Vodafone - Default removal + distress claim ***WON***

[un1boy]

lol

[dayglo]

be careful!

[Netyard]

Ive sent off letter to have original default notices sent to me from Vodaphone I just hope they have lost them

[dayglo]

Vodafone are not covered by the CCA.

 

They are not required to send you copies of default notices. This is not the way to go after default removal with vodafone.

 

The full vodafone story (amongst other bits and pieces) can be found in my life back thread here

 

p.s. might be better if you start your own thread somewhere.

[Guest ian cognito]

Vodafone are not covered by the CCA.

 

This is true, but they still sent me copies of the default notices when I asked for them.

[dayglo]

ok fair enough - my point was that they are not required to and if they don't there is nothing you can do about it.

[jononi-exchange]

can you give me a copy of POC for vodafone, I need to issue a claim against O2 and T-Mobile.

 

Thank you

[chelskiboy]

Hi, I've suffered an incorrect credit default by M&S money recently. They have promised that they will remove this from my file with credit reference agencies. Is there a way of claiming compensation for missing out on mortgage deals, zero percent credit card transfer rates and also stress?

[networkrail]

Ffocus Have you had your Cheque yet?

 

I'm having the same problem with Vodafone at the moment.

 

Nwr

[chelskiboy]

did you get any compensation? i've had my default removed, but have suffered loss and stress!

[oldrectory]

Hi,

 

I have a similar situation to you.

 

The main difference is that I did tell them of a change of address and they didn't action it - I went into the Vodafone branch and supplied them and then nothing! In a phone call with Vodafone they admitted that the computer system had not updated the correspondence part of the address. I was told over the phone that they had now changed the address - but still nothing!

 

I owe them approx £500.

 

They sent the matter to Moorcroft - who I sent a long letter to (twice) explaining that they had to send the mater back to Vodafone as they hadn't changed the address so this situation was there fault - also requestd the default be removed.

 

Didn't hear anything for 4 months and then get phone calls from Fredrickson International. Have told them to go away as this matter is in Disupte.

 

Have sent original letter to Vodafone directly, asking for default to be removed, any charges to be removed and allow me to pay the outstanding balance over a reasonable amount of time.

 

Can I use the method shown to get the default removed?

 

As far as I am concerned, I provided them with the information of my change of address and they didn't process it properly - so the fact I didn;t get bills etc is THEIR fault!

 

Any advice greatfully received!

 

I am awaiting reply from Vodafone.

 

Here is the letter I sent to Moorcroft and now subsequently to Vodafone:

It is with surprise that I find myself writing to you with regard to the above reference and the letter I received from you on 17h May 2008. I note that although your letter is communicating some very important information, you have sent it via 2nd class post. This, of course, gives me less than a week to respond and might suggest you revisit your policy on postage.

 

After taking some advice, I am using this opportunity to place this matter ‘In Dispute’. In doing so, you must not take any further action until this matter is resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. If you ignore this, I will have no choice other than to take further legal advice and act appropriately.

 

The main reason for placing this matter in dispute is that this is the first correspondence regarding my account with Vodafone that I have received at this address since moving here in December 2006. This means I have not received any bills, reminders or defaults from Vodafone, which means I have not been given a fair opportunity to act on any bill or letters from them.

 

I moved to my current address over 18 months ago. When I moved in I went into the Vodafone shop in ******* to inform them of my new address and to obtain a new SIM card. Having now received your letter 18 months after this and it being the only letter received regarding Vodafone, I can only assume that the change of address was not actioned at the time. Under the conditions of my account with Vodafone, I did as required by contacting them and providing up to date details. I am NOT responsible for Vodafone not taking action to update my account.

 

Under these circumstances, any default and your subsequent ‘intended litigation’ cannot be actioned and are no longer valid. If Vodafone have issued a Default Notice to the wrong address when they were aware of my new address, then the Default Notice is no longer valid.

 

I, therefore, expect the following to take place:

 

• My account must be returned to Vodafone

• Any default that might have been issued must be revoked and the account reclassified as upto date with any Credit Reference Agencies

• Any charges that have been applied to the account must be refunded

• I am provided with a copy of any bills that were send to me since December 2006

• I have to be given the opportunity to pay off the account under fair conditions

 

Please do not under estimate the fact that I have taken some legal advice and that I am well aware of both my own rights and your and Vodafone’s s responsibilities.

