How do I get wrong entry removed from my file?

[Dot1]

are you going to go for it then?

Not quite decided but as said before, very tempted. I will give it some thoughts and come back.

Thanks

Dot

[Guest]

if you can afford the poss loss (any court fees/fixed costs) if lose (assuming small claims), and the poss 'stress' of litigation, then why not? cag will help if decide to do so.

[Dot1]

if you can afford the poss loss (court fees/fixed costs) if lose (assuming small claims), and the 'stress' of litigation, then why not? cag will help if decide to do so.

 

Thanks for the that.

 

Dot

[Peterbard]

I am not sure what is meant by "avoid the DPA" the dpa is the regulatory path for any complaint of this nature and the court will undoubtedly apply it, there will be no avoiding it.

 

It all comes down to provable losses, or at least showing that you suffered losses even though they cannot be given a precise monetary value.

 

Then showing that your loss was caused by the action of the data controller.

 

In my opinion from what i have read I would take the £100

[Dot1]

I am not sure what is meant by "avoid the DPA" the dpa is the regulatory path for any complaint of this nature and the court will undoubtedly apply it, there will be no avoiding it.

 

It all comes down to provable losses, or at least showing that you suffered losses even though they cannot be given a precise monetary value.

 

Then showing that your loss was caused by the action of the data controller.

 

In my opinion from what i have read I would take the £100

 

Thanks DB,

 

You are right. Most opinions seems suggest so.

 

Dot

[Durkin]

Everyone that has mentioned the DPA in their claim seems to have come off worse!

 

The DPA seems to have been written to protect creditors and the CRAs, rather than the victims.

 

A simple claim for general damages under common law (eg. negligent misrepresentation) is all that's required.

 

The CRA has already admitted fault.

 

It will all come down to the judge, on the day.

 

Will they still think my case is "Scottish" (based on English judgements and ratified in London)?

 

Will they still say King is "too old"?

 

Will they still assert that Kpohraror's case was "too different"?

 

It's about time, the UK's judges just grew a pair. When faced with a fight between good and evil, they should interpret the law to protect the victim.

 

By keeping it simple, there's less to interpret.

 

The CRA should already have compensated the OP. It needs to shape up and not hide behind the DPA that protects it!

[Peterbard]

The court will still apply the DPA, this is the legislative path for any claim of this kind.

 

If the OP had no other markers, perhaps had made a credit application , been declined then told the CRA to remove the marker and they had not done so promptly, then she would have an identifiable loss on which to base a claim, as it is I do not see how she can get arround the provisions of section 13 and the accompanying case law.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Dodgeball
durkn on here

[Peterbard]

I agree with the sentiments by the way, but for the sake of the OP we have to be practical about these things.

[Dot1]

So IF I decide to go the full length, What would be the worse case scenario please/

 

Dot

[Peterbard]

It depends on how much you want to sue for. If you keep i under 10k the liability should just be the application fee, there should be no costs allowance unless there are exceptional circumstances, of course they may decide to up their offer to settle if they think they are going to have to spend money on council to defend an action.

[Dot1]

It depends on how much you want to sue for. If you keep i under 10k the liability should just be the application fee, there should be no costs allowance unless there are exceptional circumstances, of course they may decide to up their offer to settle if they think they are going to have to spend money on council to defend an action.

 

Thanks DB

[Durkin]

The court will still apply the DPA, this is the legislative path for any claim of this kind.

 

I do not see how she can get arround the provisions of section 13 and the accompanying case law.

 

We didn't mention Section 13 in our case. Neither did any of the courts. Proof then, that it's possible to follow a different, less precarious, path

 

Without mentioning the DPA we were "successful" (for the purpose of this claim)

[Dot1]

Hi Richard,

 

Did you see my PM?

[Peterbard]

You cannot just "opt out" of using the relevant legislature, there is no reason why a civil tort cannot use the same cause of action as a legislative breach but it would be otiose to do so in a case where there was legislation specifically designated to provide a remedy, no court would do it, unless it was an uncontested claim of course where an examination of the legal position was not needed.

[Durkin]

there is no reason why a civil tort cannot use the same cause of action as a legislative breach but it would be otiose to do so in a case where there was legislation specifically designated to provide a remedy

 

We seemed to "get away with it" though and it did seem fairly simple. (Specific damages only fell through because the truth was erased in Edinburgh)

 

DPA isn't designed to provide a remedy, rather to protect the creditors and the CRAs to allow them to continue annihilating folks creditworthiness and worse.

 

It would be interesting to see a case, other than mine, that doesn't involve the DPA, just to prove how simple a claim for general damages can be.

[Peterbard]

Sorry Durkin, but this really makes no sense, the other side are already aware of the act, do you think they will not bring it up ?

 

The DPA does provide remedy, it may not be the one you want but nevertheless.

 

Incidentally the common law route would do you no favors even if t were applicable which it most certainly is not.

[Durkin]

do you think they will not bring it up ?

 

I'm certain they will. They already have. They'll rely on it to pour as much confusion into the simple matter of a negligent misrepresentation as possible. The DPA has been designed to protect them.

 

If the prosecution doesn't rely on it and the CRA brings it up, it fairly proves the point.

 

The DPA does provide remedy, it may not be the one you want but nevertheless.

 

There may be others too that disagree. The DPA doesn't suit the victim. So many have tried and failed, seemingly.

 

Incidentally the common law route would do you no favors even if t were applicable which it most certainly is not.

 

Why isn't it applicable? It worked for us. Nice and simple. Common sense.

 

The CRA's could use a sense of common decency rather than hide behind the intricacies of the DPA.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

[Peterbard]

It just int the way the law works Richard, the statute is there to help decide on these disputes the court is bound to use it, it has no choice.

In any case common law would present problems of its own in this case, you still have to prove losses even in tort, in your case i think the award was uncontested, so there was no examination of the law in this area in any case.

 

I think that the lender was glad to part with 8k in the hope it would go away, and in the end of course it did.

[Guest]

hi dot

 

what do you think then?

 

looking back at their letter #108. from what they say it looks like, should there be a claim, they wld be looking to distinguish the Durkin decision (on the facts), and also use the DPA, in defence. whether they would be right or not...?