Me vs Littlewoods Catalogue

[shane5408]

Debt mountain has had success with default removals through raising court actions.

 

With regards to no credit agreement, usually pointing out that they have not complied with the various anti money laundering regulations by keeping a copy of the agreement and threatening to reporting them to The Financial Crime Branch of HM Customs for this means that the debt is written off before the need to go to court.

 

 

Thanks for the advice, I must admit I've never heard of the HMCE Financial crime branch option, I take it this is something the OC will take very seriously? Do you know where i can find out more about them, can't seem to find a website or contact details. It would also be very useful if you could let me know or point me in the direction of the anti money laundering regulations you mentioned as well.

 

Just been reading some of Debt mountains threads, he's had a lot of success with CRA's and removing adverse credit data, will def be taking a leaf out of his book.

 

appreciate the help!

shane

[rory32]

I must admit I've never heard of the HMCE Financial crime branch option, I take it this is something the OC will take very seriously? Do you know where i can find out more about them, can't seem to find a website or contact details. It would also be very useful if you could let me know or point me in the direction of the anti money laundering regulations you mentioned as well.

 

This is your starter for 10 (to coin a phrase) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/93884-wescot-rbofs-oh-dear.html

[2Grumpy]

Littlewoods in criminal default here & the CRA is still siding with Littlewoods.

 

Littlewoods are sore losers and want the default to stay out of spite. They broke guidelines by placing while the debt was in dispute it in the first place.

 

KPR is legitimately witholding payments until Littlewoods ends its default.

 

The CRA is aiding and abetting Littlewoods in its criminal actions.

 

Isn't Littlewoods libelling KPR by saying that he is in default when legally he is not (but they are) and the CRA doing the same by passing on untruths about him.

 

KPR has given the DCA the opportunity to correct their inaccurate records but they continue to listen only to Littlewoods rather than look at the legality of the situation.

 

At a minimum the CRA should be suppressing this information when there is a valid dispute (perhaps tell enquirers that there is a dispute re data held about the person while it is ongoing).

 

The DCAs do seem to have forgotten that they are data processors, responsible for the accuracy of their data. They don't have the right to store incorrect data "just because Littlewoods don't want them to remove it".

 

The CRAs data controller is personally responsible for the accuracy of the data. He should be made to feel some of the heat. He needs his mind concentrating on the fact that it is he (or she) and not Littlewoods that can get the "go directly to jail" card. Perhaps they need a little education in the dpa.

 

Perhaps the facts (including the CRAs responsibilities) need to be presented in a different way to encourage them to comply. You should definately start the CRAs complaints procedure. Get hold of the CRAs data controller (or company secretary) and point out their responsibilities.

 

The CRA is most at fault here for accepting information without checking it and not removing it in the face of an enormous amount of evidence.

 

Don't they realise what effect a compliance order from the Information Commissioners office would do to their existence? i.e. ensure that all of their data is accurate, Investigate & remove incorrect data. They couldn't operate. They only manage to exist because of insufficient complaints.

It's time for people that can complain to start complaining to the IC (after going through the complaints procedure at the CRA first).

 

Enough ranting. I realise that I sound grumpy.

 

Grumpy

[ODC]

Littlewoods in criminal default here & the CRA is still siding with Littlewoods.

 

Littlewoods are sore losers and want the default to stay out of spite. They broke guidelines by placing while the debt was in dispute it in the first place.

 

KPR is legitimately witholding payments until Littlewoods ends its default.

 

The CRA is aiding and abetting Littlewoods in its criminal actions.

 

Isn't Littlewoods libelling KPR by saying that he is in default when legally he is not (but they are) and the CRA doing the same by passing on untruths about him.

 

KPR has given the DCA the opportunity to correct their inaccurate records but they continue to listen only to Littlewoods rather than look at the legality of the situation.

 

At a minimum the CRA should be suppressing this information when there is a valid dispute (perhaps tell enquirers that there is a dispute re data held about the person while it is ongoing).

 

The DCAs do seem to have forgotten that they are data processors, responsible for the accuracy of their data. They don't have the right to store incorrect data "just because Littlewoods don't want them to remove it".

 

The CRAs data controller is personally responsible for the accuracy of the data. He should be made to feel some of the heat. He needs his mind concentrating on the fact that it is he (or she) and not Littlewoods that can get the "go directly to jail" card. Perhaps they need a little education in the Data Protection Act.

 

Perhaps the facts (including the CRAs responsibilities) need to be presented in a different way to encourage them to comply. You should definately start the CRAs complaints procedure. Get hold of the CRAs data controller (or company secretary) and point out their responsibilities.

 

The CRA is most at fault here for accepting information without checking it and not removing it in the face of an enormous amount of evidence.

 

Don't they realise what effect a compliance order from the Information Commissioners office would do to their existence? i.e. ensure that all of their data is accurate, Investigate & remove incorrect data. They couldn't operate. They only manage to exist because of insufficient complaints.

It's time for people that can complain to start complaining to the Information Commissioner (after going through the complaints procedure at the CRA first).

 

Enough ranting. I realise that I sound grumpy.

