Default Removal - katenandpete v HSBC **WON**

[jo5ephedward5]

so if the account is closed they have to remove all payment history from your credit file?

 

this doesnt sound right to me...(or am i reading this all wrong?)

[kateandpete]

so if the account is closed they have to remove all payment history from your credit file?

 

this doesnt sound right to me...(or am i reading this all wrong?)

Read the "Default Hell" thread for your enlightenment and the sticky thread in this forum. Thanks to some research by dedicated members, we believe this to be exactly the case. There has been no test case, but all the arguments seem watertight to me.

 

From other threads there are quite a few of us in the same boat here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/25668-curious-twist-two-cca.html

specifically.

 

Looks like we've got them by the short and curlies.

[kateandpete]

Ok, after a lot of fretting including waking in the night and redrafting the covering letter, I have sent a s.10 / s.12 statutory notice to HSBC along with a covering letter to HSBC. The covering letter was closely based on surlybonds one, but I altered quite a few bits to fit my exact circumstances. I cc'd the entire lot to the "Three Stooges" aswell (Experian, Equifax and MyCallCredit).

[jo5ephedward5]

Read the "Default Hell" thread for your enlightenment and the sticky thread in this forum. Thanks to some research by dedicated members, we believe this to be exactly the case. There has been no test case, but all the arguments seem watertight to me.

 

From other threads there are quite a few of us in the same boat here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/25668-curious-twist-two-cca.html

specifically.

 

Looks like we've got them by the short and curlies.

 

I have read that thread with great interest but as far as i see it they were sharing the data when the account was active and now the account is closed they are not sharing it - its already there...so long as they dont add to it they arent doning anything wrong - althought the credit reference agencies maybe by holding this information?

 

I'll just shut up now lol

[mcfadwmc]

sorry to jump on this thread but i'm going through the same process.

i've spoken to each of the credit reference agencies and they've told me that the only data they show is supplied each Day/Month/Period by the company in question. They all assured me that there was no data held on file unless the company in question gave it to them each month/period etc..

I've currently in dispute with a car company that keeps changing the information on credit reference files, so i SAR'd the CRA's and they could only provide me with current info and not past info as they don't hold it.

This proved that the company in question is still sending the info rather than sending it until the agreement had finished then not updating it.

The CRA's have to work like this due to the DPA 1998 which states "that the information must be up to date/relevant" so they've put the responsibility onto the provider of the info to keep it up to date

[jo5ephedward5]

I see - so each month they send the whole payment history not just adding the next mark onto the list so to speak...its all starting to make more sense now!

[kateandpete]

Ok, people. So this morning I received another computer generated letter demanding money. So I'm thinking, "they haven't read any of my letters". So I phoned them. Of course, i took the precaution of installing skylook first .

I was wrong, wrong, wrong. They have read my letters. All three of them.

The (very nice) girl at the call centre had a bit of trouble and there were many long pauses. However, she confirmed they had got the letters (of course i already knew that as they were all sent recorded;)) and that the relevent department was investigating it. She said I would receive a response from them in the next few days asking for more time for them to investigate. She then said that there had been some notes put on the account today and that she'd try and access them. After a while she came back and said that they COULD NOT PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT as the account was opened in 1998 and they only keep records for six years. I thanked her for her time and wished her goodnight.

 

Am I right in saying that they are now royally shafted?

[kateandpete]

I've got another letter from them. One part says

With reference to one of your enquiries, a copy of your original application cannot be obtained as current legislation requires original applications to be retained for a period of six years. As your account was opened in July 1998, this period has elapsed.

So, which piece of legislation is this? Does it nullify s.78 CCA? Are they just bluffing?

[kateandpete]

*bump*

anyone got an answer for the above?

[Tinkerbelle]

I've got another letter from them. One part says

 

So, which piece of legislation is this? Does it nullify s.78 CCA? Are they just bluffing?

 

The answer to this is in the Default Hell thread and the sticky at the top of this forum.

 

There is no legislation that says they have to retain data for 6 years. Except for information already in the public domain such as CCJ's, BO's, IVA's etc.. A default does not fall into this category.

[ppauls150]

There is no legislation that says they have to retain data for 6 years. Except for information already in the public domain such as CCJ's, BO's, IVA's etc.. A default does not fall into this category.

