2 defaults Egg and Vodaphone - Default hell!!

[Rosemary]

Surly bonds, Neo, et al

 

I just wanted you to all know that you've changed my life. Surly bonds - your wonderful letters are concise and the description/explanations are meaningful. For the first time for quite a few years, my head is lifted and I feel I can 'get out of this awful whirlpool that these institutions seem intent on keeping you in'.

 

We hit money problems as a result of my ex-husband legging it out the country owing a lot of money to people you don't want to owe money to. As the only maintenance he was responsible for - he was paying for my beautiful teenager through private school and she is currently in the middle of GCSE's - we couldn't just pull her out in the middle of what has been her life for many years. Suddenly, £1,000 a month extra had to be found and savings, etc soon went. Don't misunderstand - we're not a 'posh' family by any means - but she was our priority for these few years.

 

By the way, my current husband also wants you to know that bed-time is "ruined". (I printed off the whole of this 9-page thread and have it as bed-time reading.) It is empowering and started me on the uphill battle to take control of MY life. I don't have any CCJ's or anything like that - it's a few small defaults and a few payment historys going into the '3's a few times but it can be the difference between paying up to £500 a month on the same mortgage and whilst I am claiming the bank charges back - more importantly, I am able to address our credit files which will enable us to get back on our feet again.

 

MY DEEPEST THANKS ONCE AGAIN AND PROBABLY FROM MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THIS WONDERFUL THREAD.

[dayglo]

my preferences for dealing with this are:

 

1) ask them politlely to remove as I've been a good customer ever since

 

or

 

2) end my contract with them and then serve a S10 & S12 notice. Difficulties here (i) I don't really want to go and get a new mobile phone number/account with my existing credit file and (ii) they are arguing that my verbal contract that I agreed to only a few weeks ago means I would have to pay to get out of it. grrrr.... can a verbal contract really carry any weight?

[Number6]

Me: can credit reference agencies and companies process my data after the contract that allowed them to do so has ended?

Them: Yes. They can process data for up to six years after the account has been closed or contract ended.

Me: But that doesn’t make sense, once my contract, with for example Vodafone, has ended, surely the clause that allowed them to process my data also ends?

Them: not necessarily, the CRAs don’t need your permission to ‘continue’ to process your data, just your permission for them to start. Having said that, they must manage your data inline with the principles of the data protection act.

Me: So if by processing my data they cause me and my family harm, under section 10, I can ask them to stop?

them: Yes you can, but they will probably argue that 6 years is allowed and that the the Information Commissioner’s office will agree with them.

Me: would you agree with them?

Them: probably, yes. If you wish to complain you should put it in writing to ourselves.

Me: Ok then I will. Thank you.

 

What level of functionary were you speaking to at the Information Commissioner's office? Telephone operator or someone higher up? Doesn't look very good if the Information Commissioner's office are effectively stating the the CRA's are allowed to process data for up to six years does it?

 

Pete

[Number6]

Notwithstanding my last post, true or not that statement has no bearing upon a Section 12 request to cease automated processing does it?

 

Pete

[Mike220359]

Absolutely right W4x4

 

Mike

[dayglo]

Hi Pete,

It was a telephone operator. He was able to quote me chapter and verse on the DPA, he corrected me a few times when, under section 12 I was talking about 'processing data' and he corrected me to say 'automated decision making based solely on automatically processed data' (or something very similar to that - I've eaten since this morning!)

His basic point was that there was no law allowing the CRAs to process the data without my permission providing the complied with the principles of the DPA and that 6 years 'was the accepted norm for entries to stay on your file'

 

I wanted to carry on the debate but he wasn't having any of it and my head was hurting as well - my knowledge of this subject is still low but it's a damn sight higher than this time last week!

 

cheers,

[Neo]

Surly bonds, Neo, et al

 

I just wanted you to all know that you've changed my life. Surly bonds - your wonderful letters are concise and the description/explanations are meaningful. For the first time for quite a few years, my head is lifted and I feel I can 'get out of this awful whirlpool that these institutions seem intent on keeping you in'.

