Smel vs NEXT default

[Yasmin]

Hi Smel24,

I have had the same problems with Next and have gone through the same processes, credit ref. agencies etc. They would not budge, so I called Trading Standards, sometime in June, who advised me strongly to report it to the Information Commissioners Office. and also their regulating body. I contacted the Information Commissioners Office, and have made a formal complaint online, sending all my docs. I received an acknowledgment and ref. Has been a while, so called them today. Apparently, they have a huge backlog, which I was aware of but didn't realize it was that bad. They said give it another 2/3 months....At least it's in motion! I also contacted their regulatory body and have filed a complaint . So, I guess it's just a waiting game now:rolleyes:

[smel24]

Hi Yasmin,

 

Wow you have got far! Thanks for all that info, if you have a thread I'll subscribe and I think I will follow in your footsteps.

 

So Trading Standards didn't suggest going through the court then? Has anyone done this?

[Yasmin]

Keep meaning to start a thread, just didn't have time, juggling a million things!

The address of their regulatory body is as follows:-

 

MOTA

Mail Order Trading Association

PO BOX 51909

London

SW99 OW2

 

 

I contacted them via e mail and they said I could also e mail the complaint and docs.

I hope this helps....

No, Trading Standards suggested I take the ICO route, so not going for the Court option at the moment! Didn't "His holiness the pope" start court action? Think I read it somewhere.....

[smel24]

That's really helpful (rep clicked!) are you able to post the letter templates you used for the ICO and MOTA?

 

Very grateful

[Seahorse]

Hi Seahorse,

 

Thanks for your comments, I'm very confused. Can you tell me where it says that exactly? I have been deflated by what the Consumer Direct guy told me.

 

OK, from the DPA itself. . .

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

SCHEDULE 2

 

CONDITIONS RELEVANT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE: PROCESSING OF ANY PERSONAL DATA1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

ie NO CCA, or other contract = no consent

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.

5. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the administration of justice,

(b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment,

© for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or

(d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person.

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. I'd say it's unwarranted as it prejudices your rights, wouldn't you?

[Yasmin]

As I sent both by e mail, I don't have templates as such. In the ICO part, there is a space provided, so really you just include the details of your individual case . Send all of the relevant documents as attachments. It takes them a while to acknowledge,so don't worry.

 

If you want to send your MOTA complaint by e mail

 

Next are members of our Association and we would therefore take this matter up on your behalf. You can either email the information or post to the address below. Please supply as much information as possible.

The Mail Order Traders’ Association

PO Box 51909

London SW99 0WZ

T: 020 7735 3410

W: MOTA - the Mail Order Traders' Association of Great Britain

 

Thanks for the click!!

[doo]

Hi Smel, am reading this page with interest, I also have no movement on my default removal from Next and am still waiting a reply, have been busy with bank claims so will pick this up again soon and will take the action as set out above.

[Notty]

Cannot believe we are all still trying to get the defaults removed. Just a word of warning as to what has happened to me.

 

I had four defaults. BOS, Cap One, Monument, Thames Credit.

 

I did Surlybonds letter to Thames Credit as the account was settled, got it removed.

 

I issued NI for charges and default on BOS and the other two. BOS removed the default.

 

Monument (Barclays) finally agreed to remove the default when I sent their cheque back. The problem was there were two defaults on my Equifax file for the same debt and they only removed one. I had told the court I had settled. So they keep saying they will remove it but they arent really bothered anymore. I have written to the credit reference agencies but nothing so far. Seahorse has suggested I contact ICO which I am in the process of doing. I dont think I will fill in their on line complaint form though as I have copies of emails which stated Barclays are aware of the second default and will remove it but I could be waiting forever.

 

Cap One have been the worst. They sent a letter agreeing, eventually to pay back the charges, and remove the default from all credit files. That was in March, they did (as I thought) remove the info from Equifax and Experian but not Call Credit. I then got a letter from Cap One in May saying they had sold my account to Robinson Way. I contacted Cap One and Robinson Way and told them there wasnt a balance to sell on has the charges had cleared it. I sent the DCA a copy of Cap One's letter. Thought that was the end of it but when I applied for a mortgage last week I was refused and found Robinson Way had put a default on all three credit files. Took about a bombshell. I hadnt taken out a new fixed rate with my mortgage company as i was going to remortgage when my credit file was cleared up. I now have to pay the new mortgage which has gone through the roof.

 

So beware folks you think you have the defaults removed but don't crack the chamagne for a long, long time!

[Yasmin]

That's outrageous Notty, I hope you will contact the ICO to make a formal complaint and anyone else you can think of!

[doo]

Hi Notty, you did well with Thames Credit, I must admit I used the Surlybonds letter for Next but they were having none of it, so still fighting. As for Monument do you have written proof that they agreed to remove default, if so I'm sure it would put you on a strong footing if you went back to court. Can't believe the hassle you have had with Cap One, there must be something you can do there, how can they sell an account on that has been settled, I have an e-mail address for someone in their legal dept if you fancy sending them a letter, fight them all the way, I'm sure the ICO would be interested and maybe Trading Standards.

[Notty]

Thanks Doo and Yasmin. Yes Doo I would like the address for the legal department. I am going to do everything to fight them. When you say about going to court is that issuing the N1 claim but just for the default removal? Do you have to have a money amount on a claim? Good luck with Next. They seem to be real bug.... when it comes to defaults.

[doo]

Hi smel, sorry for the hi-jack,

 

Notty, let me have a link if you have your own thread - the e-mail addy is [email protected]

[freddyj]

Hi Smel

 

Any update on getting the default removed? Was the I.O.C able to help? I am waiting for them to make a ruling on my case against Next

 

Thanks - FREDDIE

[dave354uk]

Hi,

 

Was there any update on this case? I am having my own battle with Next and would appreciate some advice.

 

Dave

Edited May 21, 2012 by dave354uk