Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should I go to see the CAB or something? I just don't think I have the strength or brain capacity to deal with all of this. The mess I have gotten myself into is bad enough and now this on top. My head hurts. What should I do?  It's all very horrible, I feel genuinely scared and stressed because of all this. I don't understand what is going on   I have raised a dispute with Santander to see if they have done something. I have just explained my situation, what is happening and that it all seems to have started when I told Santander I was struggling, had approached StepChange and transferred my direct debits etc to Starling. It was all going well with Starling, I actually really liked it, but now everything has just gone to !!!!!! and I feel sick to my stomach  
    • Hi All,   I was going to post an update after a month had passed since I sent my SN but didn't get around to it, after about two weeks I received a letter from Highview letting me know the opportunity to appeal had been missed, Shame, lol! .... Anyway, on Sat 13th (the 13th! Aaarggghh! 🤣) I received a Claim Form from DCB(L) .... seems they wish to pursue the matter through the courts! These people really are tiresome ....   Details to follow ....   (EDIT: just noticed this is the 13th post as well! .... not that I'm superstitious, lol! 😂)
    • I have just checked Experian too and there is nothing on there about CCJs or any other suspicious or adverse info that would impact me like this, other than my present situation of course.   Bankruptcy, CCJ or IVA This includes court judgments (CCJs), debt relief orders, bankruptcies, individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) and other public records recorded against you. You have no public records. GAIN (Gone Away Information Network) Lenders use GAIN to tell each other about customers with unpaid debts. If in the past you’ve left unpaid debts when living at a previous address, you may appear on GAIN and so lenders may be less likely to give you credit. You have no GAIN records.
    • I think I might have had a CCJ but it was way longer than 7 years ago and I have been able to apply and get loans, credit cards etc. I have been pretty fine with my finances until now, until this mess I managed to get myself into this year   There is nothing showing on the TransUnion credit report about an old CCJ. Is there another place I can look to see if there was one and if so how long ago?  I have signed up to TransUnion and on there it says (in Search History):   ORGANISATION PURPOSE DATE Transunion Consumer Id Check (Ml)   Identity Check for Credit 15 Apr 2024   Nationwide Building Society (Sr,Tac,Ct,Cval,R) Nationwide Building Society Bav (Cval Ml) Anti-Money Laundering 11 Apr 2024   Monzo Bank (Cosmos, Cr, Sa, Ar, Ct Batch) Monzo Bank Limited 2 (Cosmos Ar) AF 10 Apr 2024   Monzo Bank (Cosmos, Cr, Sa, Ar, Ct Batch) Monzo Bank Limited 2 (Cosmos Cr Bsb) Quotation Search 10 April 2024 I think AF means a financial association with someone or something, but I have just read that that could be something as simple as sharing an address with someone (which I do).    Public Information Details of any Bankruptcies, Insolvencies or Court Judgments that are in your name in relation to settlements of money. Bankruptcies and Insolvencies You do not have any Bankruptcies or Insolvencies on your credit report. Judgments You do not have any Judgments on your credit report. There are no Cifas markers registered against you. You do not have any Notices of Correction on your credit report. Does any of this make sense? I don't mean the information I have provided above, I mean why I am being rejected by every bank I have applied for, except Monzo (so far) Every loan I have ever taken out has been paid and settled on time, I have never missed payments on things. The only things I have outstanding at the moment are the ones I listed at the start of this thread when I completed the budget planner. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Default Notice - Wont remove


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5946 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I sent Open Uni SBA the standard letterfor removel of a default.

 

They have replied todaywith the usuall no.

 

It is a four page letter with is very legal and Im havingprobs getting to grips with it myself.

 

I have broken dowb some key points on which they are refusing so any advice would be eternally grateful.

 

1."Your account has not been canclled but terminated by us.......therefore we can continue to disclose information"

2."....you signed copy of T & C and Credit Agreement.....agreeing for us to disclose......."

3.They have contacted Experien and were quoted

"The processing is nessary for the purposes of legitimate inertere4sts pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where rge processing is unwarrented in any particular case because of teh prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject"

 

They havce responded with "whilst it may be prejudice to someone with adverse entries ...... it does not make to prejudice to all individuals"

 

4. With regards to the six years of processing, They state that as this is the practice by all CRA, and teh Crowther Report sugested a satutory time limit of 6 years, and is common practice, blah blah blah.

 

 

5.The fifth data protection principal, they had this to say

 

"as a consequence this ....information....is relevant for purpose of Credit refrering...and is not in breach of the fifth principal"

 

If anybody else has had a long winded letter back I would be grateful for any advice as this is the only blot on my credit file. (but it is still holding me back - belive it or not)

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very much like a letter I received also, and it's all codswollop as far as I'm concerned.