 

Grumpy

 

This is an excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly with you. It really is time someone took the CRAs to task. Littlewoods claim that Kenny is in default. They failed to prove it yet the CRA enter it against Kenny because Littlewoods say so. Kenny proves he is not in default yet the CRA refuses to remove the default illegally placed there out of spite. In my opinion the CRAs are as bad as the low life DCAs who put erroneous information on. The DCAs attitude seems to be Ok we cannot get any money out of you because you know your rights and we can prove diddly squat BUT we can F**K up your life through our buddies in the Credit Reference Agencies, This is just bullying in another form

 

RANT OVER:mad:

[kennyparkroad]

well im still waiting on a reply - if i get nothing im going to start court action, i work full time, but i dont have a lot of money, so ill just throw a claim in for costs/compen while im at it, i wont state a figure, ill let the courts decide!

[2Grumpy]

It really is time someone took the CRAs to task.

 

Lots of complaints to the information commissioner after exhausting the CRAs complaints procedure might be the best way to go. If he investigates & issues an enforcement order re accuracy the CRAs will be paralysed. In the short term, people making complaints to the CRAs could use this gem to concentrate the CRAs data controller's minds. I really think that they haven't woken up to their responsibilities or the implications of the dpa yet.

 

In my opinion the CRAs are as bad as the low life DCAs who put erroneous information on. The DCAs attitude seems to be Ok we cannot get any money out of you because you know your rights and we can prove diddly squat BUT we can F**K up your life through our buddies in the Credit Reference Agencies, This is just bullying in another form

 

Quite agree. This is just like bullying by toddlers who want their own way and having a tantrum when they lose the game. Needs a big stick to spank their a****s as well as their friends who hold their grubby little hands.

(anology gone too far?)

[shane5408]

deleted

[shane5408]

Lots of complaints to the information commissioner after exhausting the CRAs complaints procedure might be the best way to go. If he investigates & issues an enforcement order re accuracy the CRAs will be paralysed. In the short term, people making complaints to the CRAs could use this gem to concentrate the CRAs data controller's minds. I really think that they haven't woken up to their responsibilities or the implications of the Data Protection Act yet.

 

 

 

Quite agree. This is just like bullying by toddlers who want their own way and having a tantrum when they lose the game. Needs a big stick to spank their a****s as well as their friends who hold their grubby little hands.

(anology gone too far?)

 

with regards to taking the cra's to task, i would suggest including them as well as the OC/DCA in any court claims you make

[2Grumpy]

Kenny

 

I have sent you a pm re this thread

 

Grumpy

[conar686]

hi conar,

 

in certain situations it is possible to have the court fee waived or reduced, depends on your personal circumstances,

 

kind regards,

Shane

 

Shane/Rory

 

I've looked into these ways of getting court fees waivered & I do not qualify due to my earnings now, I've argued that , as I'm in a DMP, my available funds are such that I should qualify but this, so far, falls on deaf ears.

 

As these options are not available to me at the moment, my plan is to get charges back from Bank/Credit cards to fund courts cases such as Littlewoods.

 

Re ensuring that you've got all your ducks in a row B4 going to court, I had a long call with ICO explained clearly the Littlewoods situation to 3 people and was finally told to take them to court.

 

Thanks both, for your help

[conar686]

2Grumpy stated: At a minimum the CRA should be suppressing this information when there is a valid dispute (perhaps tell enquirers that there is a dispute re data held about the person while it is ongoing).

 

This is exactly the response you get from the CRAs - they will only allow a generic 'Notice of Correction',

 

Such as the following I've got them to add

 

"I, CONAR686, DISPUTE ALL THE DATA CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT AS I BELIEVE IT CONTRAVENES THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, IS FALSE & MISLEADING. PLEASE NOTE THE COMPANIES CONCERNED HAVE, TO DATE, FAILED TO PROVIDE ME WITH PROOF AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SAID DATA WHICH IS THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT."

 

THE DATA SUBJECT HAS EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 AND HAS CHOSEN TO OPT OUT OF AUTOMATED PROCESSING AS OF 01 JUN 2007. CREDIT STATUS ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE VIA A MANUAL PROCESS". SIGNED MR CONAR686

 

The ICO consistantly take the word of the CRA over us Law abiding citizens and again the only option will be for someone to challenge a CRA in court.

 

The best reads on CRAs are by 'Surlybonds'

[ODC]

Its ridiculous that the ICO does not carry out a FULL investigation into these lowlifes. Telling you that you can take them to Court when in fact it should be THEM who take the CRAs to Court. Maybe you should ask the ICO for details of their Complaints procedure.

[alibobsy]

Interesting thread, I am ongoing with Littlewoods myself. They are now in default and shortly will be in "criminal" default. Mind you at least they have stopped phoning all the time. Just wondering on the subject of the information commissioners office if anyone in the situation of having a creditor in default of a cca request, who refuses to remove any data from the CRA's has complained to the ICO re the situation? Perhaps if all of us who get to this point, instead of going straight to court do a complaint to them first it might make them look into the situation. Like with the OFT who eventually have got sick of all the bank charge complaints and are pushing a court case through. Seems these regulatory bodies need loads of complaints/pushing before they get off their bums and do anything.

