How long after disconnection can default be applied? ***WON***

[tadg]

If you want to send your letter via post send to Mr Persoff at:

ST JAMES COURT

GREAT PARK ROAD

ALMONDSBURY PARK

BRADLEY STOKE

BRISTOL

BS32 4QJ

[fuzzyfuzzy]

Thanks again tadg,

 

Ill be back to let you know if and what the response is

[fuzzyfuzzy]

.....................

Edited June 12, 2009 by fuzzyfuzzy
gagged

[fuzzyfuzzy]

...................

Edited June 12, 2009 by fuzzyfuzzy
gagged

[fuzzyfuzzy]

....................

Edited June 13, 2009 by fuzzyfuzzy
gagged

[buzby]

To have a reasonable chance of success, you will have to convince a Judge that you have a valid claim and are not simply being vindictive or vexatious. The response from Orange I thought was reasoned, accurate and direct (which is what you want).

 

I think they DO take you seriously, and to attempt a moneyclaim for this reason alone will fail. I believe the will defend it, and pursue you for their costs which - although limited under the proceedure - will still mean around £100 in addition to your costs in raisingthe action. It is a lot of money to waste on a point of principle.

[Human Writes]

In the mean time i have started a moneyclaim for damages and distress to try to force them to take it seriously,

 

What do people think about this?

 

Do you think they are bluffing? Are they likely to try to strike it out? Will they defend it?

 

 

Just a matter of personal opinion, but if your claiming for damages and distress I think you need to be able to prove you've suffered damages to the amount your claiming for, because the burden of proof lies with you. You will need to prove losses before the court if it gets that far.

 

You seem indicate that your claim is just a negotiating tactic and your holding out for a settlement? Are you actually prepared to go to court if need be? They have indicated they have instructed their solicitors to defend the claim you made against them.

 

This is the firm of solcitors they say they have instructed ; they appear to be a reputable and large firm, based in Bristol (as are Orange) with solicitors specialising in Data Protection:

 

TLT Solicitors -

 

I doubt they are bluffing when they state TLT do represent them, why bother telling you this if its not the case? They probably will defend the claim if need be, are you confident enough of your position that you feel you could take on a solicitor, as they put it "specialising in data protection matters" in court?

[fuzzyfuzzy]

Just a matter of personal opinion, but if your claiming for damages and distress I think you need to be able to prove you've suffered damages to the amount your claiming for, because the burden of proof lies with you. You will need to prove losses before the court if it gets that far.

 

You seem indicate that your claim is just a negotiating tactic and your holding out for a settlement? Are you actually prepared to go to court if need be? They have indicated they have instructed their solicitors to defend the claim you made against them.

 

This is the firm of solcitors they say they have instructed ; they appear to be a reputable and large firm, based in Bristol (as are Orange) with solicitors specialising in Data Protection:

 

TLT Solicitors -

 

I doubt they are bluffing when they state TLT do represent them, why bother telling you this if its not the case? They probably will defend the claim if need be, are you confident enough of your position that you feel you could take on a solicitor, as they put it "specialising in data protection matters" in court?

 

I dont think they have a leg to stand on over the way the default has been issued.

 

I have raised so many factors that they simpy have no answer for, hence the solicitors.

 

I can prove the damages by way of a letter from Abbey who can confirm the mortgage rate will be higher because of this default. I have a TOTALLY perfect credit file other than this, no missed payments or any other issues AT ALL. I also got refused credit from Abbey in August last so i can prove this also. It should be too difficult.

 

They are so bloody minded about this whole issue that yeah i think i will go and take on their 'specialist' i cant see what he can use to worm out of this one. I have made numerous offers to settle this before going to court, each of which has been ignored or rejected so the jusge can see that ive tried to sort this before going to court and they are not interested and with Oranges past history of non-compliance and the facts that i have presented and the complete LACK of facts that they have provided unless the 'specialist' can magic something out of thin air then BRING IT ON!!!

 

If nothing else i can rest assured that it has cost Orange £XXXX over a ridiculous £90 bill.

Edited May 29, 2009 by fuzzyfuzzy

[buzby]

If nothing else i can rest assured that it has cost Orange £XXXX over a ridiculous £90 bill.

 

I cost Royal Mail at least £5k on 1 case that had 3 court hearings. I lost due to their exemption from Cirminal Responsibility built in to the Postal Services act. All I wanted was my £180.

 

Did I feel any better? Only when the judge agreed it was a bum deal and refused to award expensed due to their ongoing bad faith, but I had to waste a lot of time too. Just be careful, as there's no such thing as a 'sure thing' when you go to court.

