difficult to establish that any specific entry is definitely the cause of any

applications for credit being declined. This is partly due to there also being

several other defaulted accounts on your credit report, some of which continue

to show outstanding debts.

 

When you make an application for credit several different factors are taken

into consideration and a lender is not required to disclose to you the exact

criteria applied to a particular application. The fact you are declined further

facilities would not equate to causing you damage and subsequently being able

to claim compensation for that decision.

 

I note your intention to raise a claim against Experian and we will refer the

matter to our legal representatives once in receipt of this.

 

If you are considering alleging defamation you will need to write to us in

accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol. Please see the copy I have attached

for your reference.

 

We believe that your threat of legal action is without merit. Consequently, if

you do choose to issue proceedings we will instruct our legal representatives

to apply to strike out your case and we will seek to reclaim the costs incurred

in doing so.

 

Kind regards

 

Paul Lever

Consumer Compliance Manager

Directors' Office

 

[MR2Phil]

Subbing

[PriorityOne]

There is an over-use of the word "suggest" in his response..... which means he's trying everso hard to cover his own *ss.

 

Seeing as the CCA is a legal request, he should know the facts surrounding it, rather than wasting time "suggesting" this and that, don't you think ?

 

[angry cat]

Oh Dear!

 

Not impressed and... "The Rankine's case" is not relevant re: 'The Average Consumer.

 

You know the old saying; They have to try!

 

Grrrrr!

 

AC

[UK26]

does someone wanna draw up a good reply to there response??

 

i am happy to test this in court if needbe

[Jesteruk]

subbing

[MARTIN3030]

Who was this Equifax or Experian ?

Bankfodder has put a thread up about challenging the credit files its a good thread to read.

I have sent off letters to all 3 CRAs.

I have some archived stuff in my PC too that is worth discussing in regards to this.I will try to dig it out over the weekend.One concerns your rights to have data removed from automatic processing-An interesting subject.

 

 

see here for Bankfodders thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/149403-would-you-like-clean.html

Edited August 29, 2008 by MARTIN3030

[europa16]

This sounds like Experian to me - it's long winded and the same old guff as usual. Surprised our old friend Mr Hancock didn't reply, perhaps he's a little busy at the mo'

 

Subbing - I'd like to know how far this can go.

[UK26]

yes it was Experian

[finlander]

Mr & Mrs Rankine v American Express & others was quoted to me by Millsy. It's a great soap opera but doesn't really get experian off the hook. The Knub of the rankines downfall was that

1. they were 'proffessional debt avoidance counsellers

2. the judge said he would have ruled the agreement enforcable if asked by the creditors but they didn't bother asking him

3. therefore the default was fair.

 

none of this has any relevance if your agreement is iredeemably unenforceable under sec 127. It seems to be experian favorite stated cas at the mo and is about as relevant as 'winnie the pooh v five acre wood'

 

[Jesteruk]

Finlander, i was looking for that case and could find it....

Have you got a link for it?

 

Cheers

[foolishgirl]

You'll find the judgment other place too Jester but this is my link

 

News and Events : Articles : Judgment: Basil Rankine vs American Express Services Europe Limited

 

Hope that helps