 

I remind you of the fact that I have placed this matter ‘In Dispute’.

[shumail]

My Address

 

 

My Address

My Address

My Address

Vodafone House

The Connection

Newbury

Berkshire

RG14 2FN

England

Date 15/08/06

“Previous” Single point customer

Account No. ********

Defaults dated Oct and Nov 2003 – Defaults x 2

 

Dear Sir or Madam (the Data Controller)

 

 

I don’t believe you understood my first letter (dated 24/07/06 – Your ref *********)

You’re 21 days are now up. Do to the nature of this request I will now grant you with a further 10 days to complete my request before I take this up with court action which will result in yourselves defaulting and I will make sure the public are aware of this case.

 

People do not deserve this and it is wrong of you to continue doing so.

 

I am seeking financial compensation due to “increased interest rates” to the effect of £1689.45. This is based on debt I have had and still have which I am paying much higher interest rates on when I shouldn’t be, since you have been supplying credit agencies with my details after our contract ended.

 

I also require financial compensation due to the distress this has caused me over the past two and a half years. I request that you pay a fair amount on each account:-

Distress for trying to get a mortgage £400

Distress for trying to take out loans £400

Distress for renewing credit cards £400

Time spent investigating this matter 20 hours @ £10 per hour £200

Distress on not buying my own house 2 years ago due to £Priceless

the extortionate interest rates I was being quoted due to

the defaults you have against me.

 

Therefore I request you pay me the full/fair amount* of £3089.45 within 10 days or will be taking court action followed by a very public announcement.

Interest will be accrued at a rate of 8%. This equates to £0.68 per day.

 

*Please note – Priceless – I have not added anything here but will if it goes to court.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

*****

15th August 2006

 

 

 

Below: Extra notes for your information.

 

I understand that you continue to supply to third parties data related to accounts to which have been applied by you on the instructions of the relevant companies default markers. By defaulting an account the existing contract for that account is terminated and therefore my permission for the processing of my personal data to be supplied to and processed by you is also terminated.

 

You, the Data Controller are retaining and processing data (whether or not this is a simple renewal process of the default flags, daily or other timed factor) after the cancellation of the relevant contracts. As those contracts are no longer in situ, then my written permission has also ceased from the date of cancellation of contracts.

 

The contracts, that I signed, only gave you permission for you to process data during the term of those contracts. They neither included any other permission, nor did they imply that your perceived 'rights' to process my data would be in perpetuity. There was certainly no clause contained within the contracts that stated that you had any arbitrary right to continuing processing data for up to six years after the ending of the contracts.

 

I also believe it to be unfair for any contract to contain a clause allowing companies to register my payment history as there is no reciprocal mechanism for me to be able to equally record any breaches of contract by you. If one refers to clause (o) of Schedule 2 of the UTCC Regulations it is stated that a term would be considered unfair, if it 'obliges the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his'. Therefore, I contend that your clause demanding my permission to disclose personal data is, in effect, an unfair term, and is therefore null and void.

 

Furthermore, I believe that the potential argument that it is in the "public interest" to retain such data to assist other companies in deciding whether I am a future risk is unsupportable. It is most evident that I am not a financial risk to the nation, having not accrued a CIFAS or GAIN marker, nor is this credit file of vital public interest to protect the nation's stability. There is enough other data and information about me, e.g. my home-owner status, my marital and dependant status and my employment status for future lenders to ascertain my risk rating. Unless you are prepared to disclose the mechanics of how your risk calculation is composed, you cannot prove that historic default markers on defunct accounts have a considerable bearing, or are a major factor, in the whole calculation.

