DeFault Notice re Cr Cd

[cerberusalert]

Send robbingscum this; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/574-letter-when-account-has-been-passed-on-whilst-agreement-request-is-in-dispute

[Guest]

update re dsar breach - relative complained and complaint was upheld with an apology and compensation, not at the higher level but it was accepted.

[cerberusalert]

That's what I like to hear.

[Guest]

That's what I like to hear.

 

thanks for your help in dealing with the dp a breach. thing is though, they didn't even have the decency to contact 'third party' about the matter! (despite them being made aware of their breach by me!). after a while, 'third party' then wrote and demanded an immediate apology and compensation. they obliged.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Ford

[cerberusalert]

after a while, 'third party' then wrote and demanded an immediate apology and compensation. they obliged.

That's because if the ico had become involved they could have been fined quite a significant some.

[Guest]

That's because if the ico had become involved they could have been fined quite a significant some.

 

i should've involved the ic o!

[cerberusalert]

Well it's not too late & it was a breach of the Data Protection Act. Of course if they offered you some form of inducement not to make a complaint that would be a different matter, particularly as they have admitted the information breach by paying compensation.

[Guest]

Well it's not too late & it was a breach of the Data Protection Act. Of course if they offered you some form of inducement not to make a complaint that would be a different matter, particularly as they have admitted the information breach by paying compensation.

 

interesting, thanks.

AFAIK there was no such 'inducement'.

they did admit the breach in writing also!

would the ic still be able to fine post 'resolution'?

Edited May 11, 2010 by Ford

[cerberusalert]

would the Information Commissioner still be able to fine post 'resolution'?

If a complaint is made yes as they have breached the Data Protection Act, that's why these people prefer to settle outside the scope of the ico. Also it goes against them when it comes to being re licensed with the FSA.

[Guest]

thanks, will consult TP. do you think i would be able to report the matter, or will TP have to do it.

[cerberusalert]

You can both do it, you for receiving someone else's data and TP for having their data illegally processed.

[Guest]

hi

 

have rec'd the usual stuff from oc/dca basically saying that there is no complaint, no dispute, no wrongdoing etc.

they have previously been advised dispute and generally that they have not complied with cca.

but, do you think i should spell out to them their failings re dn etc?

thanks.

[cerberusalert]

You need them to terminate the a/c or demand full payment before you accept their unlawful rescission.

[Guest]

You need them to terminate the a/c or demand full payment before you accept their unlawful rescission.

 

thanks. yes, they have previously formally demanded the full bal, and dca has also. and sar info shows alleged a/c as closed/ended. also, i did stop token payments after o/c formal demand for full bal.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Ford
typo

[cerberusalert]

You could send them a letter now accepting their 'unlawful rescission'.

[Guest]

thanks cerberusalert

[Guest]

cerberusalert

 

just wanted to double check dn

 

dn dated 21 aug 09 (friday)

remedy date says 'by 8 sep'.

but, statutory statement on dn states 'before the date shown' ie IF ACTION REQ'D BY NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN, NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION....IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQ'D....BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN FURTHER ACTION......

 

having seen other comments distinguishing between 'by' and 'before' re remedy date, what do you think? assuming they will say dn was posted on friday first class re affidavit, is the dn still short? is it contestable all the way? any thoughts appreciated!

(other dn defects are non compliance with schedule 2 10a and para 5b of the 1983 regs.)

 

many thanks

[cerberusalert]

If they state before the date shown then it supersedes the earlier statement of by the 8th... in effect changing the remedy date to the 7th.

 

Because the DN was dated a Fri it could not have entered the postal system until the Mon, weekends are not working days and the court assumes you receive it on the second working day after posting 1st class and the fourth working day if 2nd class, then you add 14 calendar days to remedy.

[Guest]

thanks

on dn they state 'you must pay us x amount by 8 sep'. then directly below this is the statutory required statement as above.

taking all of the 'defects' together then, do you think it is 'defendable' in ct? would you defend on this basis?

another point. i have a recorded tel conv (courtesy of sar) where they have told me to 'ignore' the dn! is this worth anything (was thinking of unreasonable/unfair conduct, particularly re my OP where i was told of a 'plan' that never materialised?)

thanks again.

[cerberusalert]

What postage was the DN?

[Guest]

not 100% sure! i think i have the envelope! i did phone them re dn (the tel rec above) on the thurs (27th), which infers that i would have received it on thurs at least.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Ford
correction re date/typo

[cerberusalert]

A court would assume that it was posted second class unless they could prove otherwise, in which case it would be assumed the remedy date would be 10th Sept which makes it 2 days short + the one day because you were told before the 8th = 3 days.

 

If it was posted first class the remedy time would be correct if it was the 8th but because they stated in the closing paragraph before the 8th it makes it one day short.

[Guest]

thanks

assuming then that a ct would go with the first class (if there is an affidavit accordingly) ie 1 day short, plus the other 'defects', do you think this would be defendable?

also, what do you think about what they told me on the phone re to ignore the dn?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ford
typo

[cerberusalert]

It's defendable on two counts... the time limit to remedy & because of it's amibuity in referring to two different remedy days.

what do you think about what they told me on the phone re to ignore the dn?

Did you tell them it was defective? If so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to issue a second compliant one. No matter, if they did it would be worthless as they've already terminated.

[Guest]

It's defendable on two counts... the time limit to remedy & because of it's amibuity in referring to two different remedy days.Did you tell them it was defective? No. at that time (last august, before my OP) i was complaining that i was told i was on a 'plan' and that i was previously told to ignore everything re arrears but that i had received a dn. he asked what the date was on the dn, i told him. he said there is no 'plan', and to ignore the dn, and that the FMU was dealing with it. i never heard anything from the FMU! If so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to issue a second compliant one. No matter, if they did it would be worthless as they've already terminated.

 

are the other 'defects' important/relevant IYO?

 

thanks again.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ford
typo