 

I think that they are actually asking tinkerbell is that the company concerned are saying that they cannot produce the Credit Agreement as they are saying that they only have to keep these for 6 years so they dont have to supply it as they no longer have it as it is longer than 6 years. That is what i understand from what she is aking but again i might be reading the question wrong lol

[Tinkerbelle]

If they can't produce the documentation then they have to remove.

[kateandpete]

If they can't produce the documentation then they have to remove.

 

... and they can't chase me for the money that was outstanding on the account?

[Tinkerbelle]

... and they can't chase me for the money that was outstanding on the account?

 

Not until they find it

[kateandpete]

Not until they find it

Thanks tinkerbelle.

 

At the weekend we explained the phrase, "flogging a dead horse" to a frenchwoman. Indulge me while i flog one myself.

 

I quote from the CCA 1974 s.78 (1)

 

"The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it....."

 

IF ANY. IF ANY. *ahem* IF ANY?????????

 

What does the sub-phrase "if any" refer to? Does it mean, "It's Ok for the creditor to bin the signed agreement after six years and still chase the debtor for any remaining moneys owed under that agreement and any judge will agree with them, so there"?

 

Look, I want to be triply, no quadruply sure that i'm doing the right thing here in not paying them. I AM NOT A DEBT-DODGER. I merely want to HSBC to comply with the law. I can pay them. If they are within their rights to shred my agreement and still send me to a DCA without the correct documentation, then i will pay them. Then, after the account is closed, I will persue the default removal.

 

My aim is to remove the default. Full stop. The fact that I owed them 600 quid and have stopped paying them as they didn't supply the (over 6 year old) credit agreement is by-the-by. If they have a right to the 600 - credit agreement or no - then i'll pay them.

 

I want to be quintuply sure .

[SurlyBonds]

Thanks tinkerbelle.

 

At the weekend we explained the phrase, "flogging a dead horse" to a frenchwoman. Indulge me while i flog one myself.

 

I quote from the CCA 1974 s.78 (1)

 

"The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it....."

 

IF ANY. IF ANY. *ahem* IF ANY?????????

 

What does the sub-phrase "if any" refer to? Does it mean, "It's Ok for the creditor to bin the signed agreement after six years and still chase the debtor for any remaining moneys owed under that agreement and any judge will agree with them, so there"?

 

Look, I want to be triply, no quadruply sure that i'm doing the right thing here in not paying them. I AM NOT A DEBT-DODGER. I merely want to HSBC to comply with the law. I can pay them. If they are within their rights to shred my agreement and still send me to a DCA without the correct documentation, then i will pay them. Then, after the account is closed, I will persue the default removal.

 

My aim is to remove the default. Full stop. The fact that I owed them 600 quid and have stopped paying them as they didn't supply the (over 6 year old) credit agreement is by-the-by. If they have a right to the 600 - credit agreement or no - then i'll pay them.

 

I want to be quintuply sure .

 

It's very simple people.... please start reading the sticky threads to understand the cintention and reasoning...

 

Okay, are we sitting comfortably? Then let's begin....

 

You own the data, and you gave them permission to disclose, store and process when you signed your agreement, but only for the length of the contract, unless you agreed to another clause that stated they were allowed to for another six years afterwards.

 

If the contract has expired, whether by you or them terminating it 9even by default notice), then there is NO CONTRACT - under contractual law, the contract has ceased to be, it is an ex-contract, bereft of life it rests in peace....

 

If there is no contract, then the permission, previously given within a term or clause of that contract has also expired, unless you specifically agreed to a clause allowing them to process your data AFTER the closure of the contract.

 

They cannot assume that they can extend the permission by their own free will, as that is then a case of altering the terms of the contract without your agreement...which is unlawful under the UTCC regs and therefore the whole clause can be judged unenforceable anyway.

 

Therefore, they do not have permission to continue processing OR STORING (i.e. if it's already there stood still growing roots and wrinkles) your data. Processing also means disclosing under the terms of the DPA i.e. the bank sending monthly updates to the CRAs, or the CRAs disclosing that defaulted entry to anyone who searches your file.