 

Below in 6.1 is what they are using as an excuse to process data.

6.1 OUSBA may disclose information relating to the status of your OUSBA account to any credit reference agency or debt recovery agency to assist in the making of credit decisions or the prevention of fraud, or the recovery of money owing to OUSBA. OUSBA may also disclose your OUSBA account status information to the OU or the OU’s subsidiary companies for student welfare purposes. This is to allow the OU to impose academic sanctions in order to assist the recovery of moneys owing to the OUSBA, and to allow the OU or its subsidiaries to make credit status decisions in future dealings with you. Academic sanctions may include but will not necessarily be limited to cancelling a registration for your current course(s), withholding examination results, academic credit and rewards, and refusal to reinstate you as a student except at OU’s discretion.

 

However, they seem to be blind to the section immediately following 6.1. The bit that actually states what you actually consented to:

 

6.2 You hereby consent to the transfer of personal information from the OU’s computer systems and other records to OUSBA sufficient only to establish and maintain the computer records needed to operate your OUSBA account. A full list of the information that may be transferred between the OU and the OUSBA is available on written request.

 

You will also see from their letter that they actually went to the CRA for advice on how to deal with this :o , and not only that. but they did a copy and paste from the CRA response. Read the letter again, and you will see that there are no facts stated in it, just lots of "in our view", "industry practice" and "it would appear" . The response from OUSBA is very similar to the responses that are coming out of Experian. Talk about incestuous!

 

They can't even come up with a sensible response to a simple request, so I don't know how they intend to stand up in front of a judge and argue their case. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

tink - were you realy up at 02;52? have u got a baby as well?

 

do you have any advice on what I can do next as Im about to submit my mortgage application?

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... No kids no!

 

I don't have any advice.....yet.

 

I've yet to draft a response but I haven't had time yet. I can see it ending up being court action though. The fact that they had to contact Experian to find out what to do, can't be good for them as far as I'm concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Tink, really really appreciate this. I dont care what it takes.

 

The thing that makes it stink even more was, I got it when it wasnt my fault.

 

I was supposed to pay for half of the course and my employers half. I was on Mat leave when our finance worker left and by the time a new one had been recruited and sorted out the paper work I got slapped with a default, I ended up paying it in full in the end.

 

I even wrote to OUBSA whilst all of this was going on to explain, but as the account was my name they didnt listen. i even wrote to them when it went to court, but they just fired ahead. It was annoying actually coz I was only on Sat Mat pay at the time as well - I never would have done the course if I couldnt pay for it. It seems that despite all this they have no better nature to appeal to!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

No a bailiff turned up to my door, and took down details of my TV etc, thats was the first I heard of it so I just paid up.

 

(I know but atthe time I didnt know not to allow bailiffs in etc etc. To be honest I just had my first child and was left with a broken back and hadnt been well for 6 months so I wasnt really in the mood to argue)

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

No a bailiff turned up to my door, and took down details of my TV etc, thats was the first I heard of it so I just paid up.

 

(I know but atthe time I didnt know not to allow bailiffs in etc etc. To be honest I just had my first child and was left with a broken back and hadnt been well for 6 months so I wasnt really in the mood to argue)

 

Good grief! :o

 

Well it looks like one more letter re-iterating facts. Give them 7 days otherwise it's court.

 

That's what I'll be doing as soon as I get back from hols. Can't be bothered to stress myself out about it right now to be honest.

 

The contract clearly states what was consented to in section 6.1.

 

6.2 You hereby consent to the transfer of personal information from the OU’s computer systems and other records to OUSBA sufficient only to establish and maintain the computer records needed to operate your OUSBA account. A full list of the information that may be transferred between the OU and the OUSBA is available on written request.

 

 

There is no contract so they have no rights despite what they claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tink, 6.2 isn't a summary of 6.1, they both apply!

 

Didn't say it was, but 6.1 says what they may do. Not what they will.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the contract that says that they have a legal right to process any data after the termination of a contract, and all their reasons that they have come back with so far amount to noting more than clutching at straws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tinks did as you sugested so will sit back and wait and see what they respond within their next legal letter. to be honest when I sat down with some P & Q I unpciked their letter, it wasnt that legal at all just a lot of gobbldy gook.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Did you have a nice hols?

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Right to prevent processing likely to

cause damage or distress

 

An individual can serve written notice

 

prohibiting Data Controllers from processing

data that can cause ‘substantial damage or

distress’. The Data Controller has 21 days in

which to give evidence that they have

complied or, instead, to give the reasons

why they think that the individuals request

is unjustified.

