UK26 -V- Experian Limited

[Hadituptohere]

If that isnt a get out off jail free offer in post 75 then I dont know what is..................

 

Keep at 'em

 

Hadituptohere

[UK26]

all i want is for the data to be removed, if they can do that without a court order then fine. just means i wont get a nice payout.

[Allwood]

Oh, I want them to go to jail and stay there for life!!!!

[UK26]

[update]

 

Mr Mills just sent me the below email.

 

hes not giving much time to comply with a Part 18 request

 

Also, the info they request in this part 18 is sensitive. now should this be listed for small claims, then part 18 has no use.

 

so i have a couple of options but for the nature of them, i need someone to pm me for advise

 

 

 

Mr UK26,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

Further to the recent hearing and the suggestions of the District Judge, I enclose with this email:

• Request under CPR part 18 as both a Word form that you can complete and as a PDF

  
  

• Copies of CRP part 18 and the practice direction to CPR part 18.

  
  

Separately, I also attach a copy of a note from the Information Commissioners Office to Experian of 6 December 2006.

 

I look forward to receiving your response by 28 November 2008.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Mills

Head of Intellectual Property & Litigation

Solicitor & European Trademark Attorney

Experian | Landmark House | Experian Way | Nottingham | NG80 1ZZ | United Kingdom |

T: +44 (0) 115 828 6425 | M: +44 (0) 7854 116 179 | F: +44(0)115 828 6342 | [email protected]

 

Edited November 17, 2008 by UK26

[davethorp]

Oh, I want them to go to jail and stay there for life!!!!

 

Sounds good to me

[UK26]

Here are some of the questions Mr Mills has put in his Part 18 Request

 

16 Pages long, with 53 Quesitons in total

 

 

 

Example of Default Questions asked

 

Section 1.

To which original lender do you say that this C1 entry relates?

Confirm whether it was Barclays Bank PLC (Woolwich) or another

lender.

 

Section 2.

Please say whether you believe the C1 entry should be in the name

of Lowell or the original lender and why.

 

Section 3.

Did you borrow any money at all from the original lender in

connection with the C1 entry?

 

Section 4.

Did you make payments on the account to which the C1 entry relates

before 21 September 2005?

 

Section 5.

The C1 entry says that you defaulted on £1474. If you dispute

charges applied by the original lender or Lowell, please confirm how

much of the £1474 you dispute and what you believe the correct

sum is for the amount that you borrowed but did not repay.

 

Section 6.

Was 52 ******** Road the address you used when you applied for

the credit to which this C1 entry relates? If not, what do you say is

the correct address for this entry?

 

Section 7.

On what date would you say that you stopped making payments on

the account to which the C1 entry relates?

 

Section 8.

Is your name correct on this C1 entry? If not, what do you say it

should be?

 

Section 9.

Is your date of birth correct on this C1 entry? If not, what do you say

it should be?

[ They are asking Section 1 to 9 - on every Default ive disputed]

Section 48

You say that the Defendant has failed to meet any of the conditions

in Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998. In particular, for each

of the disputed account entries and disputed address links, please

specify why you say that neither of the conditions in paragraphs 1, 2

or 6 applies apply.

 

Section 50

Please specify which parts of your credit file you say contain an

expression of opinion by the Defendant.

 

Section 51

Please specify what damage you say you have suffered together

with a breakdown of how you have arrived at that amount.

 

Section 52

For the damage that you say that you have suffered, please specify,

for each item of damage you allege, how you say that the Defendant

caused such damage.

 

Section 53

To which parties do you say that Experian ought to give notice if the

Court were to grant an order under section 14(3) of the Data

Protection Act 1998?

Edited November 17, 2008 by UK26

[BEC01]

Here are some of the questions Mr Mills has put in his Part 18 Request

 

16 Pages long, with 53 Quesitons in total...

 

My goodness, have you ever got them by the jaffas!

A lot of the questions are not relevant, in my opinion.

 

You can do a lot of damage to them UK26 - go for it!

[davethorp]

Jesus

[UK26]

Should i reply to this request?

[BEC01]

Should i reply to this request?

I'm no expert; but if you are not required by law, then don't.

But I am not sure.

Someone will give you an answer soon though.

Their argument seems to be based on account management, which is nothing to do with them really.

[UK26]

look at this

 

[UK26]

I think they are trying to get me to weaking my case.

 

my understanding that, this case will be listed under the small clams track, and so a part 18 request does not apply. however, this case has yet to be allocated so not sure if part 18 can be used and if so can the court enforce it before the case is allocated.

 

 

 

I'm no expert; but if you are not required by law, then don't.

But I am not sure.

Someone will give you an answer soon though.

Their argument seems to be based on account management, which is nothing to do with them really.

