Invalid Default Notices

[lexis200]

so I have been cutting and pasting the best bits from each of them and inserting them in the other.

 

naughty person- did you train as a DCA then! (LOL)

 

I doubt it; they don't bother with choosing the best bits, it's just wherever the curser happens to be pointing is where they take their chunk of text from!

[Pinky69]

Been busy tonight getting the first case onto official Court Claim document - it's a masterpiece! I have 3 to do so will do 1 a night for 3 nights then lodge at the Court on Thursday.

 

Have also been busy replyng to one of Equifax's letters. For all they say, they are not comfortable with any of this but are bleating that their hands are tied. So that's my cue to put even more pressure on and I will be sending copies to Experian and Callcredit - why should they miss out? Here is a copy for your evening reading.:grin:

 

Dear Person at Equifax,

 

 

I am in receipt of your letter of 7/1/2009 (I think you meant 7/7) and note all you say.

 

What you neglect to say is that the information shared by lenders and credit reference agencies should be accurate and legitimately shared. The way the system is a lender can tell credit reference agencies anything and when the customer objects that it is wrong, it cannot be removed just because the lender says they are right. They should have to prove that they are right once the customer has disputed the entry.

 

I will be lodging litigation against (bank) and (bank) this week if the defaults are not removed by midnight on Wednesday 15 July 2009. They have had Letters Before Action and have had plenty of time to remove data they placed unlawfully with the credit reference agencies.

 

(Bank 3) does not have an agreement for this alleged debt. What they have is an application form with none of the Prescribed Terms required for an agreement and nowhere on that application form do I give them permission to pass my data on to any third party. They then served a Default Notice in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 S 87 (1) on a disputed account which had no agreement. The Default Notice was itself in breach of the Consumer Agreements (Enforcements, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and the CCA 1974 for several reasons. Ignoring the fact they had no agreement, they then terminated the alleged agreement causing unlawful rescission. So they had no authority to process my data from the outset and the alleged agreement in dispute had been rescinded unlawfully when they entered the defaults with the credit reference agencies. All clauses in an alleged agreement are rescinded when it is rescinded, including any clause about processing data so they had no permission of any kind to process my data after rescission, a double shot in their corporate foot. They have had 34 years to get it right and they still cannot do it. Yet their word is accepted as gospel and I have to go to court to get them removed? There is everything far wrong with that and I will be raising it with the ICO once court proceedings have been concluded. Even the amount on the DN and the amount on the credit reference report is different – I have never defaulted any account for (amount). The system as it is totally biased in favour of the banks and that has got to change. Where the credit reference agencies leave themselves wide open for possible action is that they give undue weight to the views of the banks without reason to do so when entries are disputed. They do not check either the accuracy or the legitimacy of the information they are given when it is disputed by the customer. If they are not able to do so, then they shouldn’t be entering disputed defaults at all as they have no way of knowing if they are correct. I will be pursuing this further after the forthcoming court hearings.

 

(Bank 1) put erroneous entries on my credit reports and they were there for 3 years after an account had been paid in full and should have been closed. They removed them, then put them back on again at the beginning of June and I had to get them to remove them again. Only Experian did not re-enter them. The entries in June were a load of garbage and Equifax would have been content to leave them there if (Bank 1) hadn’t removed them again.

 

 

(Bank 2) has no agreements for 2 defaulted accounts, which they themselves admit, and one they terminated after an unlawful Default Notice (they only allowed 12 days for the alleged breach to be remedied instead of the required 14) and the other they terminated without a default Notice at all. Both alleged accounts were rescinded unlawfully before the defaults were entered on my credit reference reports. They said the DN allowed sufficient time for the remedy to be breached – wrong! - and they could terminate agreements without Default Notices – not unless they want to rescind them they can’t. Let them tell that to a court and see how far they get. There have been several serious breaches of law by both companies.

 

There are 2 other entries that shouldn’t be on my reports, one by (DCA) which has no agreement for the alleged debt and no proof they were authorised to collect any debt in my name and one by (Bank) which has no agreement either – it has no documentation pertaining to the alleged debt of any kind. However, these defaults will be falling off my reports in August and September of this year so they are not worth bothering about.

 

It’s none of your business but you make a reference to any credit applications I may make. I don’t need credit and I am not asking for the entries to be removed for that purpose. I am asking for them to be removed because they are there unlawfully.

 

You will be hearing from me again ....... (Heh! Heh! Heh! - dastardly laugh!)

[Stressed150]

Love your letter..... Go get em Pinky...!!! I suppose it's thanks to you and others like you who are willing to give the CRA's a run for their money, that I was able to see Callcredit shakin in their boots after a DCA conducted a search against my name without my permission and without my say so....only took one letter to set things right again!!