Examples of causing substantial

damage or distress:

 

Sending letters to dead people or

to their family, relating to the

deceased

 

Passing adverse data relating to

business premises rather than the

occupants to debt collectors

 

Revealing payment details to a

third party without consent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have to obtain consent

from individuals to process data

on them?

 

 

This is probably the most onerous duty of

 

 

Data Controllers and the Data Protection Act

1998. It gives Data Controllers responsibility

for obtaining consent from individuals to

process their personal data and to ensure it is

processed fairly.

People have to ‘signify’ their consent, which

must be interpreted as a positive

communication from the individual that the

data can be processed.

Failure to reply to a message from a Data

Controller to the effect that personal data is

being held and accessed does not mean that

consent has been given.

Individuals must be made aware of the

purposes the data will be processed for;

for example:

• For analysis to market other

products and services

• To use for telemarketing

• To determine credit limits

Consent, also, must be ‘specific’ and

‘informed’. This means it has to be relevant

to all the uses registered, including the type

of information to be held, the purposes of

the processing, the type of people who may

be given access to it and the length of time

that it might be on file (which can be

‘indefinitely’) .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this is a bit of the letter I sent them....Too late for now if its wrong but hay hoo I was willing to take that chance

1. You state in your letter that by signing the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement, I have agreed for my information to be shared and released to Credit Reference Agencies.Yes I did agree to this, but only during the duration of my contract with yourselves. You state in your letter that contract was indeed terminated by yourselves on 8th January 2002. Under Statutory Law these terms and conditions became null and void.

I also draw your attention to Statutory Notice pursuant to Sections 10 and 12,

of The Data Protection Act 1998, which was enclosed with my last letter. This notice expressively denies the right to continue to process any information regarding me or how my account with yourself was conducted and therefore forbids any Credit Reference Agency displaying information regarding me supplied by yourself.

When you state that you have a legal right under the agreement to disclose my information, I draw your attention to the fact that you have, in fact the “lawful right” and this is because I have given my permission. The law states that I have the right to withdraw that permission at any time. So subject to the above served notice this right has now been withdrawn.

2. You further state “The processing is necessary………as we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions”.

Whilst your actions may deemed as noble to other Credit Granters at no point in your terms and conditions does it state that the disclosure of my information would be used for this reason. And therefore I have not agreed to my information being used in such manner. What the agreement does state however, is

“to allow any credit reference agency or debt collection agency to assist in the making of credit decision or the prevention of fraud”

As my debt to you has been settled in full, there is no purpose or right to process or use my information for this reason, as there is no further monies owed to yourself. In addition to this I am not aware of any financial lending by any Credit Reference Agencies or Debt Collection Agencies (or any licences allowing them to do so), which would warrant having access to my information for this purpose.

And

“to allow OU’s or its subsidiaries to make credit status decisions in future dealings with you”

However, as you aware, my credit reference file is viewed by organisations and companies other than those listed above, and you have clearly breached your own terms and conditions, and in turn broken our agreement, by supplying information to them without my express permission.

3. You also state that you may continue to supply my data for a period of six, based on the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971, and you further comment that this was and still is common practice.

I draw your attention to the fact, that I’m sure an organisation such as yourself is fully aware, that “common practice” and “recommendations” based on the Crowther report does not constitute a legal right under English Law. And therefore, you have no legal right to continue to allow this information to be stored with any Credit Reference Agencies.

4. You continue with “It does appear to be the case, at least for the present time, that in addition to current credit commitments the preceding six years of an individuals credit history is taken into account by credit grantors”.

This state is nothing more than hearsay. Some credit granters do, and some rely on 3 years of information, others solely rely on a customers current financial commitments. Such sweeping statements by yourselves can not be held up in a court of law, as any additional reason to continue to process information regarding myself. There is no law, only guidelines, recommending how a credit granter decides to grant credit. If however you feel that I am incorrect, I would be grateful if you would supply me with the relevant documentation to prove your statements worthiness.

5. You state that by informing the Credit Reference Agencies of my account information and the subsequent processing of this for six years does not appear to be in breach of the fifth principal.

This six year rule which you have continually quoted in your letter, has been completely confused with Statuary Orders, such as County Court Judgements and Bankruptcy Orders. I draw your attention to the fact that there is no Contractual or Credit Law permission allowing the six year ruling on disclosure, I point out that the Data Protection Act over rules Contractual Law when it comes to my legal rights.

In summary, your letter continually contradictions each statement and reference area in order to support your continued breach of the Data Protection Act, with the disclosing of my information. I again, remind you that hearsay, recommendations, common practice and statements made by Credit References Agencies does not override or supersede English Law, in particular when those very comments actually infringe my statutory rights under both English Law and the Data Protection Act.

And so on.....will now have to wait and see

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...