Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lowell/Hampton Statutory Demand *** WON + COSTS ***


HighFly
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4735 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Ref: XXXXXXXXX

 

To: the Data Controller, Experian

 

 

 

Legal notice under the Data Protection Act 1980

 

 

This is a formal notice issued under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1980.

 

 

Further to my previous correspondence and your failure to comply with my requests, I now formally demand that you cease all processing of my Data by any means whether written or electronically,with third party individuals and

organisations in relation to entries C11 and C12 on my credit file, presented by Lowell Portfolio I, and furthermore, I demand their immediate removal from my credit file. In addition to processing, this also means any further passing, 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 reason for this request is that your continual processing and controlling of my data will cause further distress, harm and damage, specifically because;

 

1. My credit worthiness is being or has been damaged by your actions as a result of these entries to my credit files, which relate two accounts not proven to be mine by Lowell Portfolio, as they have failed to supply a valid CCA or any further form of evidence, and for which a Statutory Demand issued by Lowell Portfolio was dismissed and set aside at Stockport County Court on the above grounds and that they were statute barred in accordance Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5, and found by the Office of Fair Trading to be unfair, who have accepted my complaint on these accounts.

 

2. That recorded defaults on my credit files by yourselves are in dispute and that the accounts related to them have been dismissed in County Court.

 

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

 

4. That matters in relation to adverse data you have entered onto my credit files have once been ordered to be set aside in County Court.

 

5. 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.

 

6. That as joint 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 14 days to forward this to me in writing.

 

Please note, Lowell are under similar notice.

 

Under the Data Protection Act, a Court has the power 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, this communication puts you on notice that an application to my local Court will be commenced, with you and Lowell named as co-defendants, to force compliance together with costs and compensation without further delay.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

HF :cool:

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

And one back to you Sam; nice to have you back here ! ;)

 

There's the possibility of some media interest, but will hold off until I know for sure.

 

HF

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi have recived an email from experian in reply to me notifiying them that my egg account was in dispute and egg are refuseing to acknowledge the dispute or any letters sent to them. How can I get them to stop processing the data until the dispute is sorted?

 

copy of email pasted below

 

Thank you for your email, which we received on 18 August 2009.

 

I see that you have said that you have instructed Egg that you withdraw your permission for them to continue processing account data about you. This type of request falls under Section 10 Subsection 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Within this legislation it states that a request to remove information held does not apply where the data subject has consented to that information being held.

 

As all the companies that supply us with data must obtain consent from the data subject before supplying the information to us, you will have consented to this information being passed to a credit reference agency. This is usually stipulated within the terms and conditions of the application form.

 

Please note that you cannot withdraw your consent for us to hold information about you when an account is still active or for the period that the information is still considered relevant to your credit history.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you in full the processes we have in place when an individual queries the accuracy of an entry recorded on their credit report.

 

Under Section 159 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you have the right to query information on your credit report that you believe to be inaccurate, once you have received a copy of your report.

 

You may wish to refer to the relevant legislation below that outlines the process we adhere to when dealing with disputed information.

 

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

159 Correction of wrong information

 

(1) Any individual (the ?objector?) given-

 

(a) information under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by a credit reference agency, or

 

(b) information under section 158,

 

who considers that an entry in his file is incorrect, and that if it is not corrected he is likely to be prejudiced, may give notice to the agency requiring it either to remove the entry from the file or amend it.

 

(2) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (1), the agency shall by notice inform the objector that it has-

 

(a) removed the entry from the file, or

 

(b) amended the entry, or

 

© taken no action,

 

and if the notice states that the agency has amended the entry it shall include a copy of the file so far as it comprises the amended entry.

 

I also draw your attention to the fourth Data Protection Principle, which states that:

 

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

 

Within Schedule 1, Part II (Interpretation of the Data Protection Principles) of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is explained that, as a credit reference agency, we are not considered to have breached the Act by querying the disputed information and adding a Notice of Dispute statement.

 

7. The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where-

 

(a) having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and

 

(b) if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject's view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact.

 

Our regulator considers our action to query disputed information with the data provider as taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the entry and by adding a statement to this effect to your report we are recording your viewpoint that the entry is inaccurate.

 

Therefore, we were choosing to take no action with regards to your initial request to remove this information from your report. Should you wish to verify this you can contact our regulator at the following address:

 

The Information Commissioner's Office: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF

 

In view of this, I am of the opinion that we have acted correctly throughout this matter and in accordance with the relevant legislation. I remind you that under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, each lender that supplies us with information is obligated to ensure that the data is accurate and kept up to date.

