The Mbna Fan Club Thread

[Capricorn1601]

So do I, but those evil voices in my head get me into trouble!!!

[AA99]

:d:d

[alisindebt]

Oh Dear, why does the Experian man register and post here.

 

Let's rattle his cage again, here is my response to him, it's starting to sound like a long playing record! If he's reading this, he may as well reply here!

 

Thank you for your last email.

 

You refer to "Legitimate purposes", but all that you have reported leads to the conclusion that the data subject has to have given permission, or that there is an enforceable agreement in place. You have to operate under the law of the land, not guidance from a quango.

 

There has to be a legitimate reason to hold financial data and without a contract, there can be no legitimate reason. Why do courts instruct the removal of data, when a contract or agreement cannot be found. Why do credit companies seek the subject's approval on their forms, to report data about you if it is not required?

 

You also mention: "This is further supported in law by the case of Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England."

 

HOW? This does not show support you supposition.

 

Furthermore, you stated that, "The complaints maintain that the agencies only have permission to hold account information for the duration of a credit agreement and that once the agreement ends so does the consent to process information about it."

 

"The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case."

 

In fact, this IS the case, through the original creditor.

 

Moreover, you are factually inaccurate in claiming that, "For clarity, the individual who drafted the original template letters you quoted did not achieve the result you appear to be attempting to attain."

 

The result was that in the case to which you apparently refer, did actually achieve the result that they were attempting to attain. 2 backed down right away, the third also back down when an N1 was issued.

 

You also state that: I am fully aware of the case of Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and HFC Bank PLC but fail to see the relevance?

 

The case of Durkin held that a lender had a duty of care to investigate, in the event of a dispute, whether or not information supplied by the customer was correct in relation to a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under Section 12 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This was in relation to a dispute between the debtor and supplier."

 

The relevance is that this refers to where there was an agreement in force.

 

Please remove the unlawful entries from my account.

 

I look forward to your due diligence in this matter.

[pompeyfaith]

Alisindebt, good work oh and the CRA response smacks of them being very worried indeed the sooner action is taken against these bandits at the highest level the better they should be taking step to put right their wrongs not trying to defend as that only serves to make there hole a bigger one

[vint1954]

Let's rattle his cage again, here is my response to him, it's starting to sound like a long playing record! If he's reading this, he may as well reply here!

 

Thank you for your last email.

 

You refer to "Legitimate purposes", but all that you have reported leads to the conclusion that the data subject has to have given permission to the Original Creditor, or that there is an enforceable agreement in place. You have to operate under the law of the land, not guidance from a Regulatory body.

 

There has to be a legitimate reason to hold financial data and without a contract, there can be no legitimate reason. Why do courts instruct the removal of data, when an enforcable contract or agreement cannot be found. Why do credit companies seek the subject's approval on their forms, to report data about you if it is not required?

 

You also mention: "This is further supported in law by the case of Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England."

 

HOW? This does not show support you supposition.

 

Furthermore, you stated that, "The complaints maintain that the agencies only have permission to hold account information for the duration of a credit agreement and that once the agreement ends so does the consent to process information about it."

 

"The complainants’ argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case."

 

In fact, this IS the case, through the original creditor.

 

Moreover, you are factually inaccurate in claiming that, "For clarity, the individual who drafted the original template letters you quoted did not achieve the result you appear to be attempting to attain."

 

The result was that in the case to which you apparently refer, did actually achieve the result that they were attempting to attain. 2 backed down right away, the third also back down when an N1 was issued.

 

You also state that: I am fully aware of the case of Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and HFC Bank PLC but fail to see the relevance?

 

The case of Durkin held that a lender had a duty of care to investigate, in the event of a dispute, whether or not information supplied by the customer was correct in relation to a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under Section 12 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This was in relation to a dispute between the debtor and supplier."

 

The relevance is that this refers to where there was an agreement in force and its enforcability was not contested.

 

Please remove the unlawful entries from my account.

 

I look forward to your due diligence in this matter.

Vint

[alisindebt]

Vint

 

OK, next step.

 

 

The problem is that, irrespective of the law, these people just send out automated letters. This is what they sent me yesterday:

 

Further to your email of today, we reiterate our comments of our letter of 1st September 2009.