 

We hit money problems as a result of my ex-husband legging it out the country owing a lot of money to people you don't want to owe money to. As the only maintenance he was responsible for - he was paying for my beautiful teenager through private school and she is currently in the middle of GCSE's - we couldn't just pull her out in the middle of what has been her life for many years. Suddenly, £1,000 a month extra had to be found and savings, etc soon went. Don't misunderstand - we're not a 'posh' family by any means - but she was our priority for these few years.

 

By the way, my current husband also wants you to know that bed-time is "ruined". (I printed off the whole of this 9-page thread and have it as bed-time reading.) It is empowering and started me on the uphill battle to take control of MY life. I don't have any CCJ's or anything like that - it's a few small defaults and a few payment historys going into the '3's a few times but it can be the difference between paying up to £500 a month on the same mortgage and whilst I am claiming the bank charges back - more importantly, I am able to address our credit files which will enable us to get back on our feet again.

 

MY DEEPEST THANKS ONCE AGAIN AND PROBABLY FROM MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THIS WONDERFUL THREAD.

 

Glad this post has been of help. These comapnies will not be able to supply incorrect information about us much longer i expect... Keep us informed of your progress...

 

Neo

[Neo]

Surly bonds,

 

I have just received an interesting letter from natwest Credit Card Services - who's Litigation agreed in writing to originally agrered to remove a default... which they haven;t done yet.. so i chased them with a letter to customer services.

 

I have received an a reply with a very interesting paragraph;

 

"In accordance with an agreemment set up between the British Bankers Association and the Data Protection Registrar, your detials will remain registered for a period of 6 years from the date of registration. This Areement carries full approval of the Office of Fair Trading."

 

I would love to read a copy of such agreement. Maybe it was done over a round of golf?

 

Neo

[ppauls150]

Surely if there is nowhere written in Law that they can do this then they have nothing to back this 6 year factor of keeping it on your records if it ever went to court no? Just cause the British Bankers Association and the Data Protection Registrar decided this again just like the Bank Charges, just cause the bank say they will charge £40 dont make it right so just like this just cause they say 6 years again surely dont make it right. no?

[Number6]

Hi Pete,

It was a telephone operator. He was able to quote me chapter and verse on the Data Protection Act, he corrected me a few times when, under section 12 I was talking about 'processing data' and he corrected me to say 'automated decision making based solely on automatically processed data' (or something very similar to that - I've eaten since this morning!)

His basic point was that there was no law allowing the CRAs to process the data without my permission providing the complied with the principles of the DPA and that 6 years 'was the accepted norm for entries to stay on your file'

 

I wanted to carry on the debate but he wasn't having any of it and my head was hurting as well - my knowledge of this subject is still low but it's a damn sight higher than this time last week!

 

cheers,

 

My knowledge of these matters is also low, but growing fast!

 

So there's no law saying they can, and there's no law saying they can't? So long as they comply with the principles of the DPA?

 

So this boils down to a test under the DPA Section 10, 1, (a) and (b) - whether the continued processing of the data is likely to cause the Data Subject harm or distress and whether that harm or distress is warranted or not?

 

How can any damage or distress be "warranted"?

 

Any comments?

 

Pete

[dayglo]

I still feel as though I'm scratching around in the dark. I can clearly show 'harm' by the fact that I can't qualify for a normal mortgage rate - I have to take a lower status product with a higher interest rate at a cost of £100 per month.

 

However, the CRAs and the institutions who share my data with them are doing so precisley to prevent me from obtaining such credit as I have not had a 'perfect' payment history, and around the circle we go. I was relatively optimistic until I was given a proper brush off from the Information Commissioners Office this morning. They too are happy that settled defaults remain on my record for up to six years.

[mstringer]

This thread just gets more and more interesting by the day! I sent off an s.10 to First National to remove a settled default on 14th August by recorded delivery, no response yet but its still early days.

 

Its interesting to note the responses given by the Information Commissioners Office and this supposed agreement thats been quoted by NatWest, however I think unless the data controller concerned caves at the first point we are going to be looking at a few test cases through the courts in the not too distant future.

