Jump to content


Data manipulated to extend limitation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2297 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

Says it all in the title really.

 

Without naming names,

 

 

I sued a financial institution a little over a year ago, the case was compromised by Tomlin.

 

 

For various reasons [mainly because the terms were thrashed out in 20 minutes in front of a slightly grumpy dj]

the agreement made no mention of CRA's.

Not particularly a biggie as I got 90% of the money I was claiming and the default was due to drop off about 60 days later anyway.

 

Roll forward a few months and it [a few weeks ago] began reporting the account again.

This time without the default marker but with an erroneous £12.00 balance

[would have to assume its created a balance with a late payment/other charge].

 

 

Ergo, the account was reported as defaulted for 6 years,

disappeared for a few months and later reappeared at year 7 with no markers.

 

My problem is.......

.what exactly within the DPA prescribes the 6 year data reporting.

 

 

The ICO guidance [at January 2014] certainly defines that it shouldn't be

but what within the instrument says that it must cease at the expiry of 6 years and what prescribes that the account

cannot return to normal status at any point during or after 6 years of reporting a default?

 

 

Is this a simple matter of acting contrary to principle/s in manipulating the data?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found what I was looking for...... does this seem concise and wide enough in scope?

 

Anyone have any thoughts on improving the general particulars or should I leave it alone and stop tinkering?

 

The defendant reports inaccurate and

manipulated personal data to Credit Reference

Bureau,its actions contrary to the Data

Protection Act 1998 principles falsely extend

limitation and cause damage.The defendant

declines to rectify and has served its final

response denying relief in the matter. The

Claimant seeks damages including aggravated,

for misuse of personal data and/or breach of

confidence and/or compensation pursuant to

s.13 of the DPA. The Claimant further claims

other relief as is just and apposite, to

include the expunging of the defendants

reporting/publication of his personal data

The claimant claims interest under section 69

of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of

8% a year from xxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxxx on

£xxxx.xx and also interest at the same rate

up to the date of judgment or earlier payment

at a daily rate of £0.xx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks fine to me Mike cant suggest anything extra...Part 8 claim?

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given it quite a bit of thought and......... there are a couple of options open to me, enforce the contract [could be a minefield where there is no 'specific' term regarding CRA entries] or pursue it for unlawful/unfair processing of data in respect of the new event.

 

I think it'll have to be a separate part 7 claim as I don't want any arguments revolving around the Tomlin unless the court decides [or the other side applies] to join the original compromised case. I don't particularly want the case reopened as it may only serve to complicate matters. The effect of its data processing could be deemed breach of [Tomlin] contract but that's for the dj to decide on any application to lift the stay and any financial remedy may be a much lesser sum than the non pecuniary damages recent authority provides for within the DPA alone.

 

Looking at it as objectively as I can, this is a new event and whether it directly interferes with the contract should be for the other side to argue. As the Tomlin includes a fairly watertight non disclosure term it may be caught between a rock and a hard place if it applies to join the case where the contract stipulates that any/all data relating to the original case must not be disclosed. With no regulated agreement persisting it has either created and processed to the CRA's a new agreement or its reporting the contract within the Tomlin.......I can't imagine it would assist its defence by opening that can of worms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford

 

I was keeping it all within sections 13 and 14 of the DPA to simplify matters. I left the para re expunging data wide enough to include anything I can find within the DPA to support s.14 [i think]. The ICO is shockingly slow to do much of anything lately, although its had my file for 2 weeks I don't think its looked at it yet. I think an order pursuant to s.14 will be the quickest route to remedy but if the ICO intervene in the meantime I won't argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, with you now. The CRA's are already on notice, all seemed a bit confused as to why the creditor was reporting the data...... each seemed to believe it was only possible in the event of a new agreement superceding the defaulted entry. Each of them have put the question to the other side but none will remove the entry until a response is received one way or the other. I suppose if it does get as far as trial I could look at joining the CRA's but they are a bit of a side issue to the case at the mo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Final version was filed today, didn't tinker much but have had to redact a bit as there's a reference to the earlier Tomlin/contract. Some of it is pretty much an automatic fail [expunging data in any medium can't be done] but it should hopefully get the point across for a claim on the sct

 

Particulars of Claim

The defendant unlawfully processes and shares

inaccurate and manipulated personal data to

Credit reference agency/s. Its xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

contrary to the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998

and ICO high level guidance on reporting to

CRA's.The Claimant has made representations

to the defendant requesting correction, it

has served its final response upon the

Claimant, it denying relief in the matter.The

Claimant seeks damages including

aggravated,for misuse of personal

data and/or breach of confidence and/or

compensation pursuant to s.13 of the DPA. The

Claimant further claims other relief as is

just and apposite,to include the expunging of

inaccurate personal data where processed,

shared, reported or published in any medium.

