Cap1 & CCA return

[tifo]

Do you think I am right in saying I do not have to pay even tho they have a CCJ (its in red)

 

I have always been told (on here) that a CCJ means it is already enforced as you have accepted the debt at court. Your ignorance of the law at that time is no defense now as that is what solicitors are for.

 

So think about the exact reasons you want to have it set aside as i have CCJ's and no CCA yet i have not applied for them to be set aside because of the advice i was given on here (that it's too late now).

[JonCris]

Sorry l,ookinforinfo but I can't let your post pass without comment.

 

Whether or not the debtor is refusing to pay a debt they 'owe' because of a technicality is irrelevant & in the case of the CCA 74 courts have no latitude when ruling over a breach of S127 which was clearly demonstrated in Wilson. It is also precisely why this government have removed it form the 2006 act. In addition TS & the OFT are required to investigate breaches in the law whatever their personal opinion.

 

It's not upto them to be judge & jury because they don't like the complainants tactics & that's the crux of the problem, they think they are.

 

Tifo Consumers apply successfully to have CC J's set aside everyday & the courts do (well most)take into account that they are dealing with a 'litigant in person' & allow some latitude

[Peterbard]

Peter,

 

Does she have a record of her informing them of the incorrect reading? If not, does she have a record of the readings when she started with the new supplier (she should be able to get that from her current supplier). Is the £75 an overcharge? If so then she can drop them in a lot of trouble if she can say they were informed. She can get the TS involved.

 

Unfortunately whether or not there is still an account open makes no difference in my experience. They view it as money owed for an old account and will still put it on the record. I'll take a look at the Data Protection Act guidelines to see if there is anything in there that you can use.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

HI

Thanks M

 

The thng is they should not be able to use the CRA as a tool for collecting the debt. If a default has been commited then they are within thier rights (as long as they have the data subjects) permission to record it, if it is paid they can mark it as satisfied.

But using it as a stick or carrot (the carrot being complette removal of the entry)to force someone to pay a debt that is still in dispute in my mind(and hers) is not on.

Are they saying that if she pays then they will say they made a mistake the default either occured or it did not.

On re-reading their T and Cs i am not even sure they are allowed to share data,there is no specific permission on there that would conform with Sched 2 off the DPA that i can see.

Even if there was that permission would have expired allong with the account as our good friend Curlybond has proved and used so effectively in the past.

 

Many thanks for the useful imput

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

I have always been told (on here) that a CCJ means it is already enforced as you have accepted the debt at court. Your ignorance of the law at that time is no defense now as that is what solicitors are for.

 

So think about the exact reasons you want to have it set aside as i have CCJ's and no CCA yet i have not applied for them to be set aside because of the advice i was given on here (that it's too late now).

 

HI

I have over the years had many casses set asside for people and have never found it a problem.

I have always found the courts to be very acomodating in this regard.

As for the reason for the request like i said it depends on the circumstances of the case,was the judgement issued without your presence because you were unable to attend and there was eveidance you wanted the court to consider,did you recieve a default notice within the statutory time and in the prescribed form. Was the judgement made in a court that was near to where you live in order that you could attend, did you request a change of venue that must have got lost.

It is not to late to apply and as for the fee if you are on benifit thes can be waived or modified.

 

Best regards

Peter

[tifo]

Tifo Consumers apply successfully to have CC J's set aside everyday & the courts do (well most)take into account that they are dealing with a 'litigant in person' & allow some latitude

 

Mine are from about 3 years ago and 1 from last year (plus charging order on house, i got conned at court). Is it too late to apply for a set aside on these? The DCA's in question have been unable to comply with CCA s.78 requests for over 8 months now.

 

I did not attend any hearings as they were bulk done in Northampton and despite my submissions to the court (re ability to pay and offering a payment plan) these just got ignored and DCA got forthwith judgment.

 

Many months ago, on here, i was told it is too late as you accepted the debt at the time (i did not know charges were unlawful and did not ask for documentation to prove their right to ask).

