debt Sold on BUT original creditor is still chasing - what to do ?

[scorterooney]

Hi All,

 

Got an interesting query that someone may be able to throw some light on

 

 

First Background -

 

£357 owed to CREATION FINANCE ltd - debt was sold to Lowel end of 2006. I have copies of Notice of assignment from Lowel and from Creation.

 

Tried to sort something out with lowel but they kept screwing up and not taking direct debit etc so Jan 08 i CCa'd them. No reply, nothing ever mentoned other than one letter from lowels offering a significant discount if i clear.

 

Anyway - in the last two weeks ive had three letters from Creation saying pay up or else !.

 

 

So what to do ?

 

Do i :

 

A - Ignore.

B - send a letter denying any debt exit and claiming no knowledge.

C - Send a letter stating they have sold the debt and have no legal right to contact me, enter info on my credit files etc and that lowel are dealing with it.

 

What ya reckon ?

 

Scort

[creditcardmug]

Maybe this one, as a starter

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account no:

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

[Livis]

Thanks CCM, but we need to call the bank tonight as they are going to debit the money straight from the account on the 26th of this month?

Do you think we should say this amount is in dispute with littlewoods and we don't authorise them to take this?

[Livis]

Woops sorry i've just realised i replied on the wrong thread

How embarrassing !

xx

[pt2537]

Hi All,

 

Got an interesting query that someone may be able to throw some light on

 

 

First Background -

 

£357 owed to CREATION FINANCE ltd - debt was sold to Lowel end of 2006. I have copies of Notice of assignment from Lowel and from Creation.

 

Tried to sort something out with lowel but they kept screwing up and not taking direct debit etc so Jan 08 i CCa'd them. No reply, nothing ever mentoned other than one letter from lowels offering a significant discount if i clear.

 

Anyway - in the last two weeks ive had three letters from Creation saying pay up or else !.

 

 

So what to do ?

 

Do i :

 

A - Ignore.

B - send a letter denying any debt exit and claiming no knowledge.

C - Send a letter stating they have sold the debt and have no legal right to contact me, enter info on my credit files etc and that lowel are dealing with it.

 

What ya reckon ?

 

Scort

having hammered these a few times in court for various clients i would say that

 

A) its unlikely they will have a compliant agreement

B) they will produce only the front of it and nothing more

C) They will be wide open for a claim for declaratory relief pursuant to CCA 1974 s142(1)

 

CCA them, see what they send back and then plan where you go from there

[scorterooney]

reet then - bit of an update on this........

 

Been in converation via the telephone with a nice chap at creation.

Turns out they have allegedly purchased the debt back from lowel and the alleged sum is now due to them.

 

I say alleged because as of yet i have not recieved a notice of assignment from lowels or creation so as far as i am concerned untill i recieve legal notification that the debt has been purchased by creation its still under the control of lowels (though this is in the post apparently)

 

Which brings me to my next query.......

 

the account has been in dispute with lowels since feb 08 - they have still not complied with a cca request so as far as i am aware they should not of sold the debt on whilst in dispute - Am i correct in my thinking ?

 

This leaves to me wonder WHO i get medievil with and how ?

 

Lowels have not followed the OFT guidlines / CCA 74 by selling the debt so what avenues are open for me to (as a certain user would say) " fillet their donkey" ?

 

and secondly - what direction should i take with creation - it sort of seems counter productive to just hit them with a cca request letter when lowels are in the wrong for selling it but obv i will have to do something productive to get it sorted.

 

scort

[scorterooney]

Bit of an update on this one ......

 

Still waiting for a CCA from Lowel ( originally requested in Jan 08)

 

Still no notice of asignment from Creation despite them saying its in the post - so as far as im concerned the alleged debt isnt payable to creation.

 

Anyway - after a few more threatograms and phone calls i sent them the following letter at end of July:

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir / Madam,

I refer to your previous phone calls and letters sent to me, the latest of which I received on XXst July 2009, in which you allege I am in arrears of £357.XX with you on the above account.

I dispute that this debt exists with you and that you have a legal right to harass me for payment, make any collection or enter ANY information regarding this alleged account with any of the credit reference agencies.

This account was sold by you to Lowell Finance ltd on XXth December 2006 and I received a notice of assignment to inform me that you had sold the account from both parties. I have been liaising with Lowell Finance ltd regarding the account since then. It is worth noting that on the XXrd January 2008 I wrote to Lowell requesting a copy of the credit agreement and other information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79). To date they have not complied with this request and as such the account is seriously in dispute.

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

As you no longer own the rights to this alleged debt, I fail to see how you can legally put this account into default, pass to a third party for debt collection, enter information regarding it with the credit reference agencies or follow any legal avenues you may believe are available to you, furthermore I fail to see how, when the account is in dispute with Lowell Finance ltd, they could have legally passed the account to you.