 

As such, you had, by statute, twenty-one days in which to either comply with my request, or give written notice stating your reasons and why you consider the notice unjustified. You have already not responded in a non- compliance manure. Any failure on your part to adhere to these timescales will automatically result in your non-compliance with the statutory procedure. In that case, you will be expected to unconditionally comply with my Statutory Notice or I shall refer the matter to the Courts to ask for an Order to that effect. Should it be necessary to refer the matter to the Courts, then I shall also apply for Court fees and costs against you. This will also lead to a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office as to your suitability to hold a Data Protection licence for you are clearly holding data that is no longer relevant to the accounts, the account information provider or the data subject, and is being held after a contract has been terminated, by whatever means, whether by default or cancellation.

 

Statutory Notice pursuant to Section 10 of

The Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Data Controller:

Data Subject:

Address:

 

Whereas I have been the customer of yours and whereas I consented in my contracts with you to the disclosure by you of certain data, at no time did I consent and neither was it within the contemplation of the parties to the contracts that I did consent to the processing by you of that data in any manner which would be unfair or inaccurate or which in any way would breach The Data Protection Act 1998.

 

All contracts between myself and you have been terminated, indicated by the default status applied by you at your sole discretion. My permission for you to control and process data terminated with the cessation of that contract and you have no longer have my permission in respect of process my personal data related in any way, including but not limited to, supplying my personal data to third parties, updating your own records and or making decisions thereon.

 

Therefore, take notice that I require that you cease from processing within seven days of the receipt by you of this notice or else that you do not begin to process any personal data related to the former contract of which I am the subject insofar as that processing involves the collation, storage, processing, communication or passing of personal data of which I am the subject to any third party.

 

This Notice is served on the grounds that the processing, or continued processing,or disclosure by you of the said data will be likely to affect my credit rating and my reputation and cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to me and my family members in addition to that which has been caused to date. And that as the processing of the said data in the way referred to in this notice would violate the fourth, first and sixth principles of The Data Protection Act 1998 to do so would be unwarranted.

 

These rights are contained in section 13 of the Act.

 

If an individual has only suffered distress, compensation is not available unless the processing of the personal data is for the “special purposes” which means processing for artistic, literary or journalistic purposes.

 

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

 

 

Have a look here at the letter im about to send to vodafone. Any comments welcome. Will post tomorrow morning. :grin:

 

HI! can you please provide me with the letter to the reply you this letter please?

i have had a default placed on my name since 2004 and no one at vodafone gets in touch with me

please help!!! its causing me alot of problems

[jeccapf]

Well! Hello guys! I have exactly the same problem with 3g and have been trying to get some idea of how to proceed for a while now, and then I accidentally fell upon this thread, so what I want to know is: where can I get hold of those template letters? I heard about a barrister who had the same problem and took the company to court to get the default removed but I didnt make a note of his name so cant find his case, any ideas??

[buzby]

No such thing as a 'template letter' as because these accounts are not regulated, the only process of appeal is if the default is incorrect or otherwise wrong.

 

As for changing an address and then being put into default - again, it is the consumer that remains in the wrong. Incompetence on the part of the networks is allowed, and, since the customer knows he owes monry, this repains his duty to pay it - not sit in ignorance by saying if they don't ask they don't get.

 

As for the story about a barrister - this was on TV, howevr it was a small claims action and it went undefended by Orange, so it was cheaperr for Orange simply to remove the default, that reopen the case and fight it.

[jeccapf]

yes I think the barrister that sued was on TV, but at that time I wasnt paying much attention. In my case, the 3G equipment could not get a signal so I returned it to the shop arguing not fit for purpose and the shop accepted it back, so, the default is actually wrong in my case, I didnt default on the contract, they breached it so I'm thinking there must be a way to get it removed.

[buzby]

It all hinges on your idea of 'acceptance'.

 

How can they (the network) be in 'breach of contract' when said contract actually provides explicit rejection of any service guarantees for network coverage? The phone, not being fit for purpose Is covered by SOGA, but the network inability for providing coverage is not. This means a breach of contract accusation is dead in the water.

 

To get out of this, you would onl need a receipt or other documentation from the shop proving that the handset had been accepted for return (which would have to have usually been done within 14 days of the contract being entered into). Although this is not referred to in the contract itself, this waiver is normally given to provide a get-out in situations such as yours. However, if this all happened more than 14 days after obtaining the handset, then the shop could not cancel the contract, and, presumably, it was left there for you to collect your property.