Just a thought

ali x

[surprise]

I have complained to the ICO re Littlewoods. They said they are looking into it. I have also put in a complaint to the ICO re CRA's yet to hear anything on that one though!

[shane5408]

Shane/Rory

 

I've looked into these ways of getting court fees waivered & I do not qualify due to my earnings now, I've argued that , as I'm in a DMP, my available funds are such that I should qualify but this, so far, falls on deaf ears.

 

As these options are not available to me at the moment, my plan is to get charges back from Bank/Credit cards to fund courts cases such as Littlewoods.

 

Re ensuring that you've got all your ducks in a row B4 going to court, I had a long call with ICO explained clearly the Littlewoods situation to 3 people and was finally told to take them to court.

 

Thanks both, for your help

 

Hi Conar,

 

Sorry for the situation you're in, this is one of the reasons i belive the system is flawed, it seems you only really qualify for reduction or waived court fees if you are on income based jobseekers allowance. I know the Ex160 guidance forms claim that fees can be reduced as well as completely waived and you would expect that for someone in your situation who is on a DMP this would take effect.

 

With regards to using the funds from charges claimed back from credit cads do your charges make up more than the outstanding balances? If not, you will find the creditors will simply credit them back to your account and probably reduce your credit limit down to the outstanding balance left on the card.

[shane5408]

Just to let you guys know, once i'm finished with my other claims, i will be taking on littlewoods (+flexi account), kays, choice, studio, grattan, next and a few other catalogues as well a some store cards. Depending on how reasonable they are, ie we all know they won't have enforcable agreements but if they default me and i cannot get this removed through the information commissioners office i will be taking the CRA's to court.

 

There has been some discussion about the Data Controllers (creditors) rights to process our data, the most disturbing being that they do not need our consent to do so, ie once a debt is achieved between the debtor and creditor the creditor has the right to process the debtors data in relation to the debt while the debt exists. However, thanks mainly to Surlybonds critique of the CCA, Data protection act and others relevant we now know there is no legislation that allows the data controller to collate, processs or distribute the data subjects information without the data subject giving his/her consent beforehand.

 

Since the agreement between the creditor and debtor is improperly executed and as a result unenforcable the alleged debt is void, subsequently as the agreement is deemed improperly executed it cannot be viewed in any way as consent given by the data subject for the data controller to process his/her data.

 

CRA's have a legal obligation to ensure the data they record on our credit files are accurate and in light of providing them with proof that the agreement is uneforcable and hence no consent was given to process our data they will have no choice but to remove all of it from our credit file. I look forward to their arguments in court, if it ever goes that far!

 

kind regards,

shane

[2Grumpy]

Its ridiculous that the Information Commissioners Office does not carry out a FULL investigation into these lowlifes. Telling you that you can take them to Court when in fact it should be THEM who take the CRAs to Court. Maybe you should ask the Information Commissioners Office for details of their Complaints procedure.

 

I quite agree - who can afford to take them to court - ceertainly not the people who are trying to get this incorrect data (aka lies) removed from their files

 

This effectively puts the CRAs & creditors in a position above the law and able to abuse their power.

[kennyparkroad]

Update

 

After my complaint letter of July they have sent me a standard response

 

basically saying they are going to look into it.

 

so im simply firing this letter back at them (just to keep them on their toes)

 

 

Thank you for your letter of xxx 2007, the contents of which have been noted.

Please be advised that all legal action on my part has now been suspended pending the result of your enquiry, however please note that action may again be resumed without further notification to yourselves if no resolution can be met or if your enquiry takes longer than 21 days.

Yours sincerely

[kennyparkroad]

ps - if anyone is intersted.

 

 

Fax number of International Collections Limited (their in house collectors)

0870 263 5082

 

Shop Direct Financial Services (littlewoods) Complaints Department

 

Fax Number 0870 263 5087

 

 

now this isnt their main number, they told me they were having problems with that but if i sent it to that number it would reach them.

 

 

its very handy to have fax numbers - you fax what you want, print out the fax header to say its been sent, and saves on recorded delivery!

[Curlyben]

Fax number of International Collections Limited (their in house collectors)

0870 263 5082 (try 0151 2105082)

 

Shop Direct Financial Services (littlewoods) Complaints Department

 

Fax Number 0870 263 5087 (try 0151 2105087)

 

Here you go. all thanks to SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers

[shane5408]

Fax number of International Collections Limited (their in house collectors)

0870 263 5082 (try 0151 2105082)

 

Shop Direct Financial Services (littlewoods) Complaints Department

 

Fax Number 0870 263 5087 (try 0151 2105087)

 

Here you go. all thanks to SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers

 

 

haha, got to love that website! A severe thorn in the financial organisations side!

[Curlyben]

Well least it means we aren't paying them to call their nice employees

[go for it]

how many in house collectors do littlewoods have? we are having problems with ndr i thought they were

[groovychickmum]

subscribing

[kennyparkroad]

NDR are also in house.

 

treat them the same as you would anyone else