Knocked back by a DCA on a Sec 10 notice?

[Redletter]

subbing. Very interesting and helpful thanks!

[MARTIN3030]

Any chance of seeing a copy of the s10 that was sent?

 

To comply with ICO guidance it should give reasonable time for them to comply with a request and give a specific date for which you expect compliance to start.

 

It should be sent to the Data controller/Compliance Manager

 

and finally it should state reasons as to why further processing is likely to cause harm distress or damage etc etc.

 

These are all reasons which if not complied with can give them excuse to ignore your request-or certainly give them stalling opportunity.

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD,

 

While I agree with much of what you say there is one bit where I feel that you're wrong:-

 

 

 

If you see the cases of Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169 and Rhone v Stephens [1994] UKHL 3 you will see that a burden can be assigned if it is relevant to the exercise of the right. And, of course, there is the nemo dat rule.

 

There was a discussion about it here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/190881-assignments-could-useful-2.html#post2066715

 

regards

 

nicklea

 

 

Fully agree and thanks for pointing out that link which has a nicely written piece on the subject.

 

The letter at the OP of this thread is written to attempt to force the DCA's hand into revealing exactly how they make claim to right under contract. To state simply that 'they have the right under contract' doesn't cut it for me.

 

The next letter will be one of two options depending how the DCA responds.

 

If they claim these rights have been just been handed to them by the OC or even drawn into the debt sale agreement then I'm looking at tackling that under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties).

 

If they claim assignment under Sec 136 LOP 1925 then they must produce the documents. A valid deed of assignment, valid NOA and ultimately a copy of the original agreement.

 

Of course these are only going out to the DCA's who can not even provide a valid agreement anyway so they are going to have a problem doing this.

 

(There's also a letter to be sent to the OC in which we spell out that due to what you perceive to be unlawful behaviour by the DCA you are considering litigation and you need to ascertain whether the OC should be named as Co-D on any proceedings brought against the DCA. ie. you will be requesting proof from the OC that they validly assigned the debt and can provide the CCA etc. It's possible that your enquiries will raise questions over the dreaded 'S' word but that needs handled on a bank by bank basis possibly. I think it's important to establish from the OC whether the account was securitised prior to sale, to ascertain they had lawful title obviously, then to check the a/c was validly assigned not just sold and that such assignment was perfected etc. If they can't even provide the CCA I doubt they can provide all the neccesary proof and tbh the OC has sold the a/c one way or other and probably will not want some grubby DCA's name as Co-D on proceedings 'unknown').

 

With nothing to gain by either the OC or DCA since a/c unenforceable isn't it time to make them start to wotrk really hard for that 'nothing' so hard in fact that it's probably not worth defending especially when they have the OC whispering in their ear 'Why's some bloke called LeDebt threatening to take us to Court for something you've done wrong'?

[never-in-doubt]

subbing - excellent work as usual TLD....

[spartathisis]

How would this work in response to DCA who bought debt, returned an Application Form (insisiting it can also be a CCA), D of A that is part of bulk purchase, N of A from DCA stating "HFC sold and assigned all rights, title and interest in, to and under, inter alia your agreement" and is now threatening court action?

[saqqara]

Subbing. Nice one

[andymanx]

Well after my computer dying on me and having to get a new one and other delays, I finally sent the letters off today - one to Low-ell and two to Crapots. So watch this space.

 

 

Any chance of seeing a copy of the s10 that was sent?

 

To comply with ICO guidance it should give reasonable time for them to comply with a request and give a specific date for which you expect compliance to start.

 

It should be sent to the Data controller/Compliance Manager

 

and finally it should state reasons as to why further processing is likely to cause harm distress or damage etc etc.

 

These are all reasons which if not complied with can give them excuse to ignore your request-or certainly give them stalling opportunity.

 

Martin, here is a copy of the S10 that I sent:

 

Date: 21 March 2009

Your Ref No:

By Recorded Delivery

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

LEGAL NOTICE UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1980

 

Please be advised that this is a formal notice issued under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1980.

 

I demand that you cease processing of my Data by any means whether written or electronically, with third party, individuals and organisations. In addition to processing, this also means passing, amending, sharing and management in any form of my Data in whatsoever filing, both manually or electronically.

 

In compliance with the Information Commissioners guidance, I give you 14 days to comply with this request.

 

The purpose of this request is that I am of the understanding that your continual processing/controlling of my data will cause distress harm and damage. Specifically because;

 

▪ My credit worthiness is being or has been damaged by your actions as a result of your entries to my credit files.

 

▪ That I fully expect to show that adverse data was wrongly filed which would mean that earlier processing was unfair and unjust.

 

▪ That matters in relation to adverse data you have entered onto my credit files are currently in dispute.

