capital one lost payment, credit report mark

[big blue one]

hey everyone! been a while since i was in here asking questions but i have a little issue with capital one. basically back in 2004 i had a card with them wich had approx £250balance on there. i decided to pay this off and made a couple of payments of £20 and a final payment of £210. during this 3 month period, the card was lost and replaced.

 

now due to the card been replace cap one lost my payment of £200. i duly rang them and was told itwould be looked into and sorted. which it was. however a couple of ears later after becoming more fianancially aware of things i get a copy of my credit reports and find that cap one have marked this against me and never removed it. basically after numerous times requesting removal from my report. these missed payments still exist on there!

 

can i threaten them with a claim for deformation of character? this will cause me financial loss, as i am looking for a loan soon and cannot get headline rates due to this discrepancy. any ideas?:|

[Bigmac versus]

Yes you have a very strong case if you have proof of payments and that you were not in default with payments due.

Try putting this in the debt forum where someone will give you more assistance on this matter.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/

[buzby]

No - the information is not deemed 'public' so there is no defamation. If they will not remove their error, try complaing to the CRA. If this fails, take it up with the Information Commissioner.

[Bigmac versus]

The CRA will tell you to contact Cap1 and probably add a note to the adverse information whilst you try to resolve the problem. You can raise an action against Cap1 for this if they dont resolve what looks like a clear case of incorrect information on your file.

Would be best to solve this with Cap 1 do you have any correspondance form them on this subject?

[Bigmac versus]

Any action raised would be basically along the lines of the claimant asserts that the default notice amounted to a material breach of the fourth Principle of The Data Protection Act 1998:

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

The claimant commenced proceeding against the defendant under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the removal of the default notice, or in the alternative, payment of compensation as permitted by section 13 of The Data Protection Act, to cover the claimants loss in respect of him losing the ability to obtain cheaper credit than he would otherwise be able to.

 

 

As you say this would cost you more to obtain credit.

[buzby]

Sorry, I disagree entirely. There is no scope for action with a reasonable chance of success. Sure, personal data must be accurate, but the decision as to what is and isn't is left to interpretation. As such, this is a job for the ICO to enforce, not the private individual.

 

As to the higher costs of obtaining gredit, to satisfy a court this would require to be quantified and supported. Now how easy is that going to be? We have to be realistic here.

 

If Capital One do not respons to the CRA's enquiry, the adverse information is removed. If they say it is correct, THEN you can call on them to substantiate it. The so-called 'notice of correction' has very limited use and should never be seen as a useful resolution.

[Bigmac versus]

Sorry, I disagree entirely.

 

Well theres a surprise, lol.

 

Ok i know of several people who have successfully had defaults removed using this where there is clearly wrong information being held on that person so i cant really see where your coming from Buzby as it is quite clear in its entireity and has held up in court the latest of which was only 4 weeks ago.

 

Regards

George

[buzby]

What kind of 'default'?

Who removed the data?

What court track?

What was the action for?

 

I'm afraid we've all heard of apocryphal stories that 'happened to a mate' but they don't stand up under close scrutiny. So, do tell, what did happen 4 weeks ago, by whom and for what - that supports your view?

[Bigmac versus]

Because of confidentiality i can not say who they are that much im sure you will agree with me but i will enlighten you once i speak to them if they have no objections.