 

With the charge reclaims going on there's some history there and lot of examples, with these default removals its a different ball game entirely. Ultimately I would expect we see these type of respones from the financial institutions, we are just not used to seeing them as yet, again they want to baffle, confuse and intimidate us so we think "oh ok, i'll just forget about it"

 

MS

[Number6]

With the charge reclaims going on there's some history there and lot of examples, with these default removals its a different ball game entirely. Ultimately I would expect we see these type of respones from the financial institutions, we are just not used to seeing them as yet, again they want to baffle, confuse and intimidate us so we think "oh ok, i'll just forget about it"

 

MS

 

I agree there. But it will need a test case or two to settle this I think. I can't see an obvious line of attack as there is with bank charges. Maybe precedent will give weight to the CRA's actions on defaults by parallels with such things as CCJ's - information in the public interest and all that. Maybe there's something else buried in the DPA that might tip the balance the other way.

 

Pete

[reginafilangie]

OK i've read this thread from start to finish and just want to clarify a few things.

 

I have one Default issued by Natwest in 2003 (£141) which is settled. What are the best steps to take? I will try the sympathetic approach although I doubt i'll get anywhere with this. Then if they refuse to wipe the Default from my credit file what is the best course of action? Should I be writing to Natwest or the CRA's or both and which are the best letters to use? I don't want them to stop processing all of my information, I just want the default notice removed as it is hindering me from obtaining credit and the rest of my file is ok. I know these questions have probs already been answered but please forgive me - i'm new to all of this and it seems there are a few different points on this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone who have already posted very helpful info on this subject!

[dayglo]

you are in a similar position to me. I sent by registered post and fax, the s10 and s12 notice with a covering letter to Natwest, Vodafone, London Scottish and Moorcroft today.

Surly Bonds reckons this approach has produced decent results before, and that's what I'm doing.

In the back of my mind, i'm considering the blanket "stop automatically processing my data" approach to the 3 CRAs.... but, for the same reasons as you I suspect, I'm reluctant to do this just yet.

[Mike220359]

Further to post 182.

 

See there's the nub of it I expect the pivital point of Surelybonds tack, in that when you sign a credit agreement you allow the financier leave to share your credit history with the CRA. You do not give the CRA leave to use the information to provide fourth parties any information to make decisions about you.

 

It's playgoround logic, just because I allowed you to tell a secret to the teacher, it doesn't allow the teacher to tell anyone else. QED.

 

Mike

[Number6]

Further to post 182.

 

See there's the nub of it I expect the pivital point of Surelybonds tack, in that when you sign a credit agreement you allow the financier leave to share your credit history with the CRA. You do not give the CRA leave to use the information to provide fourth parties any information to make decisions about you.

 

It's playgoround logic, just because I allowed you to tell a secret to the teacher, it doesn't allow the teacher to tell anyone else. QED.

 

Mike

 

Surely, as private organisations with no statutory powers the CRA's need a contract with the end user allowing them to share information with others in exactly the same way that Vodaphone, or NatWest, or Curry's or anyone else needs permission before being able to divulge private data?

 

So I give xyz Ltd permission to share my data with the CRA's but who gives permission for the CRA's to share with anyone else?

 

I've never signed a contract with Experian, or Equifax, or Callcredit!

 

Or am I barking up the wrong tree here??

 

Pete

[MARTIN3030]

These are questions that have been discussed (and answered ) at length on these threads recently.

 

Have a look and you will see!!

[Number6]

You wouldn't like to point me in the direction of a suitable thread or two would you?

 

Pete

[Guest Niklowe]

I think you'll find the agreement in your terms and conditions. I've just found it in the small print in my Crap 1 T & C's

[PeteCC]

Hi, Surlybonds,

 

That (Data Protection Act section) sure seems like a powerful tool, thank you, and one I may need to try should other avenues become blocked.

 

One question I have, 'though. I note in your paraphrasing of Schedule II, Section 12 (1) you say, 'any and all data', which on my reading of the act is a correct interpretation, but I was wondering if you had any information on whether or not it was possible to have selected data unable to be processed automatically, leaving unselected data to be processed in the normal way. (You see what I'm getting at here, and 'though it may only be a pipe dream.............?)

 

Anyway, I'm hoping I'm reading this correctly as I went on from Schedule II, Section 12 (1) to Section 12 (4) and (6) and I think the arguement goes like this. Banks and other institutions may request a Credit Reference (by THEIR automated processes or otherwise), but the Credit Reference agencies are not allowed, after written request from the subject, to automatically process the response. (Did I get it right?) (I'm pretty sure that's what Mike220359 was alluding to.)

