CRA's,,,Defaults and CCJ's

[Sparkie1723]

I wonder what members think of these questions and views. I'm just interested what others think of them,

I allways thought that the very basis of English law is/was that you are innocent until proven guilty.

But I don't think that applies with debt & alleged debt.

 

If you are taken to court and are found that you do owe a debt, a judgement is made against you and the judgement is placed on your credit file and it stays there fo six years ..O.K. I accept that...fine.

 

But if a bank finance house merely says you owe a debt, they place a default on your credit file. A default on your credit file is just as harmfull to your credit status as a county court judgement ( I know ) the thing is that also stays there for six years....even if you settle it,

I think these banks etc know very well that this is the cheapest way of "getting their own back".

The point I'm trying to get over is that there is no difference in the amount of damage a default does and a CCJ and I dont think that is quite right.

One is based on fact the other is based on assumption.....NOt fair.

 

sparkie1723.

[lellypea]

Hi Sparkie - been following your 'great big RBOS' thread!!

 

Couldn't agree more with above.

 

Below is my post of yesterday regarding default markers.

 

They were the result of a situation following NatWest's refusal to grant me a temporary fully secured bridging loan whilst I released personal working capital to inject 'growth' funds into thriving business.

 

NW's refusal plunged into a cash flow crisis (whilst having to kow-tow to them) and in the five months it took me to release those funds.....£15,000 in charges ricocheted out of my account!

 

I believe they ruthlessly engineered that situation......you don't make £15,000.00 out of a 5 mth BRIDGING LOAN

 

I was incandescent with rage. Shortly after my money released - I read about Stephen Hone - found his, and this, brill sites -and got my money back.

 

BUT - the damage and distress these 'delinquent' markers are causing is

incalculable. I am sole breadwinner for my teenage family - an immaculate credit file is vital to my livelihood. The bitter irony is that the very funds I subsequently released had to be with sub-prime lender because of these markers they'd slapped on.

 

I think it's a bl--dy outrage (s'cuse the language but IT IS!) When are the regulating bodies going to wake up and address this appalling abuse of power??

 

 

 

Join Date: Jan 2007

Posts: 104

 

 

Re: Limited Company Claims

...... to add insult to injury the NW placed 2 'delinquent' markers on my (otherwise unblemished) credit file for 5 missed payments on 2 loans (total £1,600) in 'crisis' period. (I somehow managed to not 'blow' any others - only NW's.) Yet more damaging hurdles for any business!

 

They defaulted me (x 2) for a total of £1,600 whilst they had unlawfully removed £15,000.00 - YES FIFTEEN -from the account!!

 

The very Law that pressured NW into repaying me.... has the loopholes to allow the unscrupulous Banks power to manipulate that same Law into making me a victim (in the most damaging way) twice over!!!

 

Is the Law as ass or wot!! ....and if it is...

'we' must be its bum....and guess who's riding it ... yes it's those 'above reproach honest as the day's long' privileged position Banks!! Makes me absolutely boil!

 

Can I get them removed? - Can I 'ek-us-like'!!

 

12 letters (all the wisdom of Surleybond & many others) between NW, Experian, & myself, have failed to achieve removal.

 

Just sent another host of letters/info to - Information Commissioners Office - Financial Ombudsman & FSA, et al,.... but who knows if they'll succeed. I have a growing suspicion all these regulatory bodies not only lack time - but also teeth!!!

 

Looks like the only 'dentures' we can utilise are those sites like this are creating................. ... Lets aim for great big frightening 'uns ...like Jaws!!

 

 

I'll keep you posted (and thanks Photoman for pointing me in this direction)

 

Regards

 

Lel

[lellypea]

Sorry....in all that rant the 'point' may have got lost.

 

Yes, Sparkie I agree - all wisdom on matter confirms that contrary to most peoples conception - defaults are just as damaging as CCJ's.

 

and - yes - it would seem reasonable to accept the 'authority' of a court in such matters, but the subject of other 'authorities' in this regard should be re-examined and the process and method of CRA entries completely redefined to minimise abuse of the system.

[jonni2bad]

One is based on fact the other is based on assumption.....NOt fair.

 

sparkie1723.

 

Quite right and a point that we often try to make to politicians (when they care to listen) and governing bodies.

 

We think that the banks can, and often do, abuse their position with the use of default notices.

 

I for one have never quite been able to understand why they were ever allowed free access to your credit files in this way.

[Sparkie1723]

The subscribers to the CRA's don't get free access, the CRA's charge the Banks etc for holding the info about individuals and they (the CRA's) make a lot of money from them.

That is why the CRA's dont pay very much attention to any protest the individual makes , because if they do ......the institutions will just move their account to another CRA......and there a lot more than the MAIN three.

If you have been following my thread on the RBOS, the RBOS kept an ulawful incorrect default on my file with the CRA's and the CRA's took the word of the RBOS over mine for over 4 years,

Th way I got mine removed was, because I could prove beyond any doubt that the entry was wrong when I threatened the CRA's with libel action ( which can be done in the County Courts now) one of the CRA's put pressure on the RBOS and told them unless they removed the info from my file I intended to take libel action .....The RBOS the immediately removed the defaut and stated it was a gesture of goodwill, late on in my court case the RBOS admitted they were wrong to enter the default.