[MoonHawk]

But using it as a stick or carrot (the carrot being complette removal of the entry)to force someone to pay a debt that is still in dispute in my mind(and hers) is not on.

Totally agree. But she needs some sort of proof. Is there written confirmation that they will do this?

 

Are they saying that if she pays then they will say they made a mistake the default either occured or it did not.

On re-reading their T and Cs i am not even sure they are allowed to share data,there is no specific permission on there that would conform with Sched 2 off the Data Protection Act that i can see.

There is point 6 in schedule 2 which Information Commissioners Office have a very BROAD interpretation of so I do not see that as a good line of attack. I personally think the way it reads it does allow CRAs a great deal of lattitude, as it states legitimate interests of third parties, so we can not say CRAs should not have the data.

 

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 because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

Even if there was that permission would have expired allong with the account as our good friend Curlybond has proved and used so effectively in the past.

This is where the best line of attack is (as well as the fact they entered the default while in dispute). In part 2 of shecdule 1 it says:

 

2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

 

By their own T&Cs they have admitted the use of the personal data they have got from her. This does not include either entering defaults with CRAs (only checks are mentioned) and nor does it include any other processing apart from managing the account. So unless they can produce a contract signed which says different, their own T&Cs prevent them from entering defaults with CRAs.... that is my non-legal view on it. A comment by a legal bod would be welcome

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[conar686]

I did not attend any hearings as they were bulk done in Northampton and despite my submissions to the court (re ability to pay and offering a payment plan) these just got ignored and DCA got forthwith judgement.

 

Many months ago, on here, i was told it is too late as you accepted the debt at the time (i did not know charges were unlawful and did not ask for documentation to prove their right to ask).

 

Ditto my position rx'd a CCJ & a charging order despite being in a DMP. All of this was in my pre-CAG days - had I known then what I know now the CCJs received would have been struck out or laughed out of court as both have moody agreements & both sums owed contained charges.

 

It seems grossly unfair to be penalised and have no further recourse to law just cause you didn't know the rules

[Peterbard]

HI

Thanks for all the work Mthe information i was working from did not contain point 5 or 6 it wa s a bit dated and i take your point.

However i still think that the prerequisite for sharing data is the consent of the data subject and as pont 6 says exceopt wher it predjudices the rights of the DS and i thinjk that recording data without consent would.

Yes she had the offer to renmove the record in a letter from their recovery team.

 

Best regards

peter

[noomill060]

conar-

 

joncris may be able to help you if you PM him. He seems to know about such things-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply-new-post.html

 

 

"Despite having a CCJ the debtor can mount a claim

to recover even if it involves monies already

included in an old CCJ"

[paulwlton]

OFT a joke.

 

This morning i have received a response to my letter regarding what constitutes a true copy under a sec 77 request.

 

The copy does not have to be for example a phtocopy of the original agreement but can be recreated using records held by the creditor as long has all the information matches the original then the creditor has complied.

 

This is bollo- in my opinion

 

Paul

[patrickq1]

i think the only way forward in this is by bypassing the uk and going to european directive and making the complaint their that the uk goverment is in breach of their own data protection

Directive 2005/29/EC, [1] the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, is a major reform of the law concerning unfair business practices in the European Union. Like any European Union Directive, it needs national rules to incorporate it in each national legal system (English, Scottish, French law etc.), although even without that it may have some effect in national law. Generally speaking, it will be difficult to predict exactly what the impact of the Directive is in a particular country without consulting the national implementing laws. In some states those laws may not yet exist.

The idea behind the Directive was to combine a high level of consumer protection with freeing up international trade in the European Union. The theory is that differences in fair trading laws from country to country caused obstacles to trade (see Article 1 of the Directive and the recitals to it). In other words, the problem is not how strong consumer protection laws are in one country or another country, but rather the fact that the consumer protection laws are different from country to country. The Directive is supposed to reduce those differences, but keep a good level of consumer protection. That is supposed to be good for both business and consumers:- good for businesses because they do not need to worry quite as much as before about different rules in different legal systems (though some difficulties are inevitable), and good for consumers because we have a decent level of consumer protection. Consumers can also expect the same kinds of consumer protection from country to country (again with some exceptions), which may make them feel safer buying things from abroad.

