Hard copies of the Experian Letter pp1&2

[SurlyBonds]

To save having to email them to every request...

 

(You don't need to send these to the I.C.O. as they now have them as part of their 'test' case [ho hum] ... just include them to any bank, lender, DCA, or other half-witted bunch of Muppets who quote "The CRAs say six years, so there" with a letter that says:

"No actually, they've thrown the towel in on that one.... so there!":p

 

 

Enjoy!

 

The email from me that preceeded this response (following one of their typical SodOff Letters) was:

 

To Mr ***********,

 

I have done just what you suggested...already spoken to the ICO, and in their considered opinion there is more than enough to warrant an official complaint against Experian. They have seen a copy of your letter, and were (in their words) "rather surprised" by some of the claims that you make in your response.

 

 

By the way, don't try scaring me off with the usual "Go away little man, because our lawyers cost more than yours" attitude, as it doesn't cut any ice with me - I have more than enough legal backing that won't cost me a penny. This is the typical bullying mentality that one sees in the playground from children who are, in reality, nothing more than weakling cowards, and try the My-Dad's-Bigger-Than-Yours mentality when they realise that they are out of their depth.

 

 

I am, frankly, disgusted by the obvious pontificating attitude within your letter, and that you have not actually answered a single point that I've questioned - this was also noted by the ICO.

 

 

What you need to realise is that you are not dealing with some uneducated Muppet from the realms of the great unwashed - I'm educated to Doctrine level, and have a verified IQ in the 160s, so it is not difficult to see that your responses amount to nothing more than unintelligent and illogical argument - indeed, you have even contradicted your own argument in several places.

 

 

Anyway, a more detailed letter than this response will be sent in due course, including a final demand for you to remove all outdated and expired credit data (a course of action recommended by the ICO). They have sent me the official complaint forms, and these will be submitted anyway, regardless of how you respond to my data subject requests. These will be in the form of official criminal complaints under the DPA and not as an aide memoir seeking the ICO's advice - I don’t need the IC's interpretation on the Act, I need a judge's decision on the Act.

 

 

Additionally, if you fail to process the data subject notice, then I will proceed in the Poole County Court for jurisdiction on your incompetence as a Data Controller, and your wilful suppression of my rights under the Act. I have more faith in an independent judge's reading of the Act than a so-called "recommendation" paper dreamt up at one of your industry's cosy little beanos. By the way, you will be expected to provide this co-called document (the one you have refused to suppy to date) listed as a required document of defence within the Allocation Questionnaire when I take you to Court.

 

 

Yours, in disgust,

 

 

lil' ol' me

 

 

me----->

[Tobes]

This should be a sticky

[countrybake]

did you actualy send this

[SurlyBonds]

did you actualy send this

 

OhMyGawd, they've gone!!!:o

 

Just like "The President's Brain is Missing"....yikes...So, it was the three figures on the grassy-knoll, after all!!

 

There they were one minute, and the next?... just vanished into thin air...!!!

 

Ah, but did I not say that this evening was getting more and more reminiscent of the Twilight Zone each minute... I've had three threads locked-down, two posts deleted and even my PMs seem to be going into thin air.

 

And now this??!?!?! It is all getting far too spooky for my liking...

 

I'll go and see if I can find them... see if any of the stripes know where they are. Although that could be very hard to determine, as the only witness to the scene reported a bright almost-omnipotent light descending from upon high, and then 'zap!' ... they'd gone in a flash, with just a green slimy coating left behind... rather like a sort of gooey ectoplasm from an intelligence far superior to our own.

 

All I can say is "wow!"... whoever did this must have truly remakable powers...and I'll bet their Mummy's are so very proud of all they've achieved in life. (That's assuming these ultra-intelligent life forms have Mummys... perhaps they're just created in labs?)

 

If I can't find them, you'll have to PM me and I'll see if a copy survived the unearthly goings-on and can send them to you direct.

[countrybake]

surlybonds have you been given any unusaul mushrooms of the magical variety

[dayglo]

good job I printed a copy off then!!

[SurlyBonds]

surlybonds have you been given any unusaul mushrooms of the magical variety

 

No... absolutely not, officer...

 

But, I think some of the stripes have been taking something...although I'll wager it's not Humourzol 50mg dosage....allegedly..

 

Last night was just a very surreal experience... almost like some weird dream...

 

Having had so many posts 'allowed' in the past, my new ones were getting zapped off the planet, quicker than I could post them, even though I was saying the same things...

 

So, I guess that the days of free speech have well and truly disappeared into the history books... it's a real pity when a site that is full of good intentions ends up being 'looked after' by people with no sense of humour or tolerance of personal opinion...

 

Even more interesting is that I seem to be the only one who has been put on the end of this 'censorship'... there appears to be no uniformity of the application of 'rules', so it must be just a personal thing from those who don't like my writing style...or it could just be the other reasons that I've heard about...

