SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[joneshousehold]

Hi SL, I currently have a 15 page record of calls back to January for one of them. I have sent it of the OFT, FOS and TS. No real interest at the moment but I haven't given up hope!

[Movingon]

Trouble is, TS, OFT, FOS don't prosecute for Harrassment. Only the Police can handle this Offence.

[zubo]

That's the answer, see? Every time you talk to them you encourage them to call again. Change your numbers, block their number, do whatever you can to avoid having to actually interact with them. They won't get bored, but in the meantime you are logging every single time they call to present as evidence to the Police. Harrassment is taken far more seriously these days by the Police and CPS; and if they do enough of it they will be in serious poop.

 

I take quite a simple approach to callers - I refuse to divulge any personal details and insist that everything should be in writing.

 

I get withdrawal symptoms when they don't call...:D

 

I got a nice letter from LTSB deleting my numbers after I sent this:

 

I am writing to you in relation to my recorded letter of the 4th March stating that you were committing an offence of harassment and requesting that you cease and desist.

Despite this letter I am continuing to receive daily 4-5 phone calls from your call centres chasing payment on my accounts despite that I have made it clear to you that I require from you full compliance with Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998. To date I have received absolutely no response to these requests. This harassment has now escalated to the point that on Friday 9th March 2007, your call centre called me on 5 separate occasions from 19:15 to 19:22 using two different phone numbers.

There can be no other interpretation of this except that it is completely excessive and is harassment and as my previous letter points out is unlawful.

Allow me to be very specific:

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act:

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand,

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

Furthermore your attention is drawn to:

Both the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations (run by the credit industry) have produced guidance on what activities may be considered harassment and should therefore be avoided by creditors. The following list is taken from the new Debt Collection Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences.

Creditors are warned by the Office of Fair Trading under the Debt Collection Guidance that the following practices are "considered unfair":

“PUTTING PRESSURE ON DEBTORS OR THIRD PARTIES IS CONSIDERED TO BE OPPRESSIVE.”

This includes:

• Contacting you too frequently

I have made it quite clear that you are in breach and have committed a number of offences.

You are instructed with immediate effect to cease and desist and notify me in writing that you have done so.

Failure to do so would leave me no alternative but to pursue remedy through the courts including compensation for the harassment. In addition I will be lodging a complaint with the TSO with a view to seeking prosecution by the TSO and subsequent to a successful prosecution I would be asking the appropriate licensing authorities to review your license since the prosecution is likely to provide evidence that LLoydsTSB as a creditor is no longer a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a consumer credit licence.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

hope it helps

 

Z

[joesoap]

Sorting that out with Crap 1 although Fredricksons were kind enough to send a whole lot of statements without asking; but not the CCA. Just on doing this reply and Fredricksons have been on the phone for my son. Didn't tell them the lucky git is in Florida but the caller was rather abrupt so I gave him a typical Geordie response; second word was off but unfortunatley the first word was bog. Won't be the next time. Harrassment starting?

 

Ian

 

If anyone is out there at the moment and not slaving away at work, can you have a quick perusal at the letter I am about to send to Fredrickson Int. Any comments good or bad, gratefully accepted.

 

Thank you for your letter of 27/4/2007. The contents of which are noted. I have enclosed a copy of my letter dated 18/4/2007 which was sent recorded delivery and has been signed for by you indicating its safe arrival. However, as you have decided to write to me again, it appears that you have not bothered to read the contents. You should do so now.

The 1974 Consumer Credit Act (CCA) Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter. My request remains outstanding. I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, the alleged debt is not enforceable in law. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency. To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

Can I again point out to you that your earlier letters do not reflect the correct amount of alleged debt? I informed you that I had accepted an amount from Capital One of £ in part payment in respect to over charging but you have ignored this. It is quite clear that you are not up to date with affairs. I have also enclosed a copy (again) of the letter sent to Capital One.

Neither Frederickson or Capital One has provided a CCA as requested. In the case of Fredricksons, you exceeded the time limits and have therefore, committed an offence.

The account is still in dispute; you should not be sending threatening letters.

It is my intention to consider litigation in this matter and your attention is drawn in particular to CPR 4.6 © enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed;

I would therefore request, in compliance with CPR 4.6© a copy of the document that you will be relying on as proof that a properly executed agreement, complying in all respects with the form and content requirements of the CCA was signed by myself in respect of this alleged debt. I am sure that your solicitors (Bryan Carter & Co) will be aware of what is required. I expect, in accordance with CPR, your prompt response to this formal request without further delay.