To date, despite my husband being in regular contact with G***l in your call centre who promised to sort this mess out I have only received threatening letters and telephone calls from you. I still have no notice of assignment to confirm that you have indeed purchased this alleged debt back from Lowell Finance ltd and the amount you quote that is owed is different to the amount quoted by Lowell Finance ltd in their correspondence.

I would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable, and in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive / and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical / psychological harassment.

You should also be aware that, if you continue to contact me regarding this account or file any information about this account with the various credit reference agencies I will not hesitate to file a County Court claim seeking compensation together with costs. Additionally I will make a formal complaint to all relevant regulatory agencies.

Finally I do not wish to be contacted by telephone under any circumstances and request that you remove my telephone number from your records immediately. All correspondence between me and any representative of creation Finance should be in written format only so that an accurate record of all communications is kept for legal purposes.

Any further communication by telephone will be viewed as harassment and a breach of the ‘Administration of Justice Act 1970’. Any such breach will not be tolerated and a formal complaint, containing copies of all correspondence including yours, will be submitted to the relevant authorities if your calls continue.

I give you 14 days to respond to my letter

Under FOS guidance, you are allowed 8 weeks to resolve my complaint to my satisfaction or in the alternative give me a final response.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

 

So then, at the end of August i recieved an acknowledgment of the above letter along with an undertaking to resolve my complaint and a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

AND NOW - the phone calls and letters have started again

 

HOW do i move this a step forward ? Im quite happy to start proceedings against them to get an end to this but not sure where to start and exactly on what grounds

 

Should i ignore the letter untill i get their final response or should i reply to there latest batch of threatograms

 

Help please

 

Tis annoing me now rather than worrying !!

 

D

[scorterooney]

has anybody got any advice or comments to make ?

[Huff&Puff]

Ignore thm, they know the debt is in dispute. If the harassment gets too much, report them to the OFT and Trading Standards for chasing a debt while it is in dispute.

[scorterooney]

Ignore thm, they know the debt is in dispute. If the harassment gets too much, report them to the OFT and Trading Standards for chasing a debt while it is in dispute.

 

thing is i dont realllllly want to ignore them - id like to take the fight TO THEM - put them on the defence etc.

 

All this ignoring doesnt do anything to stop them entering info on my constantly improving credit record (which as we know is a pain to get removed regardless of the legalities of how it was entered)

 

So id like to strike first

[scorterooney]

UPDATE.

 

recieved a letter yesterday rom complaints department which contacined the CCA ( only one sheet, no terms and conditions etc) and stating that they had sorted my complaint out.

 

However, they have not sorted out why they are asking for the original amount, despite the fact i have paid some off and they havent given me a notice of assignement to sy they have purchaed the debt back.

 

they are now saying teh full amount idue.

 

What to do next then ?

[vint1954]

Have they issued a default notice yet? They have clearly terminated the agreement with you and would need to have sent you a complient DN in line with s87 of the CCA 1974, in order to legally terminate. At the moment, no agreement exists between you and the OC, as they have terminated ( closed ) this. Lowells have sent it back to OC, so it seems no one has an agreement. If the DN is faulty, which they commonly are, and they go on to terminate by letter or an act of termination, which they have, they are only able to collect the stated arrears in the DN. If there is no DN sent, then they go on to terminate, they are scuppered. In either case it is unlawful rescission of contract.

 

It is obvious that if the debt was sold to lowells, they have found that the agreement is unenforcable and demanded their money back.

 

You need to write lo Lowells, demanding proof of the transaction transferring debt back to OC.

 

In addition, you can send this letter to lowells, c.c. OC. Check it carefully and edit to suit your situation.

 

 

 

xxxxxx 2009.

 

Dear xxxxxxxxx,

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Re account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I write regarding recent communication regarding the above account. I acknowledge no dept to your organisation.

 

Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account remains subject to a lawful serious dispute. On xxxxxxxx, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, a copy of this request is enclosed. To date you have failed to comply with my request, supplying only a partial agreement, devoid of all prescribed terms, which cannot be linked to any agreement which you claim that I have signed and a set of again unrelated terms and conditions. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Contrary to your assertion, xxxxxxxx have not complied with the terms of CCA 1974 s78. The documents that you have supplied, do not comply with your duties to supply a “True Copy” of any agreement you claim to have been signed by me, for pre 2007 agreements. As you will be further aware, an agreement is not executed, until signed by both parties, so the document that you have supplied, being a reconstruction, cannot be a True Copy of an Executed Agreement.

 

While this account remains in serious dispute, the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in this state and xxxxxx remain in default are:

 

• You may not ask for payment against this account.
  
• I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  
• You cannot register any data with a third party.
  