 

Anyway, when (and if) I can be bothered to find a copy, I'll try and repost them...

[SurlyBonds]

If this is to be a sticky maybe you should put the letters back in it ?

 

A surprising comment from someone who so obviously disapproves of the actual method anyway and thinks it a little bit pointless...see below...

 

I think if the manual search only thing comes up on the file then decline is the more likely option. Why blank a clean credit file ??????

 

you get defaults on your file -= you get them removed if they weren't deserved - - the ones legitamtely there are there for a reason and you have to wait for them to drop off - the 6 years thing is interesting -- but in my opinion there have to be some safeguards to stop people ending up bankrupting themselves by taking on ridiculous amounts of credit they cant afford.

 

I also think that blanking your files to automated processing can not be good for the individual as I would expect mortgages/loans etc will be hard to get and if they have to manually search the info add a long delay onto processing times.

 

Also the CRAs dont make desisions on lending - they give the info to the companies who you want credit with and they all have their own criteria as to what kid of risk they want to take with you.

 

My opinion only - I dont know much about CRA's.

 

...but now realises that some people have actually benefitted from the method...

 

...and from someone who so obviously dislikes my writing style, personal opinion, beliefs and sense of humour (during the 'night of the long knives'), then I will personally treat such a post with the level of respect that that I think it deserves.

 

Touché.

 

[standing by for the Death Star's laser....]

[un1boy]

I'm confused.....what is it that you have done wrong Surly?!

[M the Merciless]

Right, sure.... They would have taken the useful part of your post and left the useless one Yeah, that makes sense... *sigh*

 

Free speech, hmmm: "Ma liberté s'arrête là où la votre commence", said Voltaire, who knew a thing or 2 about freedom of speech...

[SurlyBonds]

Right, sure.... They would have taken the useful part of your post and left the useless one Yeah, that makes sense... *sigh*

 

Free speech, hmmm: "Ma liberté s'arrête là où la votre commence", said Voltaire, who knew a thing or 2 about freedom of speech...

 

Ahhhhhhh, a bit of Voltaire... nice to see a bit of educated culture on here...

 

One of my favs from the very chap was:

The safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death.

One of my maxim's in life, hence why I have taken on these CRAs determined to get to the bottom of their little set-ups, and why I don't take any nonsense from their bullying and childish manner.

[jimfishybob]

Reading between the lines I think I can see what's happened here.

 

It is an odd one. Not least beacause SB has given up his time and expertise so readily and selflesly and it has, in the main, been welcomed by the site owners.

 

There is, of course, nothing positive to be gained by insulting individual members of the forums, however, if that individual has registered with the site as a representative of an institution which operates in the unfair or unlawful manner this site has come to abhor then they should expect to be challenged or recieve some flak. This is certainly true when they seem to have registered merely to spout propoganda without indulging in any meaningful discussion of the subject matter.

 

As for whether SB's advice is morally just, this is a seperate issue. I don't neccessarily agree with every point he's made but I respect his right to advise people where they feel they have no other option. Elsewhere on the site there are individuals questioning the morality of reclaiming bank charges but as this is an issue the mods are in favour of, it is the naysayers who are decried. In this case the some of the mods,(and some site-helpers), disagree with SB and he is given the same treatment.

 

SB has dispensed his advice, sometimes passionately, to those who wish to take it on board and action it as they see fit. Whether a mods opinion is contrary to his own is a moot point as he does have legalities on his side and it therefore falls within the remit of CAG.

 

Moderation does not equal invalid censorship.

[SurlyBonds]

Reading between the lines I think I can see what's happened here.

 

It is an odd one. Not least beacause SB has given up his time and expertise so readily and selflesly and it has, in the main, been welcomed by the site owners.

 

 

Thanks for the support... I don't know if anyone's a Python fan, but Bedevere's reasoning and 'justice' dispensed in the witch-ducking scene in Holy Grail just about sums up the whole laughable episode...

 

Saying that, so does the "old woman" scene...

 

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to shut up.

OLD WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR: I am your king!

OLD WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

OLD WOMAN: Well, how did you become king, then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ... That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!

ARTHUR: (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

 

Copyright Monty Python Pictures Limited

[sarahpp]

One of my favourite films SB

[SurlyBonds]

No one has moderated or censored any of surlybonds advice. or deleted any of his letters.

 

That is not the way this site works, if people do not agree with advice they discuss it.

 

 

Zappppp!!!... There goes another another one... post #18 deleted without explanation, obviously to deny the very point that I've just made.

 

Rat-a-tat-tat....

Rat-a-tat-tat....

Rat-a-tat-tat....

Rat-a-tat-tat....

 

Lasts up to six times more than normal zinc-carbide batteries...

[SurlyBonds]

No one has moderated or censored any of surlybonds advice. or deleted any of his letters.

 

That is not the way this site works, if people do not agree with advice they discuss it.

 

Hmmmmm.. of course not...

