Jump to content


Barclays breach the GDPR ??


paulwlton
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 236 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

Sorry about the spell, on my mobile

.

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

 

I think the more we can throw at Barclays the better. 

 

The legal opinion on merits of the case will be interesting.

 

Paul

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/02/2021 at 11:57, paulwlton said:

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.   

 

My bold.

Yes here he is referring to a record of the unenforceability of the account, not the issuance of the default "D". 

 

He thought that it was unfair to just register D, when the debt was unenforceable, and that additional information should be recorded to reflect the fact that there was no imperative for the debtor to pay.

"Accurate information cannot be accommodated"

The way default data has not been altered to my knowledge, so the suggestion was ignored by the GDPR.

 

But nothing was said about recording the default itself.

 

Unfortunately Grace was unable to sue because the cause of action itself was SB(that is the placing of the D on the account by the creditor), and he would have had to prove the creditor new of the offence in order to extend the period under section 32 SOL hiding information.

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

In my opinion. If the status of 6 missed payments is excepted, then the credit file should have made reference to the fact that the account was unenforceable. If the credit file wasn't able to show this, then the status of 6 should not have continued to be recorded.  

 

 

 

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

Hi Paul, I think this is confusing the issue TBH.

Yes the file should have been degaulted, but the 6 ls a legitimate entry, which the Cra can place


in grace the issue was about additional information, as well as the d, which indicates that not only the D(the fact the debt was defaulted) but the fact that the account is unenforcable.


The CRA are still unable to record this extra informstion.  

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 fact the report should record the correct marker is covered by basic dpa principles. You can use case law if you like, but really it is superfluous. 

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 take your point about confusing the issue, but think

it could apply if they argue that there is no requirement to file a default. 
 

Barclays have offered £150 for distress and inconvenience. I’ll post the letter when it arrives. 

 

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

Peter,

 

Is 6 a legitimate entry for a overdraft?

Edited by paulwlton
Spelling

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

When status 6 would apply.
 

Status 4-6 or 4-6 & BB - Possible Triggers
• If, when status 3 has been set, the customer is showing no realistic attempt to repay the overdraft then, a Status 8 should normally be set.
• Status 4-6 will normally only be needed if the customer has made a repayment proposal and is making a realistic effort to repay the overdraft, but the overdraft is more than 3 months beyond its repayment date.
 

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i remember for that period (when the file might have actually hit 6 meaning 6 mts of unsatisfactory payments) CRA's automictically entered a defaulted date themselves.

 

useless but poss relevant 

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

On 15/02/2021 at 22:46, paulwlton said:

Peter,

 

Is 6 a legitimate entry for a overdraft?

No but it isn't additional either. As said, the fact that you cannot make missed payment markers on an OD is a good argument, nothing to do with sparkies case though

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

I think you said it Paul. The D should have only been registered after the debt was recalled. As far as the CRA is concerned, that is when the arrangement "broke down".

 

Edited by Peterbard
bloody spell checker

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

  Here is the result of a query made to the ICO in 2015.

 

The ICO has considered the circumstances in which the credit reference agencies should be permitted to record details of unenforceable credit agreements. In doing so we have had particular regard not only to the clear legislative intent that the absence of a signature on a credit agreement should no longer be an absolute bar to enforcement, but also to the following factors;

1) The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor.

2) Where a liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount due has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable.

3) Responsible lending decisions are dependent upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts.

Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable regulated agreement.

It follows that where the existence of the agreement is not in doubt we consider it to be appropriate for information about the agreement, including any failure by the debtor to repay his or her debt to be recorded with the credit reference agencies. Where a 'debtor' disputes the existence of any credit agreement, enforceable or other wise we would ask to see evidence of the agreement and its terms. This might include evidence of the provision of the credit facility or of a history of payments made by the debtor.

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 the COA said that a CRA file should show that the account

is  unenforceable.

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul.

I understand what you say, but this was a large judgement and 90% of the claim was thrown out, this issue was referred back to Sparkie and Black horse for out of court negotiations or for another court to decide if sanctions were appropriate.

 

As said everything i have read both before and since agrees with the ICO quote above.

Have their been ANY successful claims using the "precedent " since. it was 2014 after all. 

 

There was no costs awarded, no sanctions, and the claim was not picked up in the later GDPR.

 

Look if you want to leave it in then do so, I dont think it will harm your case, it is just a distraction. I was asked for my opinion, that's it.

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

Peter,

 

I agree that Grace is not really required as the data is probably incorrect in any event, contrary to data laws. Nevertheless,  I’ve instructed the expert to consider it, so it will be interesting to see if it assists.

 

 

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

Depends on the expert. 

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

Opinion should be with me by Thursday.

 

The expert has been involved in COA cases concerning matters I've 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

Paul.

The word expert is very subjective, we have seen a few "experts" on here. There are some on the team.

😁

 

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

Someone that specialises on the subject might be a better way to put it. 

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be me.

 

Any signs of the response yet?

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

Should receive it in the next few days.

 

Looking forward to your comments on the opinion.

 

Regards

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

Posted (edited)

The legal opinion gives the green light to claim damages under breaches of the DPA 1998 and/or negligence as per 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

  • 1 month later...

I hope this wasn't your last word on this Paul, because there is Zero chance on either of the above.

 

As far as I can see there have been no breaches of the DPA, and there was no such Judgement in Durkin. The English court could not make one, and damages were thrown out, unless you mean the derisory damages awarded by the Scottish Court. Good luck anyway.

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...