Barclays breach the GDPR ??

[paulwlton 1,237]

Hi Peter,

 

I recall Barclays required the account to be brought under a stated threshold. I presume that the failure to comply would allow immediate payment and the filing of a default.?

 

[Andyorch 10,465]

46 minutes ago, paulwlton said:

Peter,

 

I thought overdrafts were payable on demand ?

 

 

They are but your still allowed 28 days to agree offer a payment proposal....which can run without a default being registered if mutually agreed.

 

Andy

[Peterbard 3,082]

Hi Andy

Yes, its a question of what the court will enforce. the section 98 and 76 terminations are none default terminations.

It is unlikely a court would give the creditor a judgement if they did not offer some kind of arrangement in the first instance.

They did permit the overdraft.

 

You are right in saying it is not as cut and dried as in say a running account agreement where there was an agreed repayment schedule on the terminated agreement.

 

 

[paulwlton 1,237]

Peter,

 

My new complaint.

 

The bank failed to update the credit file in 2008 recording a series of 6 months in arrears up until 2019. In 2019 the bank wrote the amount off and since then the accounts status has shown the status of settled at zero, but the negative data will remain until 2025.

 

My research suggests that there is no legal obligation to apply a defaulted status (8 on experian) to ones credit file post default (its at their discretion). If the bank had recorded the account has defaulted the credit file would have been wiped clean in 2014. 

 

Between 2014 and 2019 the bank continued to report a continuing series of 6 missed monthly payments on the file.

 

The bank is required to process data lawfully and fairly and that the data is accurate and up to date. 

 

Paul

Edited Wednesday at 11:27 by paulwlton
Spelling

[paulwlton 1,237]

Just to add, para 4 of the ICO's technical guidance states that a status of 6 should not be used in place of a default.

Edited Wednesday at 11:36 by paulwlton
spelling

[Peterbard 3,082]

HI Paul, i should mention the Termination notice which demanded immediate payment or the recording of the status of account on your file. 

When this was not paid the account must be in default. It is not for them to hold off registering the point, in case they want to record it at some later date. The relationship has broken down.

 

Nevertheless this is something many other credit suppliers are taking advantage of on reviewing old accounts. 

 

Principle 1 of the GDPR states that data processing must be fair.

[paulwlton 1,237]

I think you're correct Peter,

 

Could there be a claim using the Durkin precedent ???

 

Regards

[paulwlton 1,237]

The credit file showing incorrect data.

Edited Wednesday at 14:42 by paulwlton

[paulwlton 1,237]

Letter going off today. 

 

 

On the 25th February 2008 I received a letter advising that I was in an unauthorised overdraft position and if I failed to comply with a balance reduction plan the bank may demand full payment of the outstanding balance.

 

On the 21st August 2008 I was served with a statutory termination notice pursuant Section 76(1) and 98(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 stating that on 05th September 2008 the bank was to terminate the agreement.

 

It is accepted that if a person fails to settle their account after receiving a termination notice the bank is entitled to register a default on the their credit file.

 

However, instead of registering a default the bank registered the account as a status 6, which shows that payments are 6 months in arrears. The ICO’s Technical Guidance on filing defaults with credit reference agencies states that. A record showing a series of payments as six months in arrears when this does not reflect the real payment history should not be used as an equivalent of a default.

 

The filing of a status 6 instead of a default meant that damage to my credit status was not just restricted to 6 years, the damage continued and consequently both myself and partner have had applications for credit rejected.

 

The bank has admitted that had it followed due process and registered a default the same would have fallen of my credit file in 2014. I therefore allege that the bank negligently filed incorrect data with the credit reference agencies, the consequence of which has resulted in damage to my credit status/worthiness and reputation. The damage has extended to my partners credit status by association.

 

The processing of my data is neither fair nor is it accurate. The bank has breached the First and Fourth Principle of the Data Protection 1998, the First and fourth Principle GDPR (2018 DPA). The bank has been negligent, failed in its duty of care, failed to to abide by the FCAs principle 6, “treating customers fairly”, and has disregarded the ICO’s technical guidance on filing defaults with credit reference agencies.

 

In order to satisfy my grievance and pursuant Article 17, 82 GDPR respectively, I require the immediate erasure of the incorrect data on my credit file and compensation for the damage the same has caused as outlined above.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

[mrabody 7]

I wouldn't suggest that they acted negligently.  I'd assert that they deliberately did this in order to punish you and to exert pressure on your to pay.   Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

What sort of costs have you incurred as a result of their behaviour?  

[paulwlton 1,237]

mrabody

 

No loss, just general damages as per Durkin.