 

then, for starters, this one must be a mere figment of my imagination....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/29914-has-anybody-seen-experians.html#post234471

 

Maybe I need to go to SpecSavers...

[BankFodder]

Surlybonds

You have chosen not to receive private mail but I owul dbe grateful if you would contact me.

 

In the meantime, I am afraid that I have placed your posts on moderation.

 

Thanks

[SurlyBonds]

Surlybonds

You have chosen not to receive private mail but I owul dbe grateful if you would contact me.

 

In the meantime, I am afraid that I have placed your posts on moderation.

 

Thanks

 

Er...not quite... my mailbox has always been open to receive mail, especially from Admins, but suddenly Zapppp!... my mailbox also disappeared.

 

So, alas, no way to contact? Unless someone in the Admin teams emails my private email addy, with a contact number?

[rdm2006]

To save having to email them to every request...

 

(You don't need to send these to the I.C.O. as they now have them as part of their 'test' case [ho hum] ... just include them to any bank, lender, DCA, or other half-witted bunch of Muppets who quote "The CRAs say six years, so there" with a letter that says:

"No actually, they've thrown the towel in on that one.... so there!":p

 

 

Enjoy!

 

The email from me that preceeded this response (following one of their typical SodOff Letters) was:

 

me----->

 

I hope that you will not take this as a telling off because it is not.

I also Hope that you will not think that this has come from CAG as it is my personal opinion.

 

I used to work for BT (yes that hated institution) and I have been the subject of verbal abuse.

 

I would like to say when I signed up for that job I did not sign away my rights as an individual. Although I completely understand your hatred of the CSA's I do feel that Karnevil was correct in asking you to cease your attacks on Mr Jones

 

To be honest I find it hypocritical that you should be writing to him to remove false information held on you when you are now asking this site to retain false information about him (I am sure that he is a human being and he is not kermit the frog, miss piggy or any other muppet character).

 

With regard to editing your posts (and yes this has been done to remove your attacks on Mr Jones). However, I do feel that others should be made aware that you have been doing your own bit of editing and blaming this on the site haven't you (allegedly).

 

The above shows that the links remain to the site you use to post your images, had this been edited by this site those links would have been removed. As this site would not be able to "edit" information held on another site. Should this not be seen by all simply click on quote on the post containing the alleged removal then click on the two a's in the top right hand corner.

 

Again I hope that you will not take this as a telling off and hope that you will be able to recognise that you are acting like the very people you profess to hate.

 

I personally applaud you for your success, however, I can not and will not be a party to infringement of other peoples rights regardless of the job they hold.

 

RDM2006

[SurlyBonds]

With regard to editing your posts (and yes this has been done to remove your attacks on Mr Jones). However, I do feel that others should be made aware that you have been doing your own bit of editing and blaming this on the site haven't you (allegedly).

 

The above shows that the links remain to the site you use to post your images, had this been edited by this site those links would have been removed. As this site would not be able to "edit" information held on another site. Should this not be seen by all simply click on quote on the post containing the alleged removal then click on the two a's in the top right hand corner.

 

Again I hope that you will not take this as a telling off and hope that you will be able to recognise that you are acting like the very people you profess to hate.

 

I personally applaud you for your success, however, I can not and will not be a party to infringement of other peoples rights regardless of the job they hold.

 

RDM2006

 

Erm no, I am not blaming this removal on anyone... I am injecting a little humour (and complete sarcasm) to make the point about what I consider was unnecessary editing on other posts.

 

And I think some people need to REALLY get a sense of humour - if they can't take my posts in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which they are posted, then they REALLY do need to get a reality check in their diaires, like NOW!

 

No telling-off presumed, but no, I don't accept the comment that I am acting illegally or unlawfully which is what the banks.CRAs ar doing in my book.

 

I find it all very funny actually, especially the attitudes of some people once they get a few stripes on their sleeves. As they say, "power corrupts".

[Number6]

I feel that I have just stepped out of the TARDIS into some form of trans-dimensional vortex!

 

What on earth is going on here?

 

Pete

[rdm2006]

Well I am glad I have not offended you as I really do applaud the work you have done and I hope you can see where I am comming from

[dayglo]

The above shows that the links remain to the site you use to post your images, had this been edited by this site those links would have been removed. As this site would not be able to "edit" information held on another site. Should this not be seen by all simply click on quote on the post containing the alleged removal then click on the two a's in the top right hand corner.

RDM2006

 

That's not neccessarily true. as an admin of another board - you can disable external tags quite easily either by post or by poster. It could be that an admin has done that in this case. the tag would still show the URL but the permissions would prevent the image being shown.

[dayglo]

I understand that (and you are right they have been taken off the source url) - my point was, that in itself doesn't automatically mean that an admin on this board hadn't disabled the tags. A minor point granted.

[Number6]

good job I printed a copy off then!!

 

Dayglo, could you possibly PM me copies of your copies??

 

Thanks.

 

Pete