LOOK AT THIS..VERY INTERESTING (2) Private information: (j) Default Information. The information consists of details supplied to Infolinkby its customers of credit transactions where debtors have defaulted. These details are retained on file for three years. Customers