Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yea drop the 1st bit.   I would specifically mention what the letter was and a legal requirement under the consumer credit act 1974.   I think you had this in before but have left it out now. It brings weight to your claim.
    • Put very simply I believe I have the right to demand that either party return the money and am under no obligation to pursue solely the merchant. I presume the problem this creates for Lloyds - and is the reason they prefer to fight their customers as litigants in person - is that they will have to counter claim for the payment against Shell Energy. Obviously this creates a much bigger problem for them when too well funded legal departments have to battle it out.
    • With regards to paragraph 1, having re-read what I believe to be the relevant exemptions for data disclosure, being subject to a civil action is not one of them. In fact I think as it is written the legislature leans in the opposite direction to your suggestion. It indicates that data controllers may only restrict access to a data subject in order to avoid obstructing a legal enquiry. (I find it difficult to imagine such a scenario but it has clearly been considered as a possible one). If you believe you are aware of such an exemption it would be useful to provide the basis for this in a post that everyone can see.
    • I'm struggling with the wording of my statement then.   So far I got:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. ← do i need this? The Claimant wrote to the Defendant in August 2018 admitting they were unable to produce a copy of the Credit Agreement which they noted in paragraph 1 of their particulars of claim, and therefore the account they had on record was unenforceable, after the Defendant requested a copy. I have reason to believe the Claimant would only file a claim if the Defendant was unable to respond in order to win the judgment by default. The Claimant filed a claim using the Defendant’s previous address, and the Defendant was only made aware of the judgment after checking their credit file. The Claimant sent a letter dated 27 October 2021 to the Defendant’s current address only twelve (12) days after filing the claim to Defendant’s previous address therefore showing they were aware the Defendant had changed address.   Any tips?
    • I accept the point you have made in paragraph 2 and I am aware of the risks I will incur at any hearing. However the opposite side of the same argument is that Lloyds will have to claim they have no liability whatsovever as the card services provider in a scenario where clearly there was a breakdown of payment services between themselves and the merchant.   The Court may decide against me for not exhausting all options or it may accept that myself and this particular merchant are in dispute and there was no reasonable prospect to recover the money. Regardless of those options (which is exactly what I consider them to be options - not obligations), I am of the opinion Lloyds Bank is still liable as a card services provider and if I am successful it will have wide reaching implications on their policy of attempting to fob their customers off whenever they induce preventable mistakes and refuse to correct them.   To put it another way, if you have a dispute with an energy company you can use the Ombudsman Service, or you can forgo it and proceed to court. I have forgone my option of a section 75 claim and wish to hold Lloyds liable. I believe I am only afforded the option of a section 75 claim as a result of the Consumer Credit Act - although this could be an error on my part. And that banks prefer their customers to pursue merchants in full knowledge they are equally liable. After a lengthy discussion with HSBC regarding the same issue they attempted to fob me off with a similar excuse that I am subject the conditions of Master Card or Visa or whichever company it may be. They attempted to do this by simply referring me to a webpage that does not form any contractual agreement or present itself as terms and conditons to be accepted by me. I totally disagree with the positions of both banks, if I have entered into agreement and hold an account with Lloyds, I believe all my dealings are be conducted with them and whatever agreements they have with another payment service they intertwine with is a matter for them. My credit card agreement is with Lloyds not Master Card.   Both myself and Lloyds will be risking something if this proceeds to Court. I have accepted that and there are few causes worth pursuing that do not carry inherant risk.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

How long should agreement be kept?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4470 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts



I have a quick question. I have put in a request under Data Protection Act for a Subject Access Request to a company that offers rewards.


I signed up with them to collect points in 1992. Although the account is still in use they said that they no longer have the original agreement on their archive.


For clarity, they are not providing credit, I earn rewad points which I can redeem against items.


How long are they suppose to keep my original agreement for, given the account is still active?





Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

To paraphrase; the fifth principle of the DPA states that information should be retained for as long as it is useful for the purposes or purposes for which it was collected...basically this means the company should retain data for as long as need it or they want to.


I think your probably being overly optimistic in expecting them to keep original documents from 1992.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...