 

If they do, then it is a criminal offence under S35 of the DPA.

 

Full stop.

 

Read the Sticky:Victory thread posst #1 for Experian's admission (finally) that this is the case.

 

It is not rocket science.

 

Please... will people stop complicating the simplicity of the method before I go crazy.

[kateandpete]

Hi SB, I know i'm going to really aggravate you now.

You've not answered my question. I understand perfectly about the rights of the creditor (and the CRA's) on the issue of expired accounts under the Data Protection Act. The difference in my case is that, until last month, this was a live account that I was paying into.

 

Here's the order of events:

 

1. Got refused a new current account.

2. Got my credit files, found "default" marked against HSBC credit card. Big surprise. Me no get default notice.

3. Sent HSBC CCA s.78 request for agreement and default notice.

4. After 12 working days + 1 calendar month + some more for good measure. I STOPPED PAYING INTO THE ACCOUNT. I also wrote them a letter saying, i don't recognise the debt and btw, remove the default.

5. Receive letter from them saying:

With reference to one of your enquiries, a copy of your original application cannot be obtained as current legislation requires original applications to be retained for a period of six years. As your account was opened in July 1998, this period has elapsed.

This account was live. It just happened to be over 6 years old. All your accounts were settled and closed, SB. That's the difference

 

I quote from the CCA 1974 s.78 (1)

 

"The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it....."

 

IF ANY. IF ANY. *ahem* IF ANY?????????

 

What does the sub-phrase "if any" refer to? Does it mean, "It's Ok for the creditor to bin the signed agreement after six years and still chase the debtor for any remaining moneys owed under that agreement and any judge will agree with them, so there"?

The part "IF ANY", worries me. That's what I'd like explaining.

 

What I'm trying to get at is - is it better if i pay the 600 quid that i owed them when they defaulted on my CCA request?

 

Read post #40 re. my attitude on debt-dodging.

 

I'm really not stupid SB, I've even got a PhD - but it's in particle physics, not rocket science , I understand the Data Protection Act stuff perfectly. It's CCA s.78 I'm worried about.

[Tinkerbelle]

....I've even got a PhD - but it's in particle physics, not rocket science .

 

*giggle*

[SurlyBonds]

Hi SB, I know i'm going to really aggravate you now.

You've not answered my question. I understand perfectly about the rights of the creditor (and the CRA's) on the issue of expired accounts under the Data Protection Act. The difference in my case is that, until last month, this was a live account that I was paying into.

 

Here's the order of events:

 

1. Got refused a new current account.

2. Got my credit files, found "default" marked against HSBC credit card. Big surprise. Me no get default notice.

3. Sent HSBC CCA s.78 request for agreement and default notice.

4. After 12 working days + 1 calendar month + some more for good measure. I STOPPED PAYING INTO THE ACCOUNT. I also wrote them a letter saying, i don't recognise the debt and btw, remove the default.

5. Receive letter from them saying:

 

This account was live. It just happened to be over 6 years old. All your accounts were settled and closed, SB. That's the difference

 

 

The part "IF ANY", worries me. That's what I'd like explaining.

 

What I'm trying to get at is - is it better if i pay the 600 quid that i owed them when they defaulted on my CCA request?

 

Read post #40 re. my attitude on debt-dodging.

 

I'm really not stupid SB, I've even got a PhD - but it's in particle physics, not rocket science , I understand the Data Protection Act stuff perfectly. It's CCA s.78 I'm worried about.

 

But the CCA ALSO requires the same disclosure of any Default Notice...surely that can't have been issued more than six years ago? Are you relying too much on the actual signed contract... the legislation also covers off default Notices being produced and copies available.

 

If a DN was produced more than six years ago, then the CRAs have to remove it off anyway, under their old Mickey-Mouse "industry standards" inhouse rule, and if not more than six years, then get them to prove it was issued.

 

I've got the same issue on another person's case I'm working on, where they are trying to throw the Data Protection Act back because of the presumed six-year records retention rule. The account was opened in 1991 and they claim they can't find and don't need to find the contract. However, the Default Notice was, allegedly, issued in 2003. I am asking them to prove it, or it's inaccurate data held on my friend's file.