The claimant claims interest under section 69

of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of

8% a year from xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxx on

£1,000.00 and also interest at the same rate

up to the date of judgment or earlier payment

at a daily rate of £0.22.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Settled, or it will be in the coming days......... can't post the exact content but it was satisfactory and in line with Halliday v ccf

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To:

CC: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:31

Subject: Without Prejudice - Re xxxxxxxxxx v Home Retail Group [EFILE-Legalxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

 

With regard to the above matter, our client is mindful of costs and wishes to resolve this matter as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

 

With that in mind, our client has taken the decision to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as a gesture of goodwill and close your account. For the avoidance of doubt, our client will cease to report your account information to any Credit References Agencies. However, our client will retain information about you and this account in accordance with its regulatory obligations.

 

CPR Part 38.6 does not apply to small track claims. For the reasons above, please confirm your agreement to discontinue the claim on the basis that there is no order for costs, save our client agreeing to pay your court issue fee of £80.00.

 

Please find attached a Notice of Discontinuance Form N279 which, for ease, we have drafted. As Claimant, you will need to sign the form and serve on all parties in order to discontinue the claim. You will also need to file the original with the Court.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP

 

DDI: +44 (0) 121 393 0116

 

 

Two Snowhill, Birmingham, B4 6WR

Switchboard: +44 (0)870 903 1000

 

http://www.wragge-law.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

:wink: Nice one Mike...well done.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only more would pursue DPA cases, it is such a powerful tool and so very difficult to argue against fact.

 

Would like to say that was the only email but at last count that was number 41, each one digging a deeper hole [for the other side] :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us know when it is totally done with Mike and we can amend your title to show the success and perhaps others will then follow in your footsteps :)

 

Well done.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

These issues re data entries to CRA records. Deliberate or system errors ? I get the feeling that sometimes there are IT issues meaning they are not compliant with the DPA. Perhaps they don't want to admit this, as the cost of making the changes would be expensive and the CRA's would not be happy being fed inaccurate data, insisting on an agreed action plan to fix the faults.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

These issues re data entries to CRA records. Deliberate or system errors ? I get the feeling that sometimes there are IT issues meaning they are not compliant with the DPA. Perhaps they don't want to admit this, as the cost of making the changes would be expensive and the CRA's would not be happy being fed inaccurate data, insisting on an agreed action plan to fix the faults.

 

Sometimes it's difficult to know whether its a deliberate abuse or lack of controls. In this instance I thought perhaps that its operating system didn't have the functionality but on speaking to one of the CRA's [after the event] it appears it was more than capable of acting correctly at any time of its choosing. It just didn't understand the effect of its actions prior to taking advice from the firm it instructed in the case.

 

I did involve the ICO in this case purely because the other side needed a push in the right direction, the CRA's weren't particularly great but did just enough to comply with the act. You have to bear in mind their commercial interest is with the creditor and they have little to fear [civil or criminal] in the event of processing inaccurate data. Having said that, Equifax were listed as witness and did offer to provide a statement for trial.

 

The claim itself was filed fairly soon after the event, the other side processed the entry at 19th May, I served [by email] a LBA at 20th May, it responded at 4th June, I issued the claim at 10th June.

 

It filed its defence on the last day, pretty much a bare denial contradicting itself in part, 2 weeks later it served a part 18 which I laughed at [can't go into detail] and served my own which it didn't seem happy with.

 

In the meantime, the ICO had been pressing it for a response, its counsel was passed the file and had to come up with some slightly creative answers......... which didn't go down too well with the commissioner [not least because it had been on copy with all correspondence in the case]

 

Out of the blue I received an email from a contact at Equifax advising that the other side had contacted it confirming there had been an error and all processing should cease. This in turn was followed by a credit to my bank account courtesy of the other side with no notice [written or otherwise]. If you know the Halliday case you can probably guess the value.

 

That's about it barring the usual shouting match via email, claim pretty much settled, money in my account, nothing in correspondence until the WP email above.

 

Have since served/filed the discontinuance and had the other 80 squid settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's defence........ worse than my claim :!:

 

 

 

I...............

 

1 Save insofar as the same consists of admissions and save insofar

as it is herein expressly admitted or expressed not to be admitted,

the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.

This Defence is served without prejudice to the Defendant's

contention that parts of the Claim should be struck out for failure to

state any grounds capable of success at trial or alternatively

dismissed summarily for failure to demonstrate any prospects of

success at trial.

 

2 In this Defence where an allegation is not admitted, it means that

the Defendant is unable either to admit or deny the allegation in

question and requires it to be proved in accordance with CPR

r.16.5(1)(b).

 

3 The Claimant entered into an agreement with the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxx (the "Agreement").

 

4 The terms and conditions to the Agreement (the "Terms and

Conditions") stated that the Defendant will add details of the

Agreement with it, as well as ongoing details of the Claimant's

account and how the Claimant manages it. Further, they stated that

if the Claimant does not repay on time, or in full, the Defendant may

tell credit reference agencies, who will record details of the debt. All

of this information will be seen by other organisations carrying out

later searches. A copy of the Terms and Conditions is attached at

pages 1 to 29 of the annex.

 

RESPONSE TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

5 The Claimant has failed to particularise its claim. CPR part 16.4

requires that the Claimant includes a concise statement of the facts

on which the Claimant relies. The Claimant has failed to do so.