 

Closure of the account has been requested and we can confirm that no further action will be taken by us with regards to this matter.

 

We hope this clarifies matters.

OK,fine, but the matter is still recorded on the CRA files.

 

They will use techniques like this to skirt around the issue.

 

I have checked over many threads here and the system is always the same. They just fob people off with standard letters.

 

I have written to MPs about this and also regulatory bodies.

 

None of them seem to get a grip with the problem, nor do anything about it.

 

In turn, it allows the DCAs to go about their abusive business unchallenged.

 

What sort of society are we living in where this sort of abuse goes unchecked?

 

I guess the only way out of this would be for me to go to court on my own

[egg-sterminator]

OK, next step.

 

 

The problem is that, irrespective of the law, these people just send out automated letters. This is what they sent me yesterday:

Further to your email of today, we reiterate our comments of our letter of 1st September 2009.

 

Closure of the account has been requested and we can confirm that no further action will be taken by us with regards to this matter.

 

We hope this clarifies matters.

OK,fine, but the matter is still recorded on the CRA files.

 

They will use techniques like this to skirt around the issue.

 

I have checked over many threads here and the system is always the same. They just fob people off with standard letters.

 

I have written to MPs about this and also regulatory bodies.

 

None of them seem to get a grip with the problem, nor do anything about it.

 

In turn, it allows the DCAs to go about their abusive business unchallenged.

 

What sort of society are we living in where this sort of abuse goes unchecked?

 

I guess the only way out of this would be for me to go to court on my own

Isn't there a new "class action law" coming out of europe soon ? and AIID your not alone . Best case senario they wouldn't want to risk a case going against them so would likey fold . Also how about if the original DN was unlawful and the account terminated . Would that make the information held incorrect and as account terminated they had removed their right to process your Data at that point ? Not to mention of course a CCA which doesn't exist !

[alisindebt]

Isn't there a new "class action law" coming out of europe soon ? and AIID your not alone . Best case senario they wouldn't want to risk a case going against them so would likey fold . Also how about if the original DN was unlawful and the account terminated . Would that make the information held incorrect and as account terminated they had removed their right to process your Data at that point ? Not to mention of course a CCA which doesn't exist !

 

Not sure about the class action thing but certainly I agree with your other points. However, Lowell's say that they will not remove the DRA entry. Even Experian are on the side of Lowell's (what an incestuous industry this is!). They keep bullsh**ng about not needing a signed contract, etc.

 

Anyway, I have reported it to the ICO and they are invetsgating it. Maybe they are also in that same bed?

[egg-sterminator]

Not sure about the class action thing but certainly I agree with your other points. However, Lowell's say that they will not remove the DRA entry. Even Experian are on the side of Lowell's (what an incestuous industry this is!). They keep bullsh**ng about not needing a signed contract, etc.

 

Anyway, I have reported it to the ICO and they are invetsgating it. Maybe they are also in that same bed?

The class action was mentioned by someone this morning in a bank charges thread will try to gather more info . I think you said before in one of your posts the court route may be the only way . Be interesting to see if a solicitor would take this on in a conditional fee arrangement would at least give indication as to likelyhood of success ?

[alisindebt]

The class action was mentioned by someone this morning in a bank charges thread will try to gather more info . I think you said before in one of your posts the court route may be the only way . Be interesting to see if a solicitor would take this on in a conditional fee arrangement would at least give indication as to likelyhood of success ?

 

Thee problem in all of this is that I live and work abroad, have done for several years. I was just trying to clan up my credit file. It will be clean in around 18 months as the defaults were several years ago.

 

These jokers don't give up without a fight, but I challenged them for years and had the 10500 quid wiped out.

 

I have made a donation to this site for thanks in helping me write off the debt.

 

the least that i can do in terms of helping back is to try and get the CRA files cleaned up. It is with the ICO at the moment.

 

I will let you know what happens.

[AA99]

Al, have been following your posts for a while now;) You are I think fortunate to be living abroad, and I understand that your gripe is with clearing your credit record.... I actually don't bother too much with that and I think, in the near future, nobody should be either!