 

I know this post is a bit long, but the point I am trying to make ...IF you can prove the entry is incorrect wrong etc etc threaten the CRA's with libel action and it get removed , you have got to real strong with what you say to them

Remember under the Libel Act /defamation of character you do NOT hve to prove loss if you prove damage to your finacial status ,credility, and character you win....

Libel actions have ben made accessible in the County Courts to put the Act within the reach of the "normal" individual, and is no longer just for the people with money

is that any help to people???

Hope so.

 

sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Just pulled this out of the Banking Code

sparkie1723

 

 

 

13 Confidentiality

13.1 We will treat all your personal and business information

as private and confidential (even when you are no longer

a customer). We will not reveal your name and address

or details about your accounts to anyone, including

other companies in our group, other than in the

following four exceptional cases when we are allowed to

do this by law.

n If we have to give the information by law.

n If there is a duty to the public to reveal the

information.

n Where it is in our interests to give the information,

for example, where we suspect fraud.

But we will not use this as a reason for giving

information about you or your accounts (including your

name and address) to anyone else including other

companies in our group for marketing purposes.

If you ask us to reveal the information, or if we have

your permission. (See also 8.3.)

Credit reference agencies

13.2 We may give information about the debts you owe us to

credit reference agencies if:

n you have fallen behind with your payments;

n the amount owed is not in dispute; and

n you have not made proposals we are satisfied with

for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

13.3 In these cases, we will give you at least 28 days’ notice

that we plan to give information about the debts you

owe us to credit reference agencies. At the same time,

we will explain to you the role of credit reference

agencies and the effect the information they provide

can have on your ability to get credit.

13.4 We will not give any other information about you to

credit reference agencies unless we have your

permission.

8.3 Unless you specifically give your consent or ask us to,

we will not pass your name and address to any company,

including other companies in our group, for marketing

purposes. We will not ask you to give your permission in

return for standard account services.

[lellypea]

IF you can prove the entry is incorrect wrong etc etc threaten the CRA's with libel action and it get removed ,

 

Sparkie your post is definitely really helpful.

 

With regard to above point - what constitutes 'wrong' or 'incorrect'. Banks, etc. seem to employ many perversions of the truth.

 

For instance in my rather long winded post above NW are relying on the 'truth' as they have recorded on my c. file - that I HAD indeed missed missed five payments totalling £1600 - but it was perverted in that they had previously removed 15K.

 

They wrote - we are obliged to report such arrears (...I wrote back '...did you also feel obliged to report you had unlawfully removed ten times that amount and THAT's the very reason I defaulted?? I think NOT! That fact would be kept completely under wraps) ...and repeated same to ICO etc etc.

 

You've really dug deep and so deserve your success. It just seems there's no obvious formula - successes are very hit an miss.

 

What do you think??

 

Lel

 

 

 

You being an experienced warrior in this respect I'm interested to know your views, and whether for instance in terms of the Law the libel route can still be applied??

[Sparkie1723]

I'm sorry lellypea but I haven't quite got your story.

 

Am I right in understanding that they took this £15000...before you got behind in your payments or did the taking put you in the position of over the limit overdraft?

 

First they are not obliged to make an entry on a credit file it is done out of choice that ......is a fact you can be sure of.

Second if the information is not factually accurate it breaches the Fourth Principle of the DPA.

Third You can now demand that the CRA's ask for full details of the entry and the evidence to prove it .is accurate , true & correct.....but you have got to give the CRA's special written authority to obtain the specific info about your account.

You should also get that same info from the Nat West to compare what they tell the CRA's and what they tell you is EXACTLY the same.

 

If you can prove that the entry IS incorrect and has been wrongly inserted on your file, you can sue for defamation of character and if your file has been viewed by other lenders banks etc it then becomes LIBEL because it has been published (by the CRA's) and passed on to third parties . I hope I am explaining it as it should be explained, anything that is not clear ask away and I'll do my best to tell you as much as I know, (which isnt much).

 

sparkie1723

[lellypea]

Three months into the 'crisis' period I missed the first payment and by that time they'd taken some 6/7K in charges.

 

The other 4 payments were peppered through the remaining 3 months before I achieved release of my funds and settled the loans in full (measely 8K anyway)

 

Experian told me NW applied the 'delinquent' flag the month before I settled. So in effect they 'reported me for £1,600 when they owed me

ten times as much!!

 

Technically the adverse entry IS correct. However there is a clear perversion involved which I have failed to nail. NW maintains the 'goodwill' nature of the out of court settlement which seems to let them off the hook.

 

Hence re your 2nd point technically the entry is correct.

 

With regard to your 3rd point - Experian have (quite supportively I felt) already pursued it with NW to no avail because of the above. I have also battled with NW direct with the same result.