 

▪ That the adverse data you continue to process, manage and pass on to third parties impedes my ability to apply for credit, mortgages or other financial services

 

▪ That as a Data Controller/Compliance Officer, you have a responsibility under the Data Protection Act to observe all principles set out therein, within the act.

 

I expect an acknowledgement of your intentions to comply, and if you do not agree, your reasons for being unable or unwilling to do so.

 

You have until 6 April 2009 to forward this to me in writing.

 

Under the Data Protection Act, a County Court has the powers to order compliance of any breaches it sees fit, together with compensation, at the discretion of the Court.

 

Should you fail to comply, or give just and reasonable reasons as to why you will not comply, I will consider making an application to my local County Court on notice to force compliance, together with costs and compensation.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within the prescribed timescale.

 

Yours Faithfully

Edited April 4, 2009 by andymanx

[Toulose LeDebt]

How would this work in response to DCA who bought debt, returned an Application Form (insisiting it can also be a CCA), D of A that is part of bulk purchase, N of A from DCA stating "HFC sold and assigned all rights, title and interest in, to and under, inter alia your agreement" and is now threatening court action?

 

Wow that's erm..... specific is this a hypothetical question or has it happened to 'someone you know'?

[underdog13]

Great stuff, Toulouse:D

[lunar jim]

looks good, subbing with interest

[spartathisis]

TLD, deff happened to me. just got a reply back from the sols n a copy of a N of A they say they sent, but all I got was a payment form at the time contacted them and agreed to make a payment. They now say payment form was with N of A so must have received it (didnt though).

 

My thread is here any chance u could have a quick look at it? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186500-have-i-been-too.html

 

Help appreciated they demanded a payment by the 9th or begin proceedings. I am sure they are bluffing as they still insist the Application Form is a CCA and thats the end of it. They say their client is prepared to accept £10pm, now I find this uplifting as I was paying £14pm before my SAR request so I do think they are bluffing.

 

Its TBI Financial Services ltd in Reading.

[Braveheart12]

Subbing with interest.

[Red1983]

Wow, loving it muchly! thank you so much.

TP would love this thread too Id imagine.

Have subbed.

 

Red

xxx

[harrassed senior]

Still waiting for my reply - strangely has all gone quite - as of yesterday, Thursday, nothing has happened on my Credit Files, all still there and updated for 1st April 2009!

[Toulose LeDebt]

Good that it's quiet but I wouldn't expect themto give up at this stage. They may well just be trying to find an adult to read it out to them still.

 

You will be writing to them shortly.

[harrassed senior]

Will keep you posted

[earltedly]

subbing

[Madhafu]

me too subbing

(thank God for pple like you!)

[spartathisis]

TLD have you been here? International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) - practical insights into cross-border law - Securitisation

[spartathisis]

Have been doing a lot of background reading and have a couple of questions hopefully easy to answer (or point me to the thread for the answer).

 

DCA claims they were assigned only the right to the debt so dont have to comply with providing CCA, does that exclude them from: 1. adding interest. 2. recording to CRA. 3. adding charges. 4. taking you to court. 5. storing your data at all.

 

If they are allowed to do the above how and what reference to law please. Also does a N of A have to state the amount of the debt and what is the importance of the date? I have read that if it is wrong it is "ineffective" and cannot be rectified at a later date, correct?

 

Thanks

[nicklea]

DCA claims they were assigned only the right to the debt so dont have to comply with providing CCA, does that exclude them from: 1. adding interest. 2. recording to CRA. 3. adding charges. 4. taking you to court. 5. storing your data at all.

 

They will only be able to do these things if there has been an absolute assignment of the debt. Otherwise they are just acting on behalf of the OC. Is this Cabot you're talking about by any chance? They do have to comply with providing a CCA etc if it has been an absolute assignment of the debt

 

Also does a N of A have to state the amount of the debt and what is the importance of the date? I have read that if it is wrong it is "ineffective" and cannot be rectified at a later date, correct?

Thanks

 

It can always be rectified at a later date if it is in any way ineffective.

[spartathisis]

Robinson way, but expecting cabot to come up with the same.

 

Robbers state they only bought the debt and is an assignment of rights not duties, but they state they can report etc.

[nicklea]

This really is absolute rubbish. DCAs spout all sorts of rubbish. They are just trying to avoid the expense of having to comply with any s77/s78 CCA request you might have made.

 

If you search for ' "conditional benefit" principle ' and also ' "nemo dat" rule ' you will see the explanation of why this is the case

[cashins]

sub

[andymanx]

I got a reply from Crapbots!!!

 

Here is the one re: my Hiatchi Nova debt:

 

 

Full thread is @ http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186403-cca-request-cabot-x.html

 

 

 

 

Here is the one re: my Vanquis debt:

Full thread is @ http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/186403-cca-request-cabot-x.html

Edited April 25, 2009 by andymanx