However, as you do not own the alleged debt, perhaps you would like to liaise with Capital One?

 

IanM

[zubo]

If anyone is out there at the moment and not slaving away at work, can you have a quick perusal at the letter I am about to send to Fredrickson Int. Any comments good or bad, gratefully accepted.

 

Thank you for your letter of 27/4/2007. The contents of which are noted. I have enclosed a copy of my letter dated 18/4/2007 which was sent recorded delivery and has been signed for by you indicating its safe arrival. However, as you have decided to write to me again, it appears that you have not bothered to read the contents. You should do so now.

 

The 1974 Consumer Credit Act (CCA) Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.My request remains outstanding. I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, the alleged debt is not enforceable in law. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

Can I again point out to you that your earlier letters do not reflect the correct amount of alleged debt? I informed you that I had accepted an amount from Capital One of £ in part payment in respect to over charging but you have ignored this. It is quite clear that you are not up to date with affairs. I have also enclosed a copy (again) of the letter sent to Capital One.

 

Neither Frederickson or Capital One has provided a CCA as requested. In the case of Fredricksons, you exceeded the time limits and have therefore, committed an offence.

 

The account is still in dispute; you should not be sending threatening letters.

 

It is my intention to consider litigation in this matter and your attention is drawn in particular to CPR 4.6 © enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed;

I would therefore request, in compliance with CPR 4.6© a copy of the document that you will be relying on as proof that a properly executed agreement, complying in all respects with the form and content requirements of the CCA was signed by myself in respect of this alleged debt. I am sure that your solicitors (Bryan Carter & Co) will be aware of what is required. I expect, in accordance with CPR, your prompt response to this formal request without further delay.

However, as you do not own the alleged debt, perhaps you would like to liaise with Capital One?

 

IanM

 

Very good though I would copy both Cap1 & Fred. and change the last line to I am copying both you in. Also I would change

In the case of Fredricksons, you exceeded the time limits and have therefore, committed an offence

to You have exceeded the timelimits prescribed by the Act and committed an offence which I intend to report.

Finally, I personally would remove reference to receiving part payment, because imho it weakens your attack on the validity of an alleged agreement. Keep your restitution argument for recovery of penalties and interest charges as a second round of attacks when you start your S85 attack.

 

Z

[un1boy]

Anyone got any idea of POCS to get a default removed where they can't provide the default notices? And where the agreement has no prescribed terms....

[joesoap]

Zubo

 

Thanks for the comments. I have done as you recommend. I've tickled your scales. All your posts are really helpful.

 

Ian

[zubo]

thanks Ian, all ticks are extremely welcome

 

Z

[angry cat]

Hi Guys,

 

I hope that one of you can help me?

 

I have many problems with Egg (who hasn't)

Anyhow, last year I started the process of claiming back charges and refused to pay any more money until the issue was resolved. Eventually I took Egg to court and recovered my charges plus contractual interest. However, in the meantime they cancelled my credit card and registered a default on my CRA files. I was in court 18 April 2007 as Egg had failed to pay my court fees, the judge kept my case open until egg paid the remaining money to me as stated on my POC. However, 2 days later Egg paid me but there is still the matter of the Default, the judge suggested that I write to Addleshaw Goddard (egg's solicitor) requesting that egg remove the default and if they will not then I have to issue a claim to have it removed by the court.

Therefore I am still in Dispute with Egg.

 

Now the plot thickens, just one week after receiving the final amount from Addleshaw Goddard (egg solicitor) a letter arrives, this letter appears to be from APLINS another egg solicitor, factually it is from Direct Legal & Collections-

"Balance overdue, if you do not make full payment within 7 days (4 May) legal proceedings may be commenced without further notice".

 

Basically, I am still in dispute, furthermore I do not accept the value of the debt because of Egg's mis-selling of PPI (another story) but now I am being chased by eggs back door debt collectors!

 

I have already made a request under s78 CCA and was eventually provided with a copy agreement but is it enforceable?

 

Remember that egg is an internet CC so, I guess that it would come under distance selling?

 

Agreement first page

1. name & adress, yes

2. No credit limit but we will tell you from time to time the limit.

3. we will charge interest at 14.9%

4. rate & frequency of payments, Each month you must pay by Direct Debit blah blah

second page - pretty illegible

Important you should read this carefully - YOUR RIGHTS

(very hard to read but) CCA cover this agreement, it lays down requirements for your protection which should be satisfied when the agreement is made, if they are not we cannot enforce the agreement.