 

I've now written to ICO, F. Ombudsman, etc etc but if you've got any insights I'd love to know them

 

cheers sparkie

 

lel

[Sparkie1723]

 

 

 

The Law of Defamation

 

Libel

 

Constituents of Libel

 

• "Libel consists of a defamatory statement or representation in permanent form ... Any thing temporary and audible only is slander. Statements in books, articles, newspapers and letters are libels"
  
• Is the allegation complained of defamatory as opposed to vituperative/abusive ?
  
• Does the defamatory statement refer to the plaintiff ?
  
• Has the defamatory statement been made known to others - has it been published ?
  
• "every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise to a fresh cause of action against each successive publisher. Thus not only the author of an article, but the editor, printer and publisher are also liable."

The Defamation Act 1996

 

s1. - (1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that-

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and

© he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.

The Defamation Act 1996

 

s1(2) For this purpose "author", "editor" and "publisher" have the following meanings, […]

"author" means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all;

"editor" means a person having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it; and

"publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business.

The Defamation Act 1996

 

s1(3) A person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved-

(a) in printing, producing, distributing or selling printed material containing the statement;

[...]

© in processing, making copies of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the statement is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or service by means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in electronic form;

The Defamation Act 1996

 

S1(4) Employees or agents of an author, editor or publisher are in the same position as their employer or principal to the extent that they are responsible for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it.

(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a person took reasonable care, or had reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement, regard shall be had to-

(a) the extent of his responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it,

(b) the nature or circumstances of the publication, and

© the previous conduct or character of the author, editor or publisher

 

 

This was taken from a debate by the Hansard commission on CRA's and the Consumer Credit Act.

 

I was appalled the credit reference agencies by announcing that for the first time they were going to be subject to the law of libel. At that time they literally depended on gossip—the local milkman, the local bread delivery man and so on—without verification. I remember being asked to go to Croydon to discuss it with them. I put it to them that if they could not get their act together, it was for them to bear the consequences; it was not for me to exempt them. In fairness, despite all their protestations that the credit reference agency industry was about to collapse. They are getting their act together, but could still be more professional.

 

lellypea

Dont know if you have read this Act

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

got it now,

You can strongly argue that IF these unlawful charges had not been taken from your account you would not have been placed in the position of not having sufficient funds to keep up the payments the unlawful removal of the funds were the causation of the entry ,

and because it was initiated by the unlawful actions of the bank you can get it removed ...Under the crircumstances issue a writ under section 14 of the Data Protection Act for the court to order the removal. that section of the Act gives an individual the right to ask the court to order its removal as it is causing harm damage and distress.

 

My previous post isnt much help as you say you agree it is factually correct even though it is wrong, I know that sounds stupid but thats they way a lot of the law "eggheads " see it.

 

Have a look at that section of the Act on the Information Commissioners Office website.

 

sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

I would like to pose a question for every one to really think about regarding defaults put on their files by banks etc. with CRA's.

Every citizen in the UK is led to believe in the very foundation of English law.."YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW".

 

That is the foundation of all laws.

 

NOT with a default entry... you are stated to be by the Bank or who ever guilty of not paying a debt....BUT a court hasn't said so just the Bank They have put themselves above that very foundation of the law, that entry IS as damaging as any Court Judgement.. I KNOW that for a fact, ...I was a victim of an default entry that affected me for 4 years, and on the morning of my court hearing my defaulter admitted that the entry was wrong and they should not have put it there, ....what was done about it??? ....NOTHING.

 

sparkie1723

[lellypea]

Thanks for above posts Sparkie - just seen them as have been away.

I'll get supper and be on line later.... starving!!!!

[lellypea]

Sparkie, Sparkie, Sparkie.............GUESS WHAT..... RatNest have conceded!!!! Oh what bliss.....I can't believe it!

 

Was logging on to study ur posts above - just opened mail first - and there it was... Isn't that weird ....I reckon they got the vibes of the deadly Sparkie energy threatening and just buckled under the strain!!

You must be THE man Sparks!!

 

I thought it was another 'we are justified...blah blah..letter.... then right at end of first page, blow me down with a feather, there it was....(it was almost in the bin!...

 

'Having said that, as an exceptional matter , we have asked the CRA's to amend the status reports.... to show '0' for each month....which strictly speaking is inaccurate..blah .....to avoid causing you any further inconvenience (ahhh!... it this an attack of goodwill??) in having to refer elsewhere' (Ha Haaa! NOT ... as I'd told them,.. I already had!!)

However I'm over the moon - can't believe it's finally over.

 

Will write and say when I have checked this has been achieved on my files held by ALL CRA's, I will write to ICO, Financ. Ombud. etc and withdraw my complaint.

 

Also will offer 'many thanks' to Mrs W - reckon it does no harm and its always useful to foster 'goodwill' with someone on my side on the outside - on the inside!!!! If you see what I mean! lol.

[lellypea]

Sparks - you are very good at thinking outside the box. The libel info etc is very interesting, and could be signficant for a number of different applications. Good on yer. Keep it coming!!!

 

Best wishes

 

Lel

[Sparkie1723]

Congrats lellypea,

 

I bet that is great weight off your mind, now you can relax, good on you

 

Brill....

 

 

 

sparkie1723

[lellypea]

Thanks Sparks!!