[alisindebt]

Al, have been following your posts for a while now;) You are I think fortunate to be living abroad, and I understand that your gripe is with clearing your credit record.... I actually don't bother too much with that and I think, in the near future, nobody should be either!

 

I think you are right. I suppose after the euphoria of getting the debts wiped clean, I got carried away with seeing how far i could push the system. However, I hope the information was of use to some readers, especially in my earlier threads as i battled to get CCAs, then found that one had been lost, another account was closed when i pointed out a prior dispute with the OC, etc and eventually I managed t write off the debts. But thanks for the advise, yes, the only outstanding issue is that the CRA stuff is with the ICO people now and and i will do one last report to let you all know the outcome once I get a response.

[alisindebt]

I think you are right. I suppose after the euphoria of getting the debts wiped clean, I got carried away with seeing how far i could push the system. However, I hope the information was of use to some readers, especially in my earlier threads as i battled to get CCAs, then found that one had been lost, another account was closed when i pointed out a prior dispute with the OC, etc and eventually I managed t write off the debts. But thanks for the advise, yes, the only outstanding issue is that the CRA stuff is with the ICO people now and and i will do one last report to let you all know the outcome once I get a response.

 

Actually, by way of feedback, I report as follows. My accounts defaulted in 2005 and were registered as such with the CRAs such as Experian.

 

Today, I checked my references and note that, mysteriously, the default dates have all changed to August 2009! This must be my punishment for daring to write off the debts but also for daring to change my credit file.

 

Clearly, the banks and DCAs are in a very cosy bed with the CRAs.

[egg-sterminator]

Actually, by way of feedback, I report as follows. My accounts defaulted in 2005 and were registered as such with the CRAs such as Experian.

 

Today, I checked my references and note that, mysteriously, the default dates have all changed to August 2009! This must be my punishment for daring to write off the debts but also for daring to change my credit file.

 

Clearly, the banks and DCAs are in a very cosy bed with the CRAs.

Hi Alisin [ a warmer place than here ] as i understood it you could only be defaulted once for an account ? after all is a DN not for breach of original agreement . Once DN given and full amount demanded you havn't a regular payment or an agrement to breach ?

Can you SAR the cra's and DCA'S / OC's or even 31.16 them . Of course they know your not in UK to fight your corner . Perhaps after case is together you could nominate someone to fight your corner in court a family member or maybe a cagger would be willing . If its even allowed ?

[alisindebt]

Hi Alisin [ a warmer place than here ] as i understood it you could only be defaulted once for an account ? after all is a DN not for breach of original agreement . Once DN given and full amount demanded you havn't a regular payment or an agrement to breach ?

Can you SAR the cra's and DCA'S / OC's or even 31.16 them . Of course they know your not in UK to fight your corner . Perhaps after case is together you could nominate someone to fight your corner in court a family member or maybe a cagger would be willing . If its even allowed ?

 

OK, I need to make a correction here. When I went on the Experian site today, it was partly down for some maintenance, which is where I got the earlier figures from. When it was back up, the system then changed to the original default dates of 2005, and the entries for August 2009 are just updates. Therefore in around 18 months the 6 year mark is reached and the entries will be removed.

 

By the way it's winter here also, but not quite as cold as the UK!

[egg-sterminator]

OK, I need to make a correction here. When I went on the Experian site today, it was partly down for some maintenance, which is where I got the earlier figures from. When it was back up, the system then changed to the original default dates of 2005, and the entries for August 2009 are just updates. Therefore in around 18 months the 6 year mark is reached and the entries will be removed.

 

By the way it's winter here also, but not quite as cold as the UK!

Knew i should have paid more attention in geography

[vint1954]

Actually, by way of feedback, I report as follows. My accounts defaulted in 2005 and were registered as such with the CRAs such as Experian.

 

Today, I checked my references and note that, mysteriously, the default dates have all changed to August 2009! This must be my punishment for daring to write off the debts but also for daring to change my credit file.

 

Clearly, the banks and DCAs are in a very cosy bed with the CRAs.

They cannot do that. Once the Default is on the CRA, all that they can do is update it. The 6 years runs from 2005.

[AA99]