 

Without verifiable proof your phone was accepted back, proving it will be virtually impossible, especially as (when you think about it) we could all attempt to get out of legally binding contracts by saying thephone was handed back to the retailer - either by hand or stuffed through their letterbox.

 

Just because someone claims they never used the handset for some unproved assertion regarding usage, is not enough to have a default erased from their credit file. Proof of return, AND their agreement to cancel or waive the contract is required.

[jeccapf]

I get your point re the phone, but how do you address the point that the act is the sale of goods AND SERVICES and I was sold the equipment on the basis that I could use the services of a 3G sim - specifically that I was sold it for use at home and assured that there was a strong signal there, (so misold) a further independent test showed that the signal was infact pretty much non existent. your arguments are well informed and helpful, I would welcome your opinion of my situation taking into consideration the mis-selling of the service with the phone.

[jeccapf]

Oh yes, and just so you have all the facts, they did acknowledge in writing that the contract would be cancelled after I returned the goods to the shop.

[buzby]

I get your point re the phone, but how do you address the point that the act is the sale of goods AND SERVICES and I was sold the equipment on the basis that I could use the services of a 3G sim - specifically that I was sold it for use at home and assured that there was a strong signal there, (so misold) a further independent test showed that the signal was infact pretty much non existent. your arguments are well informed and helpful, I would welcome your opinion of my situation taking into consideration the mis-selling of the service with the phone.

 

Because contract law takes precedence your otherwise non-specific right under SOGA. Your 'services' are supplied under a defined contract and therefor do not fall under the SOGA.

 

Moving on - how could you have been 'missold' your contract on the basis of coverage, when this is not a requirement or consideration of mobile service. The coverage maps only show out-of-building coverage and are covered vy a clause that states they are computer predictions and subject to error. You are then given 14 days to discover if the phone will meet your needs in this respect (some phones are more sensitive than others, makng the difference between acceptable coverage and no signal). An argument of misselling would be laughed at, mis-buying... well, that I would accept. Purchasers actually share the responsibility, as if there are problems identified, they have a short time it which to seek redress and compromise.

 

Now, if the shop accepted thephone back and there is evidence of this - great. The is no contract breach unless you did not pay for any calls or additional services consumed whilst you were using the phone for the additional period. If this is the case, then it should e paid and the matter closed.

[jeccapf]

so, you disagree with the original data protection at close of contract argument and that the phone is not fit for purpose (I disagree with that by the way, but never mind) and the service isnt covered by SOGAS so just out of interest, how would you proceed with this?

 

In my case actually, I returned the phone within 14 days and of course they didnt want to take it (do they ever?) but I was bolshy and insisted and they accepted it so they cancelled the contract in writing - then applied the default to my file.

 

I think that probably gives me a case but my point is, what if I'd been the normal polite member of the public that had been fobbed off within the 14 days and then lumped with useless equipment and a default, what would I do then?

 

I know I almost had to start a riot in returning my equipment and cancelling the contract, but I know there are people out there particuarly polite jo public that may not actually have immediately appreciated the consequences of the 14 days rule (forget for the moment whether they SHOULD realise - I know ignorance is no excuse, but in truth many people end up in these contracts because they DONT realise), so they try to return the goods but to avoid a public conflict in the shop they keep the equipment and try again - even believing that its them not the lousy service of the company that causes the phone not to work,

 

Only after the 14 days does our theoretical person realise that they were paying for an albatros and that they are now tied into the contract for the next 18 months (which is why these companies make it difficult to return things)

 

In my view, the requirement to pay for a service they are not able to receive for 18 months or face defaults on their files is just as unjustifiable as my having a default on mine. So if you were advising one of them, how would they proceed? (say that the default - and here its actually 2 defaults because it was a phone and dongle has a devastating effect on their credit rating.)

 

what can our theoretical jo-public do to get some justice?

[buzby]

so, you disagree with the original data protection at close of contract argument and that the phone is not fit for purpose (I disagree with that by the way, but never mind) and the service isnt covered by SOGAS so just out of interest, how would you proceed with this?