 

6 Due to the Claimant's failure to particularise its claim, the Defendant

is unable to ascertain what the Claimant is claiming and on what

basis.

 

7 Without prejudice to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Defendant does

not admit:

 

7.1 that it unlawfully processes and shares personal data with credit

reference agencies;

 

7.2 that the information it processes is inaccurate and manipulated;

 

7.3 that it is breach of contract;

 

7.4 that it is in breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the "Act");

 

7.5 that it is in breach of ICO guidance on reporting to credit reference

agencies;

 

7.6 that damages including aggravated damages, for misuse of

personal data and/or compensation under section 13 of the Act are

recoverable; and

 

 

7.7 that interest under section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at 7% [sic] a year

from 19.05.15 to 10.06.15 on £1000 and at the same rate up to

judgment or earlier payment at rate of 0.22% should be awarded.

 

8 The Claimant is put to strict proof in regard to paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7.

 

9 The Defendant reserves its position to file an amended Defence.

 

10 The Defendant reserves its position to file an application to strike

out the Claim.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts in this Defence are true and I am authorised to sign

this statement of behalf of the Defendant.

Signed ... {

Print name .............. ~NNrF~R. ~ .,._ ..,`~1L .....~...............................................

Date ....~....~. ...~.~r ......................................................

Served this ~~ day of July 2015 by Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co

LLP, Two Snowhill, Birmingham B4 6WR, Solicitors for Defendant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the ICO's view

 

-----Original Message-----

From: [email protected]>

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CC: [email protected]>

Sent: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

The email below has been referred to us. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to the ICO in order to fully respond to the query raised.

 

Please provide your xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP

 

DDI: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

M: +xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Two Snowhill, Birmingham, B4 6WR

Switchboard: +44 (0)870 903 1000

 

http://www.wragge-law.com

 

 

 

 

Subject: Email from the Information Commissioner's Office to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

29 June 2015

 

 

 

Case Reference Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has received a complaint about your organisation and the way it handles personal information.

 

The ICO is a UK independent regulatory authority reporting directly to the UK Parliament. The Commissioner enforces and oversees the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Our purpose is to improve information rights practices within organisations.

 

Please see the case summary below for details of the complaint. Please complete the section marked data controller response and return to us in the timescale outlined. Where appropriate we have enclosed copies of supporting documents.

 

 

Complainant Details

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Complaint Summary

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When checking his account on the 20 April 2015 the entry had been removed as it had been six years from the date of default.

However a month later the entry was showing on his credit report without the default and a different balance.

Mr xxxxxxxxxx raised this matter with xxxxxxxxxxx but feels that his concern was not addressed correctly. He says the only thing about the entry that was looked at was the fact it was showing as status ‘in query’ which has since been removed. His actual concern is that the entry is there at all.

 

DPA Principles Involved

 

Principle 4 & 5

 

Attachments

 

A copy of credit file entry

Copies of correspondence between xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx

What we need from you

 

 

A defaulted account shows on a credit for six years from the date of default.

 

We would ask that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx concern is revisited and that you provide your version of events and in particular answers to the following concerns:

 

Why this entry still remains on xxxxxxxxxxxxx credit file when the default was recorded over six years ago;

Why the balance has now changed from £1629 to £12.

We would ask that you confirm your findings to us, along with details of any action taken in respect of this concern by 27 July.

 

Response Timescale

 

By 27 July 2015.

 

Data Controller Response

 

 

 

If you have any queries concerning this process, please contact me.

 

For further information about the DPA, please see our website at http://www.ico.org.uk.

 

If you disagree with this decision, or would like to provide us with feedback of any kind, please let me know.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

01625 545 xxx

 

ICO Statement

We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website (http://www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only extract of its part 18 I can share........ the rest was written by a 2 year old [with crayons]

 

"The Claimant further claims other relief as is just and apposite, to include the expunging of

inaccurate personal data where processed, shared, reported or published in any medium. "

 

21.Lets not ask. This will only help the Claimant. If he doesn't know what he wants then the court

cannot give it.

 

Served on the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015

Dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015

L~./L ~i

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP

Two Snowhill

Birmingham

B4 6WR

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only extract of its part 18 I can share........ the rest was written by a 2 year old [with crayons]

 

"The Claimant further claims other relief as is just and apposite, to include the expunging of

inaccurate personal data where processed, shared, reported or published in any medium. "

 

21.Lets not ask. This will only help the Claimant. If he doesn't know what he wants then the court

cannot give it.

 

Served on the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015

Dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015

L~./L ~i

Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP

Two Snowhill

Birmingham

B4 6WR

 

Is that from their part 18 ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that from their part 18 ?

 

Yep, the firm had a trainee wasting my time........... somebody forgot to tell her to remove all the tactical notes and comments

 

That was the only extract I felt comfortable publishing on here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the firm had a trainee wasting my time........... somebody forgot to tell her to remove all the tactical notes and comments

 

That was the only extract I felt comfortable publishing on here

 

Priceless, :lol:

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...