• You cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  
• You cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  
• You cannot sell the account.
  

Let me explain what is a true copy:

 

In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required.

 

“The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.”

 

 

I also refer you to the information below.

 

1. A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

 

 

2. Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

 

2. The need for prescribed terms to be contained in the credit agreement is confirmed by the Author of the CCA1974 act, I quote ““As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

 

 

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.”

 

 

I am now granting to you a further 7 days to produce a copy of an executableagreement.After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt.If you are insisting that the non enforceable document, that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

 

Now turning to data processing. If you read the letter below, origionally by SurlyBonds, you can send this off to lowells and the OC.

 

The Company Secretary

GrabItAll Bank plc

Large Ugly Building with nice view of Thames

Somewhere in London

Postcode

[must go to their company registered address!]

 

 

 

 

[Date]

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Re: Formal notice to desist from processing or disclosing personal subject data

 

I have recently conducted an audit of my personal credit reports supplied by Experian, Equifax and CallCredit.

 

It is noted that there exists, within all three files, an entry referenced as “xxxxxxxxxxxxxx plc” indicating a former xxxxxxxx Loan (now closed) of £x. This is recorded as “In Default” albeit showing a settlement date of dd/mm/ccyy.

 

I am contesting that xs’ continued processing of my data is an unwarranted act and I enclose a Statutory Notice to that effect, which is deemed served as of the date noted on the Royal Mail's Recorded Delivery service audit.

 

My written permission allowing x to continue processing, or disclosing, my personal subject data was revoked upon termination of that original contract and I hereby reiterate that revocation. I also do not recall receiving any such Notice of Default being served on me, as required by the conditions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Unless the Bank can provide a true copy of the said Notice, then I consider that any default entry on my credit files to be wholly unwarranted.

 

However, if you can supply the copy, then I also contest xs’ continued processing on the following grounds.

 

As you are aware, I am afforded principled rights under the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act), Schedule 1, Part 1 ("The Principles") in relation to the manner in which my data is collated, stored and processed. Of particular note, are Principles 3, 4 and 5:

 

“3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

 

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.”

 

In my case, x is still processing data after the cancellation of the contract, whether or not this is a simple renewal process of the default flag, daily or by other timing factor. As that contract is no longer in situ, then my written permission has also ceased from the date of cancellation.

 

This is confirmed in Principle 2 of the Data Protection Act, which states:

"2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."

 

I emphasise the term "specified and lawful purposes" as in ‘those specified within the contract’, and no more. I also emphasise the term "shall not be further processed".

 

I have taken the matter up with the Credit Reference Agencies, and they had claimed that they had a

“legal right” to maintain this type of adverse entry for up to six years. When I challenged them to quote me the exact Statute that includes this so-called “legal right”, they remained remarkably quiet. Only after my continued insistence of disclosure did they eventually concede that, whilst they have no statutory right, it is

“standard industry practice” but they added that they are “allowed to by Law”. After further challenges, they finally admitted that unless this was a County Court issue, their term actually referred to contractual Law, but continued to emphasise that it was “standard industry practice to record default entries for six years.”

 

As a highly-educated company secretary for a major PLC, may I respectfully presume that you likewise recognise that “standard industry practice” does not correlate with “legal right”?

 

Further investigation has also led me to conclude that the only six-year data ‘retention rule’, to which they may adhere to, is in relation to information in the public domain, e.g. Bankruptcy Orders/Discharges, IVAs, CCJs, etc. These are kept in the public domain for six years. But, these are sealed orders issued by a judge through the Courts who oversee the ultimate jurisdiction in all matters relating to Law, be it the criminal code or the Common Law. It is not up to Credit Reference Agencies, or lenders, to decide legal issues.

 

In addition, the agencies may also hold information that is deemed ‘in the public interest’ for the avoidance of credit fraud or deliberate repayment avoidance; I refer, of course, to CIFAS and GAIN entries on a credit file. My former account was not subject to any such marker, nor is my former civil contract with x a public matter.

 

After scrutiny of all the relevant legislation, including the Consumer Credit Act (As Amended), the various Financial Services Acts and the Data Protection Act, etc., it is clear that there is absolutely no legislation that allows a lender or supplier (e.g. x) to collate, process or distribute any other information unless there is express written permission from the data subject.

 

In fact, Section 10 of the Data Protection Act awards the real authority, regarding privacy of data, to the data subject, not the Data Controller. The Act is also very clear as to the rights of the data subject in respect of withdrawing permission to continue data processing and disclosure:

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

However, there are some exclusion provisions for Data Controllers, and Section 10 does continue with various exceptions to subsection (1) above, and these are quoted, in full, below:

 

10. - (2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met,

or

(b)in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.