 

The Act also give you a number of rights you have aright to settle this agreement at any time by giving notice in writing etc.,

if you have obtained goods or services under this agreemnt, you have a right to sue the supplier.

 

(yes, I have useless PPI)

 

LOSS Or MISUSE of the Card

 

By signing this agreement, you confirm that you have read and accept the Boots Advantage credit card conditions, a copy of which is enclosed.

 

(I was not sent a copy of the T&C's with my request)

 

Signature Box

signed date 11/07/2001

 

YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL

Once you have signed the agreement you will have for a short time a right to cancel it. exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post by us.

 

signed on behalf of Egg

 

Computer signature...A J Hibbert...Abby Hibbert, credit card manager, date 9 July 2001

 

Third page

 

Instruction to your bank to pay by direct debit

 

END.

 

I wrote back stating that they ar still to comply.

 

What do you think Guys?

 

AC

[joesoap]

Having problems with Wescot. They haven't as yet, supplied the CCA. They are well out of time and I wrote to them stating my requests. Data removal etc. Couple of weeks later they've come back (with a hand written note/letter/) telling me my request has been noted and they'll be in touch in due course and confirming the account has been placed on hold. How long do I give them (or not) before I insist on the CCA or a letter to confirm that there is no CCA and the alleged debt should be closed.

[livity]

Having problems with Wescot. They haven't as yet, supplied the CCA. They are well out of time and I wrote to them stating my requests. Data removal etc. Couple of weeks later they've come back (with a hand written note/letter/) telling me my request has been noted and they'll be in touch in due course and confirming the account has been placed on hold. How long do I give them (or not) before I insist on the CCA or a letter to confirm that there is no CCA and the alleged debt should be closed.

 

If they've run out of time, they've run out of time. Assuming the full 12+30 days has expired, they've committed a criminal offence. I'd write, advising them of this, and requesting that they now acknowledge you have no debt with them. If they decline, report them to Trading Standards (? - your local police station might be a good first port of call). If they want to be difficult, let them explain in court how they failed to comply with the law, despite being given every opportunity to do so. Even civil courts tend to take a dim view of criminals...

 

 

Best of luck!

[joesoap]

If they've run out of time, they've run out of time. Assuming the full 12+30 days has expired, they've committed a criminal offence. I'd write, advising them of this, and requesting that they now acknowledge you have no debt with them. If they decline, report them to Trading Standards (? - your local police station might be a good first port of call). If they want to be difficult, let them explain in court how they failed to comply with the law, despite being given every opportunity to do so. Even civil courts tend to take a dim view of criminals...

 

 

Best of luck!

 

Cheers.

 

They are well well out of time and I assume the latest letter is a stalling tactic. They are probably having to go to MBNA for the CCA but then again, I have a feeling that Wescot owns the debt. I will however, bash the final letter off tomorrow although I already have told them they have committed an offence.

[joesoap]

If they've run out of time, they've run out of time. Assuming the full 12+30 days has expired, they've committed a criminal offence. I'd write, advising them of this, and requesting that they now acknowledge you have no debt with them. If they decline, report them to Trading Standards (? - your local police station might be a good first port of call). If they want to be difficult, let them explain in court how they failed to comply with the law, despite being given every opportunity to do so. Even civil courts tend to take a dim view of criminals...

 

 

Best of luck!

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Thank you for your letter of 15/4/2007 but not received until the 26th April 2007. Probably due to the fact that it was not sent from your office until the 25th April 2007; the frank on the envelope gave the game away. The contents are noted. However, the reply received does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter and to date, my request remains outstanding. You are aware that the time limit for complying with my request has expired and as you have not complied, you have no proof that I am in any way indebted to you and I require therefore immediate reimbursement of all my payments within 7 days. If it becomes necessary, I will consider litigation.

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that allegedly exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law. I have made a reasonable and lawful request for a true signed copy allowed by the Act. Indeed, The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) states that “if a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence”. As you are well aware, Wescot has not fulfilled its duties and is well past its time – limits, clearly you are in default and I intend to use the above statement in any litigation that I consider.

 

As I have already informed you, Wescot is in default and has committed an offence. I have also informed you that any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. (I HAVEN’T MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT MY CREDIT FILE AS BELIEVE IT OR NOT AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, I HAVE NO DEFAULTS OR EVEN LOAN INFORMATION ON ANY OF MY FILES, DESPITE HAVING LOTS!)