[Sparkie1723]

The Information Commissioners Office letter says that it is in the legitimate interests of other lenders...it is also in the legitimate interests of the data subjects who's interests over ride the rights of the data controller....who said so????? the Information Commissioners Office ....so that is a completely ambiguous statement that must be clarified by the courtsalso in iminges on you stautory rghts under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ....the rights to privacy and personal correspondence....the European Human Rights also states quite clearly with reference to data that a data subject has THE RIGHT to have incorrect data corrected.

Both Mr Mills and the Information Commissioners Office have overlooked these facts.

 

Furthermore in my view you will still be a candidate for compensation even if they do remove the info freely

 

 

sparkie

Edited November 17, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

PS to my previous post I am pretty certain you are not required by law to answer those questions pre trial if it weakens your case.

I asked similar questions of the RBS in my case against them and the judge agreed at allocation hearing the RBS did not have to answer them as it would have left them without any defence whatsoever, I've never understood that but thats the way it is.

sparkie

[UK26]

does it say this under Section 18. just want to make sure im fully covered by not answering the questions. Once it gets allocated they are stuffed anyway.

[spark1]

UK26

 

found some other posts in regards to cpr 18:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/35672-cobbetts-cpr-18-request.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/72818-cpr-18-a.html

 

info on it:

 

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/RequestsforFurtherInformation.pdf

 

hope this helps

 

Spark1

[UK26]

I acknowledge receipt of your request for further information and clarification under part 18 of the civil procedure rules.

 

I would like to advise you that I am a litigant in person in this matter, and so do not feel that I am adequately qualified to understand or respond to the points you raise in your letter. Consequently, I have decided that I will wait until the hearing, at which I will ask the judge for guidance on the best way to respond to you.

 

I anticipate that the claim would be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a Part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative.

 

However, for clarity I will attempt to answer some of your questions, which I set out as below.

 

what i plan to do, is answer some of the questions but not all of them, and not use there template as requested, i will simply put it into a letter

[UK26]

How much compensation could i ask for?

[Allwood]

Fell that it should be about 5k for what you have been put thought such as stress of the whole thing and your time taken to get them to see reason.

 

Also for the adverse effect the entries had when you applied for loans and credit cards etc.

 

5K if not more...

[UK26]

Ill cap it just under 5K or it would not be listed as Small Clams.

 

just trying to outline the compensation within my statement of case

[Sparkie1723]

Ill cap it just under 5K or it would not be listed as Small Clams.

 

just trying to outline the compensation within my statement of case

 

 

Use this ruling on damage to credit without he need to specify the damage

 

 

Kpohraror v The Woolwich. 1996

The Master in Chambers awarded £5,550 with interest as general damages for the injury to the plaintiffs credit.

The Court of appeal upheld that decision, but on a different ground, that even a person who is not a “trader” can recover without proof of special damage, substantial damage for injury to his credit worthiness.

 

 

 

 

This has been calculated by the National Statistics Office as to be equal £8850 as of today. Mr Mills will stutter at seeing this believe you me

sparkie

[lonerider]

UK26 just found this thread. All the best mate.

[Monty2007]

look at this

 

 

I have been in touch with Experian and the ICO on this matter, with a similar response. There is much obvious ambiguity here and it has been covered elsewhere, my main point is the reference to the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971. In 1971 very few people had credit cards and the manner in which consumer credit has developed could not have been predicted back then, moreover the way in which mass and automated data is now handled certainly was not considered, and even by those gifted with great foresight. For starters the internet was not even a concept given that the silicon chip revolution and PC's were years away.

Here we are 37 years later where billions of bits of data are coded, by the hour, rarely checked for accuracy and we are simply told that a 1971 piece of legislation that states they are allowed to control your information six years post contract termination is acceptable. This is completely ridiculous!

[UK26]

Thanks for the info Sparkie, will look into this

 

Use this ruling on damage to credit without he need to specify the damage

 

 

Kpohraror v The Woolwich. 1996

The Master in Chambers awarded £5,550 with interest as general damages for the injury to the plaintiffs credit.

The Court of appeal upheld that decision, but on a different ground, that even a person who is not a “trader” can recover without proof of special damage, substantial damage for injury to his credit worthiness.

 

 

 

 

This has been calculated by the National Statistics Office as to be equal £8850 as of today. Mr Mills will stutter at seeing this believe you me

sparkie

[UK26]

[updatew]

 

Mr Mills, did not like my part 18 reply

 

From: Mills, Andrew [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 19 November 2008 10:41

To: UK26

Subject: RE: Part 18 Request

 

Mr UK26

 

Would you be prepared to have a telephone conversation so that I could go through the part 18 request with you and talk through each question? I could then complete the response part and send it to you to check it was as you say? This would be much more preferable than another application to Corut.

 

If so, I have some time available on Thursday and Friday and perhaps we could agree when I could phone you?

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Mills

Head of Intellectual Property & Litigation

Solicitor & European Trademark Attorney

Experian | Landmark House | Experian Way | Nottingham | NG80 1ZZ | United Kingdom |

T: +44 (0) 115 828 6425 | M: +44 (0) 7854 116 179 | F: +44(0)115 828 6342 | [email protected]