 

To paragraph (b), I can only presume that x has not applied to HM Secretary of State for an order allowing you an exclusion, which leaves x with the only remaining possibility of requesting an exemption under paragraph (a).

 

So, we must turn to the exemptions permitted in paragraph (a) to find where xs’ Data Controller may invoke his perceived exemption to the Data Protection Act, namely, those listed in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2. I have reproduced these exemption paragraphs, in full, below:

 

“1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.”

 

It is my contention that xs’ supposed right of obtaining an exemption is not contained within any of these paragraphs. I have followed each in turn with my notation to give a clearer explanation, should there be any lack of clarity.

 

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

 

That consent was terminated upon the cessation of the contract and, as stated earlier, I reiterate the revocation herein, and by the attached Statutory Notice.

 

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

 

For (a), there is no contract being performed, and for (b), x and I are not entering into any form of contract, and certainly not at my request.

 

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

 

According to the Information Commissioners Office (I.C.O.), exemption 3 includes all other statutory obligations for which the interests of national security and welfare override personal privacy.

 

These obligations allow for the provision of data to Official agencies and organisations, e.g. disclosure to crime prevention agencies (Police, Intelligence Services, etc), official Government agencies (DVLA, DSS, Passport Agency, etc.) and health authorities, etc., and for any other purpose not agreed within a civil contract.

 

We all know that the three major credit reference agencies are not Government bodies, nor official agencies, but for-profit companies, even though they like to think they are official. None of these three agencies are listed in the appropriate Data Protection Act Schedule that names the specific organisations that are permitted any such exemption rights.

 

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.”

 

With reference to the I.C.O. again, this is interpreted as anything that affects the data subject as a matter of life and death. This clause is included in the Data Protection Act to permit data, like medical records or contact details, being disclosed in emergency situations. I do not believe that my former account details could be described as anything like a matter of life or death.

 

So, it is clear to see that there is neither statutory provision permitting xs’ Data Controller to assume continued processing rights of my data at his discretion, nor any exemption. I can then only assume that x is relying on the Common Law, and contractual law, as determined by the contract that both parties originally agreed.

 

However, the contract that I originally signed with the bank, only gave x permission to process data during the term of that contract. I think it is fair to assume that you agree that the contract was terminated some years ago, whether or not a Default Notice was served.

 

The contract neither included any other permission, nor did it imply that your perceived 'rights' to process my data would be ‘in perpetuity’. There was also no clause contained within the contract that stated that x had any arbitrary right to continuing processing data for up to six years after the ending of the contract.

 

Also, I cannot recall any clear statement that gave my express permission for x to continue disclosing my subject data to third parties after the end of the contract. You are no doubt aware that any non-agreed disclosure of personal data to third parties, without express written permission, is a criminal offence under Section 35, of the Data Protection Act.

 

However, if I am mistaken, and the contract did, indeed, specify unlimited time extensions, then you must provide me with a copy of those signed terms indicating where I have agreed to them. This should be sent to me as one of your enclosures, if you wish to contest the enclosed Statutory Notice. You should be aware that you have, by statute, twenty-one days in which to either comply with my Notice, or give written notice stating your reasons and why you consider the Notice unjustified.

 

In summary, in relation to this former loan contract, I am formally instructing you, as an authorised officer of the Bank, from this day onwards, to:

1) cease to continue storing, processing or communicating my data;

2) remove all such data from automated process systems, as per the provisions of Part II, Section 12 (1) of the Data Protection Act, namely:

(1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for

the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct.

 

Of particular note is the Acts own term “his creditworthiness”;

 

3) cease to disclose any data to any third party including, but not restricted to, Equifax plc, Experian Ltd and Callcredit plc; and

 

4) instruct Equifax plc, Experian Ltd and Callcredit plc to remove all data pertaining to your records on me, to the extent that no data entry in relation to x Bank plc will exist on my credit files.

 

Any failure on your part to adhere to these statutory timescales will automatically be interpreted as your non-compliance with the legal procedure. In that case, you will be expected to unconditionally comply with my Statutory Notice or I shall have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Court to seek an Order to that effect. Should it be necessary to refer the matter to the Court, then I shall also apply for Court fees and legal costs against the Bank. I shall also reserve the right to seek redress for damages as per the remit of the Data Protection Act.

 

 

I trust that I have made my position clear, and that x will now make a serious effort to understand its legal obligations and effect the changes requested. Should you be in any doubt as to the Banks obligations as a Data Controller, then I would advise that you consult your corporate counsel.

 

 

In any event, I shall expect a written confirmation from you acknowledging the contents of this letter within 5 working days, as per the requirements of section 15.3 of the Banking Code.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Have fun.

[scorterooney]

thanks for the reply Vint - really appreciated.

 

Its just a quick viit to the forum but ill read again, digest and reply later on

 

Thanks,

 

Scort