Jump to content


Barclays breach the GDPR ??


Recommended Posts

Peter,

 

The termination notice has now appeared.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

p'haps angle more toward the SB and compo? it should not be on her credit file past 6yrs, and has caused damage since 2014 to her rating/worthiness  no payments have been made since 2008.

The only businesses more hated than banks are debt collectors, and unlike Banks they're not a necessary evil.   In my (admittedly brief) experience, the quickest responses I've had to Subject Access R

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 p

Oh thank goodness for that, had me worried for  minute.

 

Right so no argument now about the status of the account. Just to say what you already know. Termination refers to anything regarding the functioning of the agreement(contract). 

It does not mean the money is not owed, merely that there is no prescribed method of repaying it. The firm would have to take you to court or reach an agreement with you, or assign it to a DCA.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the appropriate section of the SOL 1980

(3)Where a demand in writing for repayment of the debt under a contract of loan to which this section applies is made by or on behalf of the creditor (or, where there are joint creditors, by or on behalf of any one of them) section 5 of this Act shall thereupon apply as if the cause of action to recover the debt had accrued on the date on which the demand was made.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks response back in 2019 denies the balance is statute barred. Now this raises even more issues regarding the status of the account registered at the CRAs. Although the balance has shown zero since it was settled in 2019 the accounts history has remained showing a status of 6. The bank should have removed this status once I’d informed them it was statute barred. The COA in Grace v Lloyds confirmed where an account is unenforceable a customers credit file should reflect this. 

 

Am I correct Peter, dx ??
 

 


“As regular correspondence has been issued about the outstanding balance, we don't agree that the account can be considered statute barred nor do we feel we're being misleading in stating this. However, I can assure you that we won't be taking any steps to pursue payment of the balance and we will be making the changes we promised”.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

Perhaps ask them for the case law which says that correspondence alone resets the SB. It would if you pro mised to pay, but nothing they can send acknowledges the debt.

 

The termination letter asks for full repayment, so after the 14 days or whatever, the account is in default, there cannot be monthly missed payments, because no schedule has been set up.

 

It s A loan as prescribed by the SOL section 6. The CRA should have described the condition of the account correctly six years ago and, therefore it should have dropped of the file.

The procedure they use is to place a Default on your file then backdate it, then remove the D altogether.

 

I have never seen Grace implemented TBH. Durkin is a bit questionable, as I remember it, the Scottish judgement was not defeated or modified in the lords, as they could not" go behind" it.

 

I have  lots of case law about the SB, and what can reset it and why.

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,


Surely it’s the termination letter that  gives the bank the cause of action and if they fail to  issue within 6 years the account becomes statute barred
 

The bank are wrong to state that sending an annual statement of account trumps the sec 6 SOL. 
 

I will ask them to confirm whether they are relying on case law or qualified legal opinion. 

 

 
 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes absolutely right. or to be exact the demand on the letter of termination plus whatever time they give you to pay..

 

As a point of interest, before the Sol, common law cause of action on a loan was when the loan is given, that is without a demand.

Edited by Peterbard

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Data from telephone transcript dated April 2019.

 

 

 

Mr W referred to statute barred I adv we wouldn’t consider the acc to be statute barred as corres have been sent
Mr W feels this statement is dishonest, misleading, doesn’t fit in with statute barred legislation.

 

 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paulbefore.

 

Some people dont seem to be able to get their head around the fact that the SB works both ways.

Cause of Action on Statute Bar Resolved - General Debt Issues - Consumer Action Group

 

See above, this illustrates my point.

As well as protecting the creditor from indefinitely having the possibility of a claim hanging over him, it also ensures the creditor has a full six years to enforce. 

 

The judgement, acknowledges that before a credit agreement(not a overdraft) can be enforced a compliant DN must be issued as the CCA disallows any recovery action before that. When a cause of action is updated, it is because the customer indicates, "by promise or payment" that a new agreement to repay is being offered.

 

This of course resets the COA date. This is important, because even if you were to write to the creditor, as long as you do not say you are going to repay, it does not have the effect of restarting the SB.

 

This is all contained in old case law, which absent to any contrary clarification in statute is still binding. 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone improve the letter?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

I am now in receipt of my personal data.

 

In 2019 you investigated my complaint and provided your response on the 22nd April. You supported my complaint that my account update was not completed on the agreed date and therefore offered a compensatory payment for distress and convenience.

 

In addition to supporting my complaint you acknowledged that recording the account at the credit reference agencies was longer than intended, however, your opinion was that the data was correct as the balance remained outstanding. You rejected my claim that the account was in a statute barred status from 2014 on the basis that you sent annual statements. 

 

Hitherto, you have failed to provide any case law or relevant statute that allows the sending of statements to circumvent the provisions set out in Section 6 Limitation Act 1980.