 

Thanks for the heads up.

 

Regards,

 

PeteCC

[yellowplum]

The only query I have after reading your sample letter is this.

 

Does this mean that all your data is removed or only the adverse data, i.e. the Default notices?

[MARTIN3030]

You wouldn't like to point me in the direction of a suitable thread or two would you?

 

Pete

 

How to remove your default.......a thread that covered all this and much more recently !!

[david.m]

Then do what I did, and formally write to them and ask them precisely what Act of Parliament entitles them to officially (and I emphasise officially, as in Govt. agency type officially) retain data about you!

 

They will babble on about the Data Protection Act, which is not about any legal rights of theirs at all, it is about the collation, storage and processing of your data. Under the Data Protection Act, personal data about you is yours and only you can decide to whom to divulge it or share it.

 

The only "official" authorities listed in the Data Protection Act allowed to hold data on you without your permission, are the Govt and Official bodies listed therein...and none of these three PLCs are listed, as they are money-making corporations not Govt authorities. They are merely licensed under the 1974 CCA and Data Protection Act to hold credit data, nothing more, provided you have given them an authority to do so.

 

The Data Protection Act states quite clearly that, with the exception of the listed Govt Depts., the data is yours, and the only way it can get onto their books is by you giving your permission.

 

They use the term "legal right" when really, they should actually use the term "lawful right, if you give your permission to your supplier to divulge that data to us".

 

This is actually a very deceptive way of writing the same thing, and I am going the write to the Information Commissioners Office about this comment. Thanks for spotting it.

 

It has been clearly written in such a way as to make most people go "well, okay then...I'll shut up and go away...and pardon me for asking...your obedient servant...please excuse me as I leave your omnipotent website by walking backwards and wringing my flat cap in my hands.":rolleyes:

 

If there was a "legal right" then banks would not have to include such a clause on their contracts, would they? There would no such clauses as "You agree to us supplying account information to credit reference agenincies in relation to your conduct of the account", nor would they have to include it in the Banking Code - see clause 13.8

 

Section 13.6 also states that "we may give information..." not "we are legally entitled"...or "legally mandated by an Act of Parliament to ..."

 

and 13.7 is also interesting as it states that "In these cases, we will give you at least 28 days’ notice that we plan to give information about the debts you owe us to credit reference agencies."

 

Oh yeah?!!!?!?!? When was the last time that your credit card company wrote telling you that they were going to put a "1" marker on your file?

 

Legal entitlement is obtained by way of a contract regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, or another form of civil contract that states it in black and white as negotiated clauses.

 

Once you sign a contract (and providing you didn't cross through the CRA permission clause ...and annotate your signature at that mark) you have given them permission for the duration of the contract.

 

If they terminate the contract, they state quite clearly in their default notices "We have decided to terminate the contract" and, according to the CCA, the only thing that they are allowed to do from that point onwards is recover the money by way of a negotiated new agreement, a DCA, a County Court Order, IVA or Bankruptcy petition. But whatever they do, the contract is finished...they said so themselves!!

 

The CCA states nothing about other permissions being extended "in perpetuty" or after the end of the contract. And even if there was, it would be supeceded by the UTCC Regs by way of Section 5:

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

And 5(5) Schedule 2 paragraphs:

Unfair terms include...

© making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

 

and Section 8:

Effect of unfair term

8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

 

I really don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

All I know is that every request that I have sent to the CRAs asking them for the referenced legislation that gives them this "legal right" has always returned a letter along the lines of "when you signed your contract with your lender, you authorised them to disclose data to us...etc" type responses. i.e. a lawful civil contract type of "legal".

 

"Legal" is just a general term applied to any Law, whether it is the criminal law, civil law, case law, etc...

A civil contract can be referred to as a "legal" contract, just as the Theft Act (criminal law) is also a "legal" statute. Odd thing is that the opposite word "illegal" only really refers to the criminal code...but that's just one of the foibles of the English language.

 

However, what I didn't get back from them was "Well, there's the Credit Reference Data Arbitrary Right Acts, the Credit Reference Agency Formations Act, The Credit Data (Rights of Reference Agencies) Act", etc. because no such bulls**t exists.

 

When I threatened taking all three to Court, two of them didn't even bother to fight it when I put all my previous arguments in my LBA - see thread for examples.