I expect no other communication from you in respect of this matter except for confirmation of compliance with my requests. Should you nevertheless choose to initiate legal proceedings against me, I will expect to receive, with any Letter before Action, a copy of the document that you will be relying on as proof that a properly executed agreement, complying in all respects with the form and content requirements of the CCA was signed by myself in respect of this alleged debt.

Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

[Seahorse]

I would add in a bit about them not supplying any other documentation as per your CCA request, including any statements of account, as they would obviously need to rely on something like that in order to prove in the absence of an agreement that any debt might have existed.

 

And if I was being REALLY picky, I might say that you should really use the same form of providing a date throughout a document. ie if using day/month/year, continue to do so. Although my preference is to put it in the form of "on 2 May 2007".

 

I'm off to pedant's corner now.

[joesoap]

I would add in a bit about them not supplying any other documentation as per your CCA request, including any statements of account, as they would obviously need to rely on something like that in order to prove in the absence of an agreement that any debt might have existed.

 

And if I was being REALLY picky, I might say that you should really use the same form of providing a date throughout a document. ie if using day/month/year, continue to do so. Although my preference is to put it in the form of "on 2 May 2007".

 

I'm off to pedant's corner now.

 

Thanks very much Iain. much appreciated.

 

Ian

[andrew1]

Interesting Joesoap, that part about delayed delivery from Wescot - I wonder if there's a trend or something more sinister going on. I received a letter from Legal & Trade dated 21st April, telling me to pay by 28th April and it arrived on the 2nd May... should have saved their stamps or postage costs (UK Mail - Business class !) it's one of those run off letters with all the usual frightners - Deductions from salary, seizure and sale of my property etc. blah blah Nice little cca request coming their way!

[Josie8]

Whilst they may be able to supply a non signature document for the purposes of the CCA a court CANNOT make an enforcement order WITHOUT there being a properly executed signed (by the debtor) agreement

 

 

I'm curious..........if the CC or bank are providing the CRA's with information on late payments and defaults but aren't providing you with your true signed agreement which allows them to pass your personal Data onto third parties then surely they must immediately desist in sending CRA's your information or alternatively provide you with the true signed copy??? If they only provide you with unsigned copies and terms can't you write to the CRA's enclosing the CC or Banks correspondance and say that in the absence of a true signed agreement they are handling your data without permission?? :???:

[JonCris]

Yes josie they must desist & it's been discussed many times on this site

[Josie8]

I'm sure it has ..but its a very long and convoluted thread ! But if you combine the CCA request with the Data one wouldn't that stop all this messing around by the CC's and Banks - either they have a true agreement or not .............produce it or fold.............and if they produce a cut and paste version then methinks its no longer a civil matter but a criminal matter as they are trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage (an enforceable contract) by use of a fraudulent instrument - or are they somehow exempt from the laws of the land???? :???:

[elizabeth1]

I'm curious..........if the CC or bank are providing the CRA's with information on late payments and defaults but aren't providing you with your true signed agreement which allows them to pass your personal Data onto third parties then surely they must immediately desist in sending CRA's your information or alternatively provide you with the true signed copy??? If they only provide you with unsigned copies and terms can't you write to the CRA's enclosing the CC or Banks correspondance and say that in the absence of a true signed agreement they are handling your data without permission?? :???:

 

 

Josie - yes you are right the CRA's shouldn't be writing rubbish "erroneous data" etc.. just cause a company tells them to.

 

You need to write to all 3 of the CRA's explaining the situation and tell them to stop writing data from "blah de blah" company.

 

Serve an S10 notice on the lender involved telling them to STOP writing data etc.. (look in the A-Z list the S10 notice should show up in there)

 

Some lenders/DCA's tend to totally ignore the S10 notices and say they are writing the truth (we know that's rubbish?) so go to the Bodies and complain about it try FOS, ICO, OFT etc..

 

A useful thread is Surlybonds - if you have defaults etc.. that need removing.

 

But you CAN get something done about it - at a push serve an S10 on the CRA's stop them writing anyones data. CRA's often don't do enough to stop these companies writing lousy data that is wrong.

 

There is always the N1 ask court to enforce it etc.. if you can't make people listen and stop writing data that is wrong

[un1boy]

Josie - yes you are right the CRA's shouldn't be writing rubbish "erroneous data" etc.. just cause a company tells them to.

 

You need to write to all 3 of the CRA's explaining the situation and tell them to stop writing data from "blah de blah" company.