 

The bank has already paid out £750 for the distress and inconvenience they've caused in taking too long to mark the account as settled and passing the debt onto a DCA. However, they would not accept damage to the credit status from 2014 even after admitting that the account should have had a default status and that the same would have fallen off in 2014.

 

Ill post their letters when I receive the contents of my DSAR. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peterbard 3,082]

Great letter Paul. Going to pinch that and use it as a template, it expresses the situation perfectly.

 

MB 

 

It does seem that these institutions take a personal interest in certain individuals, and from the receivers perspective, I agree it certainly feels like they do. 

 

However i suspect there is a monetary motive, behind all this. Isn't there always.

 

When debts are sold, there value falls into several categories and generally they are purchased, in blocks, by DCA's who specialise in recovering that particular debt type.

 

The amount owed of the debt of course, but also, approaching  SB, Defaulted, un-defaulted?, not yet registered on the CRA etc. Each have a different value, which is dependant on the leverage still available that can be applied by the DCA .

 

A debt that has yet to be defaulted and still has a long time on the credit file represents a valuable commodity as compared to one that was defaulted several years ago and is approaching SB. IMO.

 

Regarding SB, you should always inform the creditor that the debt is statute barred, as this switches the burden of proof, and according to the FCA, they cannot pursue unless they can prove you are not.

 

 

[paulwlton 1,237]

Peter,

 

I bet theres lots of overdrafts being recoded as a status 6 instead of a default contrary to the ICO guidance. This way the overdraft never becomes stat barred and like you say is valued more than a defaulted account. Most debtors are oblivious to this.

 

Anyway just after id paid £2.20 to send the letter recorded deliver Barclays rang and asked me to email it them. 

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 17:15 by paulwlton

[mrabody 7]

You've suffered reputational damage.  You've also been denied the ability to obtain credit, or have had to obtain credit at a poor rate.   

 

 

 

[paulwlton 1,237]

mrabody

 

You're spot on mate.

 

Barclays aknowledge my complaint.

 

I’m sorry you’ve had to contact us again regarding your complaint and that I’ve been unable to speak with you directly when you’ve called.

 

I can assure you I’ve reviewed the information you’ve sent and I’m currently liaising with the relevant team to try to get this resolved, as soon as possible. I’m afraid I can’t give you any more information at the moment, nor can I give a specific timescale as to when I’ll be able to get an answer for you. However, I will provide you with an update no later than 26 January 2021.

 

Thank you for your patience in the meantime.

 

Kind regards

Edited Friday at 11:44 by paulwlton

[Peterbard 3,082]

 

It seems to be epidemic. ahem

 

A record, stating payment arrangement or as in Pauls case condition 6 is put on the file ,then instead of dropping off after six years, it appears as a defaulted live account.

 Which means that they record a default and also pursue the debt in court. 

All because of what seems to me, to be an error in the GDPR drafting, or more likely translation from its German origin.

 

I had an argument on the phone with link recently about them recording an arrangement marker, then changing it to a default after six years. It was about the relative harm in recording markers when a default should have been registered.

 

He seemed the think the AR marker had little or no effect !!, when in many ways it is worse than an aged default.

Because it means the subject has recently been through an assessment which confirmed all his disposable income has been used. so what would he use to pay off further credit? A default just indicates that sometime in the past there were problems.

 

Edited Friday at 14:49 by Peterbard

[paulwlton 1,237]

Peter,

 

You are spot on.

 

Todays email. 

 

Dear _______

 

 

Thank you for confirming that you are to investigate my allegations that the bank has breached Data Protection laws and also disregarded ICO guidance.

 

Further to my letter of complaint submitted yesterday 21/01/2021 I wish to include that in 2019 the bank rejected my claim that the balance was statute barred as of sometime in 2014. The bank never provided its reasoning behind the rejection other than implying that a termination was ‘never’ served in 2008 and that the balance was legally recoverable.

 

Could you please confirm whether you continue to believe that the balance was never statute barred pursuant Sec 6 para 3 Limitation Act 1980 as I believe your intention was to mislead and justify your continued regime off filing a status of 6 on my credit file.

 

Yours Sincerely

[paulwlton 1,237]

important – sometimes a default is good news!

Defaults sound bad, right? So getting one removed must be good?

This is probably the most confusing thing of all, but No!

It can often be better to have a default on your credit record.  If there is a default against a debt, then the whole debt will “drop off” your file after six years, even if you haven’t repaid the debt. With no default, the record will not go away until six years after it is marked as settled/satisfied in some way.

So don’t rush into trying to get a default removed… and never try to get a default date changed to a later one because it will wreck your credit record for longer