The Directive can be found on the Consumers section of the European Commission's website accessible via the European Union's website at http://europa.eu or directly at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/index_en.htm

The Directive is designed to achieve what is called "maximum harmonisation" of business-to-consumer fair trading law. The idea of "maximum harmonisation" is that as well as requiring member states of the European Union to apply the standards set out in European legislation, the European legislation means that the member states are not allowed to apply higher standards. In other words, the Directive tells European countries to give consumers the protection set out in the Directive, but nothing better than that. That maximum harmonisation is not yet in force.

The Directive requires the member states to pass laws by no later than June 12, 2007 incorporating it into their own internal national law by December 12, 2007. However, until at least 12 June 2013, Member States will continue to be able to apply more protective national rules deriving from European directives insofar as it is necessary and proportionate to do so (Article 3(5)), meaning that maximum harmonisation may not be complete before that date. There will be a major review of the operation of the Directive by 12 June 2011 (Article 18).

The Directive is concerned mainly with the "substantive" law (meaning in this context the standards of behaviour required of traders). To some extent it leaves to member states the choice of appropriate domestic enforcement procedures and penalties for non-compliance (Articles 11 to 13 of the Directive).

The structure of the Directive is that it starts with a general prohibition on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (Articles 3(1) and 5(1)) and then goes into progressively greater detail defining what that means. The Directive says that "unfair commercial practices" are practices which are "contrary to the requirements of professional diligence" (Article 5(2)(a), and see further Article 2(h)) and which are likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer (Article 5(2)(b)). The effect of commercial practices on particular kinds of consumers, especially those who are unusually vulnerable, can replace the "average consumer" test if the practices are directed at those kinds of consumers or will foreseeably affect them (Articles 5(2)(b) and 5(3)). The Directive describes two major categories of unfair comercial practices:- those which are misleading (Articles 5(4)(a), 6 and 7) and those which are aggressive (Articles 5(4)(b), 8 and 9). Annex 1 to the Directive sets out a list of "commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair" (a black-list of bad behaviour). These are divided into "misleading commercial practices" (23 examples) and "aggressive commercial practices" (8 examples).

On a literal reading of the Directive, misleading or aggressive commercial practices which would not affect the average consumer's economic behaviour, but would distort the economic behaviour of particular kinds of consumer, may be prohibited only by the general clause in Articles 5(1) to 5(3), and not by the specific clauses in Articles 6 to 9. This is because the latter provisions refer exclusively to the "average consumer" (although Article 9© also refers to the "exploitation of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer's judgement, of which the trader is aware..."). However, it might be fairer to read Articles 5(2)(b) and 5(3) as supplanting the references to the "average consumer" in Articles 6 to 9 in appropriate cases. The UK Government's Department for Trade and Industry published a consultation paper in December 2005 which suggested that that was indeed the intention. There is no clear basis in the text for the favoured interpretation, but the UK Government supports its interpretation with reference to the European Commission's Explanatory Memorandum. This could be important because depending on the answer to this question it may be easier or harder to pin down a breach of the Directive.

The Directive is expressly "without prejudice to contract law and, in particular, to the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract" (Article 3(2) of the Directive, and see also the 9th recital to the Directive). It does not seek to harmonise unfair competition law regulating "commercial practices which, although not harming consumers, may hurt competitors and business customers" (8th recital to the Directive).

The rules referred to in the actual text of the Directive in relation to codes of conduct are quite limited (e.g. Article 6(2)(b), prohibiting non-compliance with codes of conduct in some circumstances, and Article 10). However, the 20th recital states:- "It is appropriate to provide a role for codes of conduct ... In sectors where there are specific mandatory requirements ... these will also provide evidence as to the requirements of professional diligence in that sector. ... consumers' organisations could be informed and involved in the drafting of codes of conduct." Subscribers to a code of conduct drafted with the input of and endorsed by a major consumers' organisation could seek to argue during enforcement proceedings that compliance with the code of conduct is therefore evidence that they have not engaged in unfair commercial practices. Those charged with promoting and administering membership of codes of conduct will take note that Article 11(1) in effect contemplates the possibility of class-actions brought by consumer groups against code-owners where the code promotes non-compliance with legal requirements. Taken together, these provisions may be an incentive for those who administer and promote codes of conduct to consult with consumers' groups and take careful legal advice in relation to the drafting of such codes.