 

Serve an S10 notice on the lender involved telling them to STOP writing data etc.. (look in the A-Z list the S10 notice should show up in there)

 

Some lenders/DCA's tend to totally ignore the S10 notices and say they are writing the truth (we know that's rubbish?) so go to the Bodies and complain about it try FOS, Information Commissioners Office, OFT etc..

 

A useful thread is Surlybonds - if you have defaults etc.. that need removing.

 

But you CAN get something done about it - at a push serve an S10 on the CRA's stop them writing anyones data. CRA's often don't do enough to stop these companies writing lousy data that is wrong.

 

There is always the N1 ask court to enforce it etc.. if you can't make people listen and stop writing data that is wrong

 

The thing with issuing a s10 is that you will have to prove that the damage caused is unwarranted - you will also have to provide a list of exactly how that PARTICULAR data has and is effecting you and how exactly you have been distressed by it.

[livity]

Interesting Joesoap, that part about delayed delivery from Wescot - I wonder if there's a trend or something more sinister going on. I received a letter from Legal & Trade dated 21st April, telling me to pay by 28th April and it arrived on the 2nd May... should have saved their stamps or postage costs (UK Mail - Business class !) it's one of those run off letters with all the usual frightners - Deductions from salary, seizure and sale of my property etc. blah blah Nice little cca request coming their way!

 

I've noticed similar conduct from the Student Loan Company - I complained and asked for proof of postage, etc, even submitted a Data Protectection Act request. They declined to send any proof. My advice would be to refer to letters in this form: "Thank you for your letter of April 1st which I received April 11th." If the letter is franked use this form: "Thank you for your letter of April 1st, franked April 10th, which I received April 11th."

 

If they try to get cute, require proof of postage. Don't be afraid to point out that all your letters are sent recorded delivery, at a cost to yourself.

 

If they continue to get cute, you may want to have your correspondence sent to a solicitor, who can notarise the letter on the date received. Don't forget to charge Wescot / Legal & Trade / McGreedy & Grabbit for this "service", though warn them first that you'll do this if they don't get their act together. I'd take the view (I am not a lawyer, yada yada) that this is a cost incurred by you as a result of an implicit breach of contract by Wescot or chums.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Interesting Joesoap, that part about delayed delivery from Wescot - I wonder if there's a trend or something more sinister going on. I received a letter from Legal & Trade dated 21st April, telling me to pay by 28th April and it arrived on the 2nd May... should have saved their stamps or postage costs (UK Mail - Business class !) it's one of those run off letters with all the usual frightners - Deductions from salary, seizure and sale of my property etc. blah blah Nice little cca request coming their way!

 

This appears to be a common practice of this & other DCA's to send a letter 2nd class very often demanding a response before it's even arrived.

 

Suspect it's meant to panic the debtor into phoning their premuim rate telephone number thereby earning revenue for themselves both of which are a breach of the OFT debt collection guidelines.

[elizabeth1]

The thing with issuing a s10 is that you will have to prove that the damage caused is unwarranted - you will also have to provide a list of exactly how that PARTICULAR data has and is effecting you and how exactly you have been distressed by it.

 

 

OK - I do see what you are saying BUT my personal argument would be

 

The information published in the CRA reports is seen by lenders and anyone that I might want to take a contract out with (mobile phone companies, insurance companies, lenders = banks & credit card companies the list can go on & on?)

 

Therefore, if somebody is writing "erroneous" data about me saying I owe debts when I don't - it damages my reputation - I'd have difficulties?

 

Because the data isn't right/truthful a person has every right to stop this stuff being published by companies because it really isn't a "true" picture of what is really going on?

 

As an individual the consequences of such erroneous data will mean to them that they pay for more expensive loans, credit cards, may not be able to get contract mobile phones, insurances etc.. = which is damage caused to the individual because their credit score is out of sync???

 

So with this if any lender is writing any data to the CRA's that is wrong - the individual has a very good argument for asking them to cease writing etc.. and asking both the original lender and the CRA to remove that specific "wrong data" from your credit file?

 

If there is an argument for "unlawful charges" & defaults showing etc.. I would definitely go after the original lender and CRA and make them stop.

 

I can't see how instances where lots of unlawful charges resulting in a default being applied to an individuals Credit File - the original lender would have no argument to keep writing the data? How could their writing the wrong data be right?

 

There will always be various arguments put forward by the Original lenders and CRA's etc.. But the bottom line is if the data is WRONG they clearly shouldn't be writing it?

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

You don't have to prove defamation or monetry loss if your only applying to the court to have incorrect data removed only the forseeable risk of it.

 

The litigation for actual defamation comes later. Just don't sign 'full and final'