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

[babybear39]

The ICO has it plain that OCs, CRAs and DCAs are JOINT data controllers!

[HighFly]

 

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

[sam614]

:)answered your pm.

 

SAM

[HighFly]

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

[sam614]

returned one back.

see what you think to that;)

 

oh happy days

SAM

[babybear39]

Sorry not to have got any media attention, they're all saying it's been 'done to death'

[noomill060]

Data Protection Act 1998

[jcbkabs]

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

[HighFly]

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

[jcbkabs]

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

[HighFly]

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

[jcbkabs]

hi have do that but not had any replies yet so thats why i've try posting it

[sam614]

Highfly

 

steve is back from holiday at weekend.left message for him to call me on monday;)

 

SAM

[HighFly]

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.

 

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 September 16, 2009 by HighFly

[noomill060]

[babybear39]

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.

 

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

[HighFly]

Or the CRA.....

 

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.

[HighFly]

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 September 21, 2009 by HighFly

[babybear39]

Can the court issue a warrant of execution like with an unpaid CCJ?

[HighFly]

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"?

[babybear39]

When bailiffs become involved there are hefty penalties to pay

[Old Cogger]

I wonder if as the banks a list of unpaid CCJ etc etc etc which are never finalised and paid by them???????

[spitfire650]

When bailiffs become involved there are hefty penalties to pay

 

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.

[HighFly]

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 !!!

 

HF

[babybear39]

Are they even on the same planet?