 

If they can't produce a default notice then, under the CCA, no default has occurred, in which case the CRA is holding incorrect data on you. Look up sections 87-89 of the CCA for details on DNs.

 

Why don't you issue a StatNote to the CRAs (any that are lodging the default account) and tell them that they must remove the default marker as you consider it inaccurate data. If they wish to challenge your demand, then they must request a copy of the default notice from the lender to prove that THEY have the right to hold such an adverse piece of data. It is not up to you to prove you're right, it's up to THEM to prove you wrong.

 

Make it a condition of any exemption that they must back up any exemption they wish to prove by means of a document to prove their facts. State that you do not want merely a statement from them claiming to be correct - you want to see the goodies.

 

[Hey, that reminds me...we all want to see the Goodies...let's start a campaign against the BBC repeats department!!)

 

Okay, I digress....

What the CRAs are tending to do these days is just writing to everyone saying "no because", but NOT including their proof of evidence.

 

The only part of the First Principle of the Data Protection Act that the CRA could even 'hope' (in a month of blue-moon Sundays) to defend an exemption is to challenge on clause 6(1):

"6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

Every other clause under the First principle of processing Personal Data cannot be applied, and it they argue clause 1, then simply withdraw your permission by letter. Clause 6 is their last chance saloon, but the HAVE TO PROVE IT in any exemption letter they send you.

 

By Law, they do not have a legitimate interest whatsoever unless they can show it... a reply in a letter stating "yes, we can, because the bank says so" is NOT under any circumstances a defence to this part of the Act. THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT with copies.

 

A bit of De Bono laterals in making them do the work should be applied

 

Everyone needs to understand that the CRAs cannot insist on doing nothing until the banks say so and authorise changes to the credit files - this is another big fallacy that the CRAs have perpetuated to cut down their own work.

 

They are a separate Data Controller, and you have as much right to demand that they correct your data, as you do to tell the banks to do it. If the banks/suppliers want to start playing silly beggars and playing three-thick-monkeys*, (and Vodafone's behaviour on this aspect lately is nothing short of scandalous) then just deal with the CRA - they HAVE to talk to you and action your requests.

 

[*The three thick monkeys:

1. Can't see no contract = I don't know where to get it from, and din't even know we had to keep them

2. Can't speak to you about your contract = because I don't understand it, or contractual Law.

3. Can't hear you....Not listening......Not listening......la la....la la....la la....la la....la la....la la....

speak to the hand, because I'm a dumb call-centre Muppet who wouldn't know the DPA if was included in my box of Frosties...even though about 50% of all my calls are about related issues and my bosses won't let me go on a course - not that I'd understand it anyway - but also won't let me refer cases upwards becuase they don't understand the issues either, so I just around in circles with pi**ed-off consumers like a hypnotic carousel until stress does me in and I relaise that my employer is actually a crook and charlatan and leave]

 

There... that's much better...bit of anger release there...

 

I have people in the Director's offices of the Three Amoebas, writing letters for me to the banks/suppliers - cuts my work right down.

 

BTW, I wasn't insinuating YOU are stupid...but some people are crashing in on my original methods and complicating the matter with all sorts of tangential spin-offs and wacky ideas...and it is simply now starting to confuse some people. My comment about rocket science was a plea to get back to the simple basics, because this is not a difficult concept, if you follow the templates.

 

I can see why BankFodder is posting that he's sick and tired of people complicating the refunds process... by not breaking it down into simple chunks and taking the time to read through the tried and tested method. Some people on this site are starting to go off on all sorts of tactics, like "should we be suing solicitors for defending the banks when they also know penalties are unlawful", etc.

 

This site is about defending rights, and the common man using their rights under the Law to get back what is rightfully theirs, and THEN take it further to start pressure to get Govt. to regulate these companies a bit better. People are coming to this site to fight injustice with the same Law that the banks are entitled to - everyone just wants a level playing field. After all, if there was no such thing as banking in this country, we'd have to go back 700 years to groats and bartering.

 

It is not about trying to bring down the country (as far as I knew)...if people want to go off on their own agenda, then try Anarchy Solutions Homepage and see how far that little project has progressed.