 

I hope this explains why we cannot act unilaterally to remove data from your report, especially when the company concerned has confirmed it to be accurate or has not authorised us to make any amendments, as in your case.

 

Furthermore, as we also have a responsibility to enable lenders to make informed lending decisions, I am sure that you can appreciate why we cannot amend information simply because the individual concerned claims that the data is incorrect.

 

If we operated in this way, any individual could claim that all the adverse information on their report was inaccurate purely as a means of improving their credit report. This would put our clients at risk by enabling people to potentially obtain finance that otherwise would not be offered to them.

 

Because of this, if a consumer disputes information on their report we query this with the data provider. The only instances where we would remove information without direct authorisation from the data provider is if a Court Order is provided that specifically states that an entry should be deleted or a ruling is made from a recognised regulatory body.

 

Kind regards

 

Mark S Whawell

Consultant Customer Service Officer

 

Customer Support Centre

Experian Interactive

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you got the "We don't believe you" cut and paste template too. :rolleyes:

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi so what should i send backto experian? egg still not replying to my letters byt sent ma a secure message threating legal action as i have broken the t & c. reply sent recorded delivery along with copies of all previous letters sent to them without any reply so what should i do now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jcbkabs

 

I guess you will get more help if you start up your own thread for your question.

 

I think alot of CAGers tend to stop following threads once they get moved to the "Success" area.

 

This is my first experience of this situation, and I'm asking questions just like you are. I don't think I'm nearly qualified enough to help you out yet, but it will be interesting to compare notes as we progress. :-|

 

Good luck

 

HF

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a reassuring chat with Mrs Leeds Bailiff this morning.

 

Lowell have promised her that they will be paying the cheque into the court tomorrow.:eek:

 

Will believe it when I actually have it in my hands, but it sounds promising.:)

 

Things are moving since sending the lba, but will hold back posting any news on here, as it is clear from a letter I've received that this thread has many visiting viewers..... ;)

 

HF

Edited by HighFly

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a reassuring chat with Mrs Leeds Bailiff this morning.

 

Lowell have promised her that they will be paying the cheque into the court tomorrow.:eek:

 

Will believe it when I actually have it in my hands, but it sounds promising.:)

 

Things are moving with the lba, but will hold back posting, as it is clear from a letter I've received that this thread has many visiting viewers..... ;)

 

HF

 

It would be simpler and much quicker to communicate with the DCAs/OCs posting on here rather than playing letter ping pong :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the CRA..... :eek::D

 

Atleast they have entered into a dialogue.

 

Lowlife, on the other hand, have gone deaf, mute, and have lost the use of their typing fingers since sending out their Statutory Demand; still no CCAs, no NOAs, no DN....nadda, absolutely NOTHING. Let's hope they found someone with an IQ greater than an amoeba, who's capable of signing a cheque. :rolleyes:

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a surprise; still no cheque paid into court.

 

Going to request the bailiff gives up on the phone calls and instead pays them a visit, with a van.

Edited by HighFly

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes babybear.; that's why the bailiffs are now involved.

 

The warrant in this case was issued on September 2nd.

 

Bailiffs spoke to Lowell last week, who assured them that the cheque would be deposited with the court last Thursday.

 

I wonder if it's going to be signed "PINOCCHIO"?

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

When bailiffs become involved there are hefty penalties to pay :D

 

Unfortunately not with the county court variety - unlike their certified cousins they are not allowed to pile on fees to line their own pockets.

 

It is possible they Lowlife sent a cheque to the court and they are waiting for this to clear - they are quite slow on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible they Lowlife sent a cheque to the court and they are waiting for this to clear - they are quite slow on this.

 

Rule 1: Never, EVER give them the benefit of the doubt !! :grin:

 

I know I'm preaching to the converted ! ;-)

 

Mrs Bailiff has contacted them 3 times:

 

Time 1: "We'll pay into the court by Thursday."

 

Time 2 (Over a week later): "Oh sorry, we promise a payment will be made into the court by the end of the week." (God, I wish there was a Pinocchio smiley)

 

Time 3 (Yesterday, over another week later): "We've paid the claimant direct, honest!"

 

I hope they have proof of posting !!! :lol:

 

HF

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...