 

As you continue to insist that the account is not statute barred and reject the application of section 6 LA 1980 I would ask you to seek legal counsel on the matter before continuing to mislead and/or conceal. 

 

My contention that the account was time barred was totally reliant on Barclays having a cause of action, which  was, for the avoidance of doubt, the written serving of a notice for demand as confirmed in the Court of Appeal in (Doyle V PRA (2019)

 

Further to my contention that the account status of 6 is incorrect It was decided in the Court of Appeal (Grace & ANR V Blackhorse (2014) that where an account is unenforceable by statute the credit file must show this in the status, failure to do so renders the information incorrect and a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

You have acknowledged that the extended reporting has impacted on my ability to obtain credit and employment, notwithstanding, that you believe the reporting to be correct. However, your claim is now a bad one with the emergence of the notice of demand previously withheld in 2019.

 

For the reasons set out above I request that you review the original complaint.

 

Yours Sincere                

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Looks great to me.  

Minor points

You may want to add that the failure to add a default marker removes your statutory protection in that there is no need for them to warn the debtor 28 days before trashing his file.

 

By labelling a default as something else, they seek to deprive the debtor of the benefit of the sol, which is unfair, I would say dishonest.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

As I intend issuing a claim in the courts I have asked a lawyer that specialises in this area of law for a written, detailed opinion on the matters I have raised. 
 

 

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say which one?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always a good idea to get a professional opinion from a barrister or above. unfortunately they cost, and there is sometimes a degree of self interest, if they think they are going to make money out of you.

So be wary.

 

Peter

 

 

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

The detailed opinion will assist and Ill post it once received. 

Meanwhile Barclays have gone very quiet.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

On review, i would not depend on Grace. Despite this judgement being bigged up, it was lost by Sparkie i am afraid.

The only saving grace(pardon the pun), was that the Judge did comment that CRAs should have an additional ability to record the account status regarding enforceability.

 

He did not make a decision regarding statute bar. 

 

The GDPR came into force well after this in any case, and none of the recommendations were adopted, nor  were CRA's  instructed to create one. Just for clarity, CRAs still do not have the additional facility,

 

 

 

 

 

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter,

 

Is it not analogous to Grace?...the account was unenforceable by statute.

 

 

Your advice always appreciated.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

The account was declared unenforceable under a section 127(4)issue some time earlier. THere is a write up here.

 

Risks around reporting to Credit Reference Agencies- Publications - Eversheds Sutherland (eversheds-sutherland.com)

 

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

But a statute barred debt does not require a court to declare the debt unenforceable?

 

It is fact that the account was unenforceable 6 years after the termination notice was served as per Doyle.  

 

I

 

 

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

statute barring means nothing in E&W other than any court judgement cannot be enforced...so they don't bother

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue in grace was the recording of the default. Iit was avered by the claimant that if the debt was unenforceable the credit file should say so, as well as recording the default.
The same could be said in the case of an account which was statute barred, although this was undecided.
 

The bank loan bad been declared unenforceable for some time under a 127(4) issue if memory serves.


The recording issue is the only one that wasnt thrown out. Sparkie was all over the place with daft ideas, which i tried to tell him at the time.

Even this remaining issue was referred to future procedings or negotiation on the judge recommendation.


This had nothing to do with your case in any way. Yours is a straight foreward SB

 

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

The creditor isn't legally obligated to register a default once a default/termination notice has expired, its totally at their discretion. What they did in my case was to keep the account status as active.

 

The account became statute barred/unenforceable from 2014 and as per Grace the credit file should have been updated to reflect this. Fourth principle Data Protection Act  requires ones personal data to be accurate and up to date.

 

Ive asked the expert to consider Grace, Doyle and Durkin. 

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Para 38 Grace.
 

38. As for the second submission, I have not been persuaded that the shortcomings in the CRAs registration systems can excuse a registration which is in substance inaccurate because of an omission (namely that the ‘default’ related to an unenforceable agreement).  If an accurate registration cannot be accommodated, then the answer is for the industry to change its registration systems, and in the meantime for inaccurate registrations not to be made.

Quote

 

 

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was regarding additional information as well as the default marker. The judge felt that a D alone was not enough when an account was unenforceable, and that changes should be made by cras to there systems to enable to acommidate this additional information.


he also wondere if this should apply to An debts, nut made no comments.


since this judgment and the shake up administered by GDPR, there has been no such ammendments by cras, because no such instructions have been ordered.


if a subject thinks the lack of relevant information is unfair or inaccurate they should use principle one of GDPR.


But I still fail to see the relevance to your situation. There is already ample legislation regarding what the initial D should indicate, and recording of a default which you can use.

You don't need any unadopted case law which honestly refers to additional measures which should be applied.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...