 

[edit] References

 

1. ^ Official Journal of the European Union, L149/22 - L149/39, 11th June 2005

[patrickq1]

Commerce Commission Website - The Warehouse Financial Services latest to refund hidden credit card fees

[MoonHawk]

OFT a joke.

 

This morning i have received a response to my letter regarding what constitutes a true copy under a sec 77 request.

 

The copy does not have to be for example a phtocopy of the original agreement but can be recreated using records held by the creditor as long has all the information matches the original then the creditor has complied.

 

This is bollo- in my opinion

How can it be proven to be matching the original? I am very good at using computer graphic application and doctor any docuement copy if I so wishes. So where is the proof?

 

This is still OFT's fear at taking this aspect on.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[patrickq1]

Context

The right to privacy is a highly developed area of law in Europe. All the member states of the European Union (EU) are also signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 of the ECHR provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence," subject to certain restrictions. The European Court of Human Rights has given this article a very broad interpretation in its jurisprudence. In 1981 the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data was negotiated within the Council of Europe. This convention obliges the signatories to enact legislation concerning the automatic processing of personal data, which many duly did.

In order to understand the Directive, it is necessary to understand how and why EU and US perspectives on data protection and privacy are different. The United States prefers what is called a 'sectoral' approach to data protection legislation, relying on a combination of legislation, regulation, and self-regulation, rather than overarching governmental regulations.[1] Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore explicitly recommended in their “Framework for Global Electronic Commerce” that the private sector should lead, and companies should implement self-regulation in reaction to issues brought on by Internet technology.[2] To date, the US has no single, overarching privacy law comparable to the EU Directive.[3] Privacy legislation in the United States tends to be adopted on an “as needed” basis, with legislation arising when certain sectors and circumstances require (e.g., the Video Protection Act of 1988, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act). Therefore, while certain sectors may already satisfy the EU Directive, at least in part, most do not.[4]

The reasoning behind this approach probably has as much to do with American laissez-faire economics as with just different societal values. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, which necessarily implicates privacy.[5] While free speech is an explicit right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, privacy is an implicit right guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.[6] Nowhere in the US Constitution does the word 'privacy' appear. Europeans, however, have an entirely different attitude.

Europeans are acutely familiar with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of personal information from their experiences under World War II-era fascist governments and post-War Communist regimes, and are highly suspicious and fearful of unchecked use of personal information.[7] World War II and the post-War period was a time in Europe that disclosure of race or ethnicity led to secret denunciations and seizures that sent friends and neighbors to work camps and concentration camps.[8] Europe has experienced atrocities directly related to privacy and the release of personal information inconceivable to most Americans. In the age of computers, Europeans’ guardedness of secret government files has translated into a distrust of corporate databases, and governments in Europe took decided steps to protect personal information from abuses in the years following World War II.[9] Germany and France, in particular, set forth comprehensive data protection laws.[10]

In 1980, in an effort to create a comprehensive data protection system throughout Europe, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued its “Recommendations of the Council Concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Trans-Border Flows of Personal Data.”[11] The seven principles governing the OECD’s recommendations for protection of personal data were:

1. Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is being collected;
   
2. Purpose—data should only be used for the purpose stated and not for any other purposes;
   
3. Consent—data should not be disclosed without the data subject’s consent;
   
4. Security—collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
   
5. Disclosure—data subjects should be informed as to who is collecting their data;
   
6. Access—data subjects should be allowed to access their data and make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
   
7. Accountability—data subjects should have a method available to them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above principles.[12]

The OECD Guidelines, however, were nonbinding, and data privacy laws still varied widely across Europe. The US, meanwhile, while endorsing the OECD’s recommendations, did nothing to implement them within the United States.[13] However, all seven principles were incorporated into the EU Directive.[14]

The European Commission realised that diverging data protection legislation in the EU member states would impede the free flow of data within the EU zone. Therefor the European Commission decided to harmonize data protection regulation and proposed the Directive on the protection of personal data.