 

The DPA caveat has been addressed - the customer needs to opt out of the disclosure provisions to have any success of enforcing the desired action. The issued concerning the 'misuse' of data subsequent to the cancellation of the contract can make an interesting philosophical debate, but unless the network blinks, the consumer will have to take on this battle with no guarantee of success. For the record, I think ALL such disclosures have worked against the consumer, as it usurps the benefits of the court system, and you are handed a CCJ equivalent, that is held in much the same awe (by the CRA's and lenders), the the punter has limited routes of appeal to restore their good name. As far as the ICO is concerned, if it is accurate - it stays for the permitted period.

 

In my case actually, I returned the phone within 14 days and of course they didnt want to take it (do they ever?) but I was bolshy and insisted and they accepted it so they cancelled the contract in writing - then applied the default to my file.

 

This is clearly a failing of the retailer, who have not followed through to cancel the contract 'properly' (whatever or however, that is done). As you have the tools to prove the contract was cancelled, and you were unencumbered, they are on very shaky ground by showing this misinformation.

 

What if I'd been the normal polite member of the public that had been fobbed off within the 14 days and then lumped with useless equipment and a default, what would I do them?

 

Take a fall? Learn from the experience? Remember that accepting a contract that binds when you could have easily taken a PAYG option and not even had second thoughts about the issues' thst befall those that find themselves stuck with a product that does not address their needs. There are a lot of us in this situation, why should mobile phone users be any different?

 

In my view, the requirement to pay for a service they are not able to receive for 18 months or face defaults on their files is just as unjustifiable as my having a default on mine. So if you were advising one of them, how would they proceed? (say that the default - and here its actually 2 defaults because it was a phone and dongle has a devastating effect on their credit rating.)

 

You are certainly entitled to your view, and I'm broadly sympathetic to it. However, this is a harsh world and those that do not stand d up will be victims, it has always been this way and short of extending the 'nanny state' we're stuck with it.

 

what can our theoretical jo-public do to get some justice?

 

Ah - but whose justice? The network has spent millions developing a system that gives (say) 80% of the people exactly what it says on the tin. Others, will wish to defraud the network from equipment or services to make money by selling kit on the web to make money for drugs. Or had a genuine reason for not being able to continue with the contract, family circumstances, job prospects or whatever. Normally, a network may take the pragmatic view and say 'if we're understanding' they'll come back to us when the emergency is over - but this doesn't happen, folk will crow about being 'let off' and if you let off A why not B or C or even D?

 

We're reaping the benefits of our own greed and avarice, with the networks clamping down on sob stories, and even death isn't enough to end a contract on a no-fault basis. It remains a liability with the amount left to pay as a call on the assets of the estate.

 

Would I be prepared to put up with any of this for something as fickle as a £10 mobile phone? Too right I wouldn't. If more people did the same, this industry wouldn't be as hard-faced as it is at the moment,

[jeccapf]

The DPA caveat has been addressed - the customer needs to opt out of the disclosure provisions to have any success of enforcing the desired action. The issued concerning the 'misuse' of data subsequent to the cancellation of the contract can make an interesting philosophical debate, but unless the network blinks, the consumer will have to take on this battle with no guarantee of success. For the record, I think ALL such disclosures have worked against the consumer, as it usurps the benefits of the court system, and you are handed a CCJ equivalent, that is held in much the same awe (by the CRA's and lenders), the the punter has limited routes of appeal to restore their good name. As far as the ICO is concerned, if it is accurate - it stays for the permitted period.

 

Sooooo, you would or would not go the 'misuse of data after end of contract route?'

 

see I think not having that argument doesnt allow the punter any form of answer to the charges against their good name - and that cannot be correct - there MUST be a form of redress. My reading of the DPA is that is exactly why the rules only apply to information in the public domain - those ordered by a court so both parties had their say and it was fairly adjudicated.

 

The CRA's say that they allow notices of disputes - but that doesnt remove the black mark it just points out that the subject has something to say about it (and very often thats left at "the subject disputes this" without the sometimes complicated arguments that make up the dispute - and from a lenders point of view, well they would say that wouldnt they?