The one that did fight got bounced out of the courtroom by the judge within 20 minutes - he even said that he had read the statements prior to the hearing and was already considering ruling in my favour without recourse to a hearing. But he wanted to give the CRAs lawyer the chance to present any case laws to show good cause otherwise. Needless to say, they had none.

 

I rest my case.

 

BTW, When I changed from my old phone supplier and took out my new contracts with T-Mobile, I signed the self-carbonating agreements but wrote next to the "I have read and understood the Terms and Conditions listed overleaf...blah blah.." statement: "Not read prior to signing, no opportunity to read through and agree yet." and annotated it.

The sales guy didn't even care that I'd put it on there - just separated the carbons up and gave me mine.

 

Cant wait if they ever give me c**p in the future! "Ts&Cs...what Ts&Cs are they then?"

 

i just did a search on the banking code/code of practise

 

interestingly i found this pdf bulletin from july 28th 2006

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/bullet...DF%20FINAL.pdf

 

people should have a read, i tryed to find an easy way to snap it out and past it in full here for your comments but couldnt.

 

perhaps someone could hand type it up and add below?.

 

now while this banking code/code of practise isnt a legal thing, id assume that A&L and indeed most if not all the main banks have signed up to this code and so are duty bound to uphold this code?.

[dayglo]

TO BANKING CODE AND BUSINESS BANKING CODE

COMPLIANCE OFFICERS No. 21 27 JULY 2006

We are keeping this Bulletin brief and focusing mainly on a

single subject, namely charges for unauthorised overdrafts

or for return of items unpaid for lack of funds ('default

charges') and how subscribers are dealing with complaints

and campaigns against the level of these charges.

We shall return to a broader range of topics after the

summer holiday season. In the meantime, we have placed

on the subscriber area of our website, which was launched

this month, the Minutes of the BCSB User Group meeting

held on 15 June, and the papers presented. We

recommend a reading of the Minutes, which serve as an

update on several matters.

We draw attention in particular to the following topics

covered at the meeting:

• BCSB Roadshows

Provisional dates for your diaries are:

1. Friday 10 November: London (1)

2. Tuesday 14 November: Bristol

3. Thursday 16 November: Belfast

4. Friday 17 November: Edinburgh

5. Tuesday 21 November: Manchester

6. Wednesday 22 November: London (2)

7. Friday 24 November: Lichfield, Staffs

• Business Banking Code Registrations

The arrangements for those building societies affected

have now been agreed in principle and we are in

discussion with the BSA over how best to formalise the

position.

• Compliance Monitoring

An update was given on recent themed reviews and

plans for the rest of the year.

• "UTCCR Guidance" Update

As most subscribers will know from circulars issued by

the BBA and the BSA, the new Guidance to Banking

Code section 4.4, introduced to reflect the FSA's

Statement of Good Practice on Fairness of Terms in

Consumer Contracts (May 2005), under the Unfair

Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, has

now been published. It is available on our website and

those of the Associations.

CONTENTS Page

Default charges on current accounts 2

i. Account closures 2

ii. Pre-notification of Default Charges 3

Chief Executive : Seymour Fortescue

Tel: 020 7397 8252

Compliance Director and Bulletin Editor:

Adrian Lloyd Tel: 020 7397 8256

We have received a number of queries from

subscribers about the implementation of the

new Guidance, and are discussing some of the

issues raised with the Associations at the time

of writing.

We can, however, clearly answer one question

that has been raised. The new provisions

under s.4.4 are simply about when personal

notification must be sent following a

variable-rate savings account interest rate

change (or no change being made following

an upward Base Rate movement of more than

0.25 percentage points), and are not the

same as the 'downgrading' provisions under

s.4.8, although there are similarities.

Specifically, the new Guidance to s.4.4

concerns individual rate changes, and not

cumulative changes over a rolling 12-month

period, and a downgrading notification under

s.4.8 involves considerably more information

than the new requirement under s.4.4. There

may of course be circumstances where

notifications are triggered under both

sections, in which case the subscriber may

well issue a single notification giving all the

required information.

As usual, we ask you to circulate this Bulletin

within your organisation for information or action

as appropriate.

BCSB Bulletin No.21, 27 July 2006 Page 1

 

 

is that fast enough?