[patrickq1]

complaints section /procedures

[edit] Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

 

Such proceedings enable the Court of Justice to determine whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Community law. The commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice is preceded by a preliminary procedure conducted by the Commission, which gives the Member State the opportunity to reply to the complaints against it. If that procedure does not result in termination of the failure by the Member State, an action for breach of Community law may be brought before the Court of Justice. That action may be brought by the Commission – as is practically always the case – or by another Member State. If the Court finds that an obligation has not been fulfilled, the Member State concerned must terminate the breach without delay. If, after new proceedings are initiated by the Commission, the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgement, it may, upon the request of the Commission, impose on the Member State a fixed or a periodic financial penalty.

 

[edit] Actions for annulment

 

By an action for annulment, the applicant seeks the annulment of a measure adopted by an institution (regulations, directives, decisions). An action for annulment may be brought by a Member State, by the Community institutions (Parliament, Council, Commission) or by individuals to whom a measure is addressed or which is of direct and individual concern to them.

 

[edit] Actions for failure to act

 

The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance may also review the legality of a failure to act on the part of a Community institution. However, such an action may be brought only after the institution has been called on to act. Where the failure to act is held to be unlawful, it is for the institution concerned to put an end to the failure by appropriate measures.

 

[edit] Application for compensation based on non contractual liability

 

In applications for compensation, based on non-contractual liability, the Court of First Instance rules on the liability of the Community for damage caused to citizens and to undertakings by its institutions or servants in the performance of their duties.

 

[edit] Appeals on points of law

 

Lastly, appeals on points of law only may be brought before the Court of Justice against judgements given by the Court of First Instance. If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance. Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court may itself decide the case. Otherwise, the Court must refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, which is bound by the decision given on appeal.

 

[edit] References for a preliminary ruling

 

References for a preliminary ruling are specific to Community law. Whilst the Court of Justice is, by its very nature, the supreme guardian of Community legality, it is not the only judicial body empowered to apply Community law.

That task also falls to national courts, in as much as they retain jurisdiction to review the administrative implementation of Community law, for which the authorities of the Member States are essentially responsible; many provisions of the Treaties and of secondary legislation - regulations, directives and decisions - directly confer individual rights on nationals of Member States, which national courts must uphold. National courts are thus by their nature the first guarantors of Community law. To ensure the effective and uniform application of Community legislation and to prevent divergent interpretations, national courts may, and sometimes must, turn to the Court of Justice and ask that it clarify a point concerning the interpretation of Community law, in order, for example, to ascertain whether their national legislation complies with that law.

A reference for a preliminary ruling may also seek review of the legality of an act of Community law. The Court of Justice’s reply is not merely an opinion, but takes the form of a judgement or a reasoned order. The national court to which that is addressed is bound by the interpretation given. The Court’s judgement also binds other national courts before which a problem of the same nature is raised. References for a preliminary ruling also serve to enable any European citizen to seek clarification of the Community rules which concern him. Although such a reference may be made only by a national court, which alone has the power to decide that it is appropriate do so, all the parties involved – that is to say, the Member States, the parties in the proceedings before national courts and, in particular, the Commission – may take part in proceedings before the Court of Justice. In this way, a number of important principles of Community law have been laid down in preliminary rulings, sometimes in answer to questions referred by national courts of first instance.

A 2005 study found that German, Belgian and Dutch judges made the most referrals for an interpretation of EU law to the ECJ.

 

[edit] Legacy

[shooter001]

OFT a joke.

 

This morning i have received a response to my letter regarding what constitutes a true copy under a sec 77 request.

 

The copy does not have to be for example a phtocopy of the original agreement but can be recreated using records held by the creditor as long has all the information matches the original then the creditor has complied.