 

Good luck...xx

[cashins]

I am assuming you are hoping they won't.

 

Win against the banks and get damages, their position will be pretty well hopeless.

 

Like to see someone enjoying themselves:grin:

 

David

[vint1954]

Been busy tonight getting the first case onto official Court Claim document - it's a masterpiece! I have 3 to do so will do 1 a night for 3 nights then lodge at the Court on Thursday.

 

Have also been busy replyng to one of Equifax's letters. For all they say, they are not comfortable with any of this but are bleating that their hands are tied. So that's my cue to put even more pressure on and I will be sending copies to Experian and Callcredit - why should they miss out? Here is a copy for your evening reading.:grin:

 

Dear Person at Equifax,

 

 

I am in receipt of your letter of 7/1/2009 (I think you meant 7/7) and note all you say.

 

What you neglect to say is that the information shared by lenders and credit reference agencies should be accurate and legitimately shared. The way the system is a lender can tell credit reference agencies anything and when the customer objects that it is wrong, it cannot be removed just because the lender says they are right. They should have to prove that they are right once the customer has disputed the entry.

 

I will be lodging litigation against (bank) and (bank) this week if the defaults are not removed by midnight on Wednesday 15 July 2009. They have had Letters Before Action and have had plenty of time to remove data they placed unlawfully with the credit reference agencies.

 

(Bank 3) does not have an agreement for this alleged debt. What they have is an application form with none of the Prescribed Terms required for an agreement and nowhere on that application form do I give them permission to pass my data on to any third party. They then served a Default Notice in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 S 87 (1) on a disputed account which had no agreement. The Default Notice was itself in breach of the Consumer Agreements (Enforcements, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and the CCA 1974 for several reasons. Ignoring the fact they had no agreement, they then terminated the alleged agreement causing unlawful rescission. So they had no authority to process my data from the outset and the alleged agreement in dispute had been rescinded unlawfully when they entered the defaults with the credit reference agencies. All clauses in an alleged agreement are rescinded when it is rescinded, including any clause about processing data so they had no permission of any kind to process my data after rescission, a double shot in their corporate foot. They have had 34 years to get it right and they still cannot do it. Yet their word is accepted as gospel and I have to go to court to get them removed? There is everything far wrong with that and I will be raising it with the ICO once court proceedings have been concluded. Even the amount on the DN and the amount on the credit reference report is different – I have never defaulted any account for (amount). The system as it is totally biased in favour of the banks and that has got to change. Where the credit reference agencies leave themselves wide open for possible action is that they give undue weight to the views of the banks without reason to do so when entries are disputed. They do not check either the accuracy or the legitimacy of the information they are given when it is disputed by the customer. If they are not able to do so, then they shouldn’t be entering disputed defaults at all as they have no way of knowing if they are correct. I will be pursuing this further after the forthcoming court hearings.

 

(Bank 1) put erroneous entries on my credit reports and they were there for 3 years after an account had been paid in full and should have been closed. They removed them, then put them back on again at the beginning of June and I had to get them to remove them again. Only Experian did not re-enter them. The entries in June were a load of garbage and Equifax would have been content to leave them there if (Bank 1) hadn’t removed them again.

 

 

(Bank 2) has no agreements for 2 defaulted accounts, which they themselves admit, and one they terminated after an unlawful Default Notice (they only allowed 12 days for the alleged breach to be remedied instead of the required 14) and the other they terminated without a default Notice at all. Both alleged accounts were rescinded unlawfully before the defaults were entered on my credit reference reports. They said the DN allowed sufficient time for the remedy to be breached – wrong! - and they could terminate agreements without Default Notices – not unless they want to rescind them they can’t. Let them tell that to a court and see how far they get. There have been several serious breaches of law by both companies.

 

There are 2 other entries that shouldn’t be on my reports, one by (DCA) which has no agreement for the alleged debt and no proof they were authorised to collect any debt in my name and one by (Bank) which has no agreement either – it has no documentation pertaining to the alleged debt of any kind. However, these defaults will be falling off my reports in August and September of this year so they are not worth bothering about.

 

It’s none of your business but you make a reference to any credit applications I may make. I don’t need credit and I am not asking for the entries to be removed for that purpose. I am asking for them to be removed because they are there unlawfully.

 

You will be hearing from me again ....... (Heh! Heh! Heh! - dastardly laugh!)

Hi Pinky,

 

Did you actually use the faulty DN against them, before getting to court?

 

Vint

[lexis200]

Great letter Pinky.

 

I'm interested in what Vint mentioned about the DN too...