 

As to 'stupid'... If you've got a PhD in that particular subject, then I bow down in reverence...my lowly Doctrine in Informatics and Systems Processing pales into insignificance... my mere waxed scroll only means I can explain how 'puters and processes work...you can probably explain the Big Bang and the creation of the universe... ...the only other person who knows that is God.

[ppauls150]

If they can't produce a default notice then, under the CCA, no default has occurred, in which case the CRA is holding incorrect data on you. Look up sections 87-89 of the CCA for details on DNs.

 

Why don't you issue a StatNote to the CRAs (any that are lodging the default account) and tell them that they must remove the default marker as you consider it inaccurate data. If they wish to challenge your demand, then they must request a copy of the default notice from the lender to prove that THEY have the right to hold such an adverse piece of data. It is not up to you to prove you're right, it's up to THEM to prove you wrong.

 

Make it a condition of any exemption that they must back up any exemption they wish to prove by means of a document to prove their facts. State that you do not want merely a statement from them claiming to be correct - you want to see the goodies.

 

Okay, I digress....

What the CRAs are tending to do these days is just writing to everyone saying "no because", but NOT including their proof of evidence.

 

Every other clause under the First principle of processing Personal Data cannot be applied, and it they argue clause 1, then simply withdraw your permission by letter. Clause 6 is their last chance saloon, but the HAVE TO PROVE IT in any exemption letter they send you.

 

By Law, they do not have a legitimate interest whatsoever unless they can show it... a reply in a letter stating "yes, we can, because the bank says so" is NOT under any circumstances a defence to this part of the Act. THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT with copies.

Everyone needs to understand that the CRAs cannot insist on doing nothing until the banks say so and authorise changes to the credit files - this is another big fallacy that the CRAs have perpetuated to cut down their own work.

 

They are a separate Data Controller, and you have as much right to demand that they correct your data, as you do to tell the banks to do it. If the banks/suppliers want to start playing silly beggars and playing three-thick-monkeys*, (and Vodafone's behaviour on this aspect lately is nothing short of scandalous) then just deal with the CRA - they HAVE to talk to you and action your requests.

 

SB you are a class act another fine bit of information that puts things into prospective. I think that we all understand where you are coming from it is just that a lot of people just need pointing in the right direction and with a bit of little information to guide them it gives them fresh hope

[kateandpete]

Thanks SB. You've made my day here. My office mate is starting to think i'll never stop laughing. You have a bit of a way with words - you should go into stand-up. You'd be better than that Mark Thomas.

 

I'll reply in detail tonight as I really do have to do some work now. And no, sorry to disappoint, omniscience is not one of my capabilities .

[dayglo]

nice thread!

[kateandpete]

I took my eye off the ball on this for a few days, anyway.

 

SB: Thanks very much for your distilled wisdom.

Yes, I am worried I'm relying too much on the signed contract. In fact I've written back saying this...

Unenforceable Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I write in reply to your letter dated 30th August.

 

You state that, "a copy of your original application cannot be obtained as current legislation requires original applications to be retained for a period of six years". I am unable to locate legislation nullifying s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in this way. I would be grateful if you could inform me of the exact piece of legislation that does this for my own reference.

 

Yours etc...

 

I hear what you say about the DN. The default is listed as occuring in August of 2004 for £96. Interestingly, I have just Data Protection Act-S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'ed them (I asked them for all ALL DATA they hold on me, they responded very quickly - but just with statements), there are some unlawful penalties - about £100 worth .

 

I want to use this info in an N1 claim. This I can now do as they have exceeded the 21 days I gave them in my Data Protection Act s.10/s.12 statutory notice. BTW, I'd love some hints on the sort of things I should put into an N1 for this.

 

CRA's: I copied them in on my s.10/s.12 notice to HSBC. I've had replies from both Experian and Equifax (not MCC though), so maybe they really are sh**ting themselves! Equifax just acknowledged they had got it - but it came from their "Escalation Advisor", whatever that is. Sounds to me like they're taking advice on how to get to the pearly gates . Experian's Director's Office said....

As a further note of advice with regards to your request to HSBC under s.12(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, this would only apply if you were to make an application for a product or service from HSBC. The section you have quoted relates specifically to your rights in relation to automated decision taking when you make an application.