In my case, I think I have a good chance - but it would concern me had I been the polite and non adversarial person that my mother wishes I had grown up to be and that those 'good manners' had landed me with a 6 year black mark.

 

For my part, I think that the DPA argument could stand up, I'd love to know if anyone has tried it and got as far as a court hearing! (anyone else want to join this conversation?) It is, it must be said, very interesting.

 

There are a lot of us in this situation, why should mobile phone users be any different?

 

thats the wrong question, why should ANY of us be in this situation?

 

Ah - but whose justice? The network has spent millions developing a system that gives (say) 80% of the people exactly what it says on the tin. Others, will wish to defraud the network from equipment or services to make money by selling kit on the web to make money for drugs. Or had a genuine reason for not being able to continue with the contract, family circumstances, job prospects or whatever. Normally, a network may take the pragmatic view and say 'if we're understanding' they'll come back to us when the emergency is over - but this doesn't happen, folk will crow about being 'let off' and if you let off A why not B or C or even D?

 

I think the beauty of our court system is that the fraud cases that you mention are weeded out in the process, surely the genuine cases will get to the end and be found worthy, if A is a fraudster then he shouldnt be judged in the same way as B who is our theoretical Joe public and A shouldnt be denied redress because the there are B's and C's out there. Thats like the disabled Olympics thing - punish the innocent because there are a few guilty idiots out there.

 

We're reaping the benefits of our own greed and avarice, with the networks clamping down on sob stories, and even death isn't enough to end a contract on a no-fault basis. It remains a liability with the amount left to pay as a call on the assets of the estate.

 

But to be fair, I probably wouldnt care about a bad credit rating if I was dead and actually, depending on the contract, many things do actually end with death - at least, I havent heard of a mobile phone company that has chased the estate of the deceased for payment of a personal mobile phone contract.

 

Would I be prepared to put up with any of this for something as fickle as a £10 mobile phone? Too right I wouldn't. If more people did the same, this industry wouldn't be as hard-faced as it is at the moment,

 

So - if it happened to you - and following our conversations I accept that it probably wouldnt - but if it did - how would you begin to proceed?

[jeccapf]

see now, I posted that wrong - mixed up referencing your quote and my answers, sorry, still finding my way around the system.

[buzby]

Getting difficult to follow, but here goes;

 

No - I wouldn't accept the 'processing' argument as being possible to have a successful challenge. The punter has already explicitly agreed to the release of the information, and the adverse data and subsequent processing could easily be supported as being part of the original transaction/agreement. This will always be the case until we can have case law that specifically outlaws it.

 

Notices of Dispute is a kludge. It is not referred to by the online scoring systems, and has been put in place simply to make those who feel aggrieved fell something has been done to address their issues/ However it is an illusion, and offers no real practical advantage.

 

It is only an issue for mobile phone users, because they are in the majority of taking out a contract, it is their choice to be bound by its terms - so lets not go down the route of it is unavoidable, there is always a choice - which is more than can be said for fixed telecom or broadband or even energy suppliers who don't offer PAYG tariffs with no lock-in, or 'grassing up' to CRA's.

 

Sadly, you are mistaken when you say the courts system weeds out the frauds. It doesn't. The practice is to learn and reject, putting in protocols to identify and prevent repetition. Why bother taking a legitimate ex-customer to court when they can trash their credit file for the debt, then sell it on to someone else for less money? If there was no market for reselling debt (as a vertical industry), we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

My solution? DO NOT ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT if you do not have to. If you cannot avoid it, ensure your credit file cannot be modified by the supplier. If only there was a way for consumers to do likewise to the firms that shaft them, and it can hit THEM where it hurts, will balance be restored, but I don't see this coming anytime soon.

[fuzzyfuzzy]

My solution? DO NOT ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT if you do not have to. If you cannot avoid it, ensure your credit file cannot be modified by the supplier. If only there was a way for consumers to do likewise to the firms that shaft them, and it can hit THEM where it hurts, will balance be restored, but I don't see this coming anytime soon.

 

im interested in this. would this be as simple as crossing off this part of the t&c's and hoping they dont notice or care? i presume they wouldnt negotiate on this?

 

how would i go about taking out a contract without this clause?