[diddydicky]

just been re reading s87/8

 

i wonder how many creditors comply with s88 (4) (a) and supply an uop to date notice of arrears with the DN as this section requires!!

[Pinky69]

I haven't paid either of these banks for 2 years, before the faulty DN's - they have no agreements. They are aware the DN's are faulty but are in denial about them and are saying it doesn't matter. Legally it does. As for the court being blind, if they adhere to the law that will suit me fine. They cannot make judgements for the defenders where there are no agreements and DNs are faulty. I take the view I have nothing to lose - I'll be no worse off than I am now by making a stab for justice for the consumer.

[diddydicky]

I haven't paid either of these banks for 2 years, before the faulty DN's - they have no agreements. They are aware the DN's are faulty but are in denial about them and are saying it doesn't matter. Legally it does. As for the court being blind, if they adhere to the law that will suit me fine. They cannot make judgements for the defenders where there are no agreements and DNs are faulty. I take the view I have nothing to lose - I'll be no worse off than I am now by making a stab for justice for the consumer.

 

their attitude to court proceedings will be vastly different according to whether the debt is above or below 5000

 

if your debt is just below 5000 it can be worthwhile to sit back and let them knock it over the 5000 with charges before you start making cpr31.16 and court threats

[Stressed150]

their attitude to court proceedings will be vastly different according to whether the debt is above or below 5000

 

if your debt is just below 5000 it can be worthwhile to sit back and let them knock it over the 5000 with charges before you start making cpr31.16 and court threats

 

Why would this make a diff?

[Pinky69]

The accounts are terminated - that is why I am taking them to court. They rescinded them and they have been frozen in time ever since. There is not a thing they can do about it. I am taking them to court to get the defaults removed - they never had any permission to pass my personal data to third parties - and make a claim for general damage to my creditworthiness.

[diddydicky]

Why would this make a diff?

 

the burden of proof and accuracy of evidence and documents is much more strict

 

in the lower court there is more leeway for the judge to use the balance of probabilities etc

[Stressed150]

Interesting, so basically some of the judges in lower courts are not up to scratch with legislation etc????!!! Atleast that's the only conclusion that one can come to, or that they are more inclined to side with the banks...... I hear what your saying but it just seems silly that the same case should be treated differently...!!

[diddydicky]

Interesting, so basically some of the judges in lower courts are not up to scratch with legislation etc????!!! Atleast that's the only conclusion that one can come to, or that they are more inclined to side with the banks...... I hear what your saying but it just seems silly that the same case should be treated differently...!!

 

the law is a VAST area and to be fair you cant expect judges to be on top of all the legislation

 

that's why (IMO) its important (for him as well as you) to be able to SHOW him the authority for the argument you are putting forward

 

the more so in my opinion because if he is "lost" he will naturally tend to be guided more by your opponents' lawyer that the LIP

[Stressed150]

Fair point..x

[SL1210]

Good luck Pinky in your quest, I have been following your thread with great interest.

 

I have just started my own thread which can be found at the link below should anyone be willing to help with my defence which needs to be served 21/07/09.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/209602-help-defence-sl1210-chatham.html

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[barclayhunter]

Great thread! Subbing.

[ifoughtthelaw]

Hi Pinky

 

Subbing - good luck!

[vint1954]

Any responses yet Pinky?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/209287-challenging-cras-have-we-7.html#post2297947

[Pinky69]

No, not yet - I will keep you posted.

[findingthecheese]

Excellent and informative thread Pinky69!

 

I've just been reading through and finally understand what constitutes a defective default notice. Also learnt a few other tricks of the trade!

 

Good luck!

 

ftc.

[alfwithhair]

subbin in on this one

[diddydicky]

not sure that claiming that the damage to the CRA file doesn't hurt you.....if you later want to claim damages

 

also if you tell OC's or DCA's that their actions are not hurting you - they may then move to another tactic

 

far better IMO to let them continue to think that what they have done HAS hurt you

[Pinky69]

Thank you for your good wishes. I am claiming for the removal of the defaults AND damages.

[Pinky69]

Hello everyone. You will all be thinking I have got lost but I've had a delay in lodging the claims at court because of family illness. That is now over so the claims go in on Monday. I have 2 claims against one company so I am goiing to lodge them seperately and I will see how the first claim goes before lodging the second. It's Scots Law so I don't know how long it will be before an actual Hearing.

 

I discovered something about one of the applications forms the bank tried to claim was an agreement - it doesn't have their address on it!! This is a not only a breach of the consumer credit agreements regulations and the CCA, it is also a breach of Company Law. They also must have the fact that they are a limited company on it and they don't. It's all griste to the mill!