I think they're trying to patronise me. However, I probably shouldn't have put the s.12 bit in as it ain't really relevent in my case. Ah well, this is a learning process for me.

 

SB, I will be serving the CRA's with a stat notice in just the style you suggested. I was a bit apprehensive about opening another front in this war, but I guess if I can, I should.

[kateandpete]

Sorry, folks. This is going to be a long post, but please bear with me. You've all helped so much over the past few months.

 

I've not stat noticed the CRA's yet, but I've had a response from HSBC. And it smells like bulls**t. Here it is (with my comments)

 

I write further to Mrs Dawson's letter dated 30th August. Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your recent request and for the information provided regarding your original application. The information stated in the letter was incorrect.

No sh*t! Why should you be able to bin everyone's agreements after six years.

 

You requested a copy of your original credit agreement pursuant to the Consumer Credit legislation. We are at present unable to locate a copy of the original agreement.

What, STILL:-o. Have you checked under the mattress?

 

However, Section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires us to provide "...a copy of the executed agreement (if any)...". Regulation 3(2) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 allows that certain items may be omitted from such copies, including the signature box and signatures.

 

Therefore, the copy of the executed agreement we must supply is a copy but need not be a photocopy of the signed agreement. Regulation 7 of those regulations also requires us to provide a copy of the executed agreement, as varied where there is a power to cary the terms of the agreement, which there is with your card agreement and that power has been exercised to vary the agreement, which again is the case with your card agreement.

So, let me get this right. If some loan shark contacts me out of the blue alleging that I owe them money and I ask them to prove it by sending me a copy of the original, signed, EXECUTED agreement. They are then able to PROVE I owe them the money by sending me a copy of their standard, UNEXECUTED agreement form . Isn't that called a "licence to print money"?. Why don't they just send everyone in the country a copy of their T&C's and demand money off everyone, whether or not they ever signed anything.

 

Now, where I come from, that's called extortion.

 

Please correct me people if i'm wrong, but the 1983 regulations refer to UNEXECUTED agreements. I quote:

"Reg 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Document) Regulations 1983 requires that, subject to certain limited exceptions, andy copy of an *UNEXECUTED* agreement must be a 'true copy'. This means that it must be identical to the agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature.

 

Reg 3(2) permits the exclusion from the copy agreement of:

- any information relating to the debtor, or included for the creditor's use, which is not required by the Agreement Regulations;

- the name and address of the debtor; and

- any signature box."

This means when you apply for credit they must send you two credit agreements: One for you to sign and return, and one UNEXECUTED COPY (which doesn't have to have a signature box) for you to keep for your records.

Surely this has nothing to do with EXECUTED agreements referred to in s.78(1) CCA.

 

I REALLY need people on here to tell me if i'm wrong on this. I don't want to make a muppet of myself .

 

Then they go on to say they enclose a copy of their credit card T&C's, agreement form and amendments since 1999.

 

Okay, everyone got all that? Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll continue to the juicy bit...

 

For the reasons we explain above, we have complied with the requirements of the CCA and your agreement remains enfoceable at law. However, and purely for the sake of illustration even if it were not enforceable we would not instruct credit reference agencies to amend their records to delete the record of a debt. Unenforceability under the CCA 1974 does not mean that a debt is void but only that the debt cannot be enforced in a court of law. The debt still exists and the lender is entitled to record this with credit reference agencies.

WHAT - with NO agreement and NO default notice!!??!! How can they prove my consent to this data processing?

Personal data is processed lawfully where it is done under any of the following conditions: where the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the lender or the persons to whom the data is disclosed (Schedule 2, Data Protection Act 1198).

No really, **1198**!! I didn't know Richard the Lionheart had much time for data protection, what with all those crusades.

Consequently, we do not agree that the processing of your personal data is in breach of the Data Protection Act.

Well. What does SB and others make of this. They're taking the p**s surely.

Doesn't the Data Protection Act say they must PROVE my consent to data processing.

[ppauls150]

Ok this has been brought up in another thread that they tried that tactic that you just mentioned by saying we only have to send you the terms and conditions but you are right in what you are saying the law that they are stating is not right and it does have to be a signed copy or they cannot chase you for the debt.

Click Here For Thread

p.s dont forget the scales