[fuzzyfuzzy]

To have a reasonable chance of success, you will have to convince a Judge that you have a valid claim and are not simply being vindictive or vexatious. The response from Orange I thought was reasoned, accurate and direct (which is what you want).

 

I think they DO take you seriously, and to attempt a moneyclaim for this reason alone will fail. I believe the will defend it, and pursue you for their costs which - although limited under the proceedure - will still mean around £100 in addition to your costs in raisingthe action. It is a lot of money to waste on a point of principle.

 

Thanks Buzby,

 

Its not so much principle it is the fact that it is incorrect and is affecting me negatively. They have neglected their obligations (as far as im concerned) and so I want to force them to remove the incorrect information about me.

 

To be honest i can swallow the £100 if i loose, I have had enough this time and i will not stop until i have to.

 

I have a good case and can prove costs from an independant company (abbey) they cant even explain what legal right they have to mark my credit file.

 

In addition i have complained to OFCOM and ICO. This WILL be removed

[fuzzyfuzzy]

I cost Royal Mail at least £5k on 1 case that had 3 court hearings. I lost due to their exemption from Cirminal Responsibility built in to the Postal Services act. All I wanted was my £180.

 

Did I feel any better? Only when the judge agreed it was a bum deal and refused to award expensed due to their ongoing bad faith, but I had to waste a lot of time too. Just be careful, as there's no such thing as a 'sure thing' when you go to court.

 

Cheers Buzby,

 

I justfeel this is insane and get drawn into it, i understand what you mean tho but really feel that im not gona let them carry on with their shoddy cheap joke of service.

 

I dont think its a sure thing but for £100 i feel it is well worth the time and effort just to give them some aggro back if nothing else.

 

I dont want to sound pig headed but do find it difficult not to get wound up about this.

 

Any other suggestions and opinions are very welcome

 

cheers

[Human Writes]

A couple additional points spring to mind, firstly what happened with your other legal action which you referred to earlier? You mentioned 7 May as the deadline for a defence in an earlier post.

 

Secondly you refer to legal action again? I didn't think you could take legal action twice about the same issue.

 

Thirdly, you really do need the SAR, preferably before Orange defend the claim, your firing blind at the moment as you have no idea what records Orange does and does not have, memory is something that you cannot rely on absolutley over this sort of time period and they should have notes of conversations made at the time they took place, something you won't have. For all you know they do have the data to support their position on the matters in contention which would leave you in a difficult postion should this matter come to court.

 

Fourthly your assigning motives to Orange's lack of a reply which may or may not exist, you assume that because they have not replied to your most recent correspondence they cannot do this, that is a dangerous assumption to make - you have no idea what is going on at Orange behind the scenes or why they haven't replied, your letters appear to make a number of fairily complex points of law, certainly it would go well over the head of a CSR there are any number of factors which could delay a reply.

 

Fifthly; can the ICO order them to remove the default? Their powers are limited as far as I know and no one else you've contacted would have the powers to order this over Orange's objection, you appear to have only claimed for money, not a specific remedy like removal of the default via the courts.

 

Sixthly; assuming (and its a big one) everything you've said to date about the default and the ICO guidance is correct and Orange are wrong, as I see it they are not required to remove it, they could amend the default to the correct date six months from the date you last paid them and it would still be perfectly lawful.

 

I have to say that I don't agree with all of the points you have made in the correspondence I'm not sure that it would all stand up in court, the retention of bills for six years looks to be a weak point and there are other points in your correspondence I'd take issue with as well.

 

I'd be interested to see what Orange or their solicitors have to say next, as they say there are two sides to every story so I'd like to see what their solicitors have to say to you, assuming they reply.

[fuzzyfuzzy]

Orange legal dept have answered my queries, so much for their solicitors....

 

I am going to review their response and will post back, its around 2200 words long. However they have now said they will ammend the default to May 2005.

 

@Human Writes

 

Not sure what you mean in your first 2 points,

 

I have sent 2 SAR's, to them and will have the details before court date. I havent said that the ICO will order them to remove the default I have just said that i will be complaining to the ICO about it. As i have complained to OFCOM also.

 

Please detail the

 

"other points in your correspondence I'd take issue with as well"

 

cheers

[fuzzyfuzzy]

DEFAULT REMOVED & DAMAGES SETTLED!!!

 

Thanks to Buzby and especially Tadg, without you guys this woulnt have been possible.

 

Excellent news

 

Anyone want copies of my letters to help them just PM me

 

Cheers everyone

[buzby]

Great news. Well done! :)