 

This is bollo- in my opinion

 

Paul

 

Is it just me or are the OFT contradicting themselves here;

 

However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody

would know what was in the original

 

"but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction" and "can be recreated using records held by the creditor".

craig.

[patrickq1]

they all seem to have different agendas hence one of the reasons i am looking at th EU regulations because in the last couple of months the UK Goverment bodies have been inconsistent with actions against any unlawful acts concerning the consumer in fact they have become perverse to in so much as the statement we have just seen

The copy does not have to be for example a phtocopy of the original agreement but can be recreated using records held by the creditor as long has all the information matches the original then the creditor has complied

The FSA are about the worst to make any complaints to who can an ex banker be objective when his loyalties lie in the other camp,,how on earth can the OFT let themselves be a party to perverting the course of justice and how can the ICO disseminate and interpret their own rules against the spirit of A DUTY OF CARE to the consumers.their powers have become corrupt and tainted,sleaze springs to mind

[iconoclash]

Hiya - just a query on this thing about what constitutes a 'true copy' of a consumer agreement - I have been sent a copy agreement which is alleged to be from a deal set up 15 yrs ago - however - the copy is very bad and hardly legible - shows no dates or signatures. The accompanying letter quoted various clauses as to why this other data did not have to be supplied.

 

Right, I understand that BUT, if the document is supplied following a DPA request and within the other computer sheets it is found to state: "reconstituted" or "regenerated" agreement supplied - original not located, would this be sufficient to show non-conformance?? As you say, it is impossible to know what was signed for and it is generally accepted that digital data is a lot easier to vary than good old-fashioned paper files! Any thoughts?? thanks....

[ian1969uk]

Well, if they don't have the original, it's certain that they cannot enforce through the courts.

[lookinforinfo]

JonCris, I don't disagree with you.

And if we lived in a perfect world they perhaps TS and the OFT would get

their a***s in gear and do what they are supposed to.

As we are lumbered with this old world however, where TS are short of staff and funds, and each branch appears to have a different interpretation of what constitutes an executed agreement, I suppose it is inevitable that they

prioritize their workload.

[patrickq1]

Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TideTurner]

Campari2

Where requested data to which you are entitled is illegible: -

Data Protection Act 1998

 

 

 

RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS

 

7. - (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled-

 

(a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,

(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of-

(i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject,

(ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and

(iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed,

© to have communicated to him in an intelligible form-

(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and

(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and

(d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking.

 

 

 

 

 

Records obtained under data subject's right of access

 

S64 (2) The requirement that any notice, request, particulars or application to which this section applies should be in writing is satisfied where the text of the notice, request, particulars or application-

 

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,

(b) is received in legible form, and

© is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

 

 

This trick is being used more and more where contracts will go against them or the contracts simply do not exist.

 

Tide

[patrickq1]

hey tide your doing me out of a job lol

Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment. A "false representation" can take many forms, such as:

• A false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made;
  
• A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement;
  
• A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised;
  
• A statement of opinion based on a false statement of fact;
  
• A statement of opinion that the maker knows to be false; or
  
• An expression of opinion that is false, made by one claiming or implying to have special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion. "Special knowledge" in this case means knowledge or information superior to that possessed by the other party, and to which the other party did not have equal access.

[iconoclash]

Wow - that's interesting! but what I cant understand is why the judges dont seem to be following through? Ive already had a CCJ entered against me in one case that is going back for re-determination. - thats the one with the dodgy copy reconstituted etc and another case (due shortly) where I have discovered false information held re my income and is coming up for a V O hearing where the claimant refused my offer - based on a document that I have no date for but is clearly false information. Should I be quoting misrepresentation or somesuch - I believe there should be a claim for recompense somehow in this latter case but not sure how?? ta!!!!!

[TideTurner]

Patrickq1,

 

You're doing just fine, you don't need another chef in your kitchen.

 

Little pointer though, have a look at S15, 16 and 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (link at the foot of my posts). Also, the production of an instrument with the intention of making somebody do or say something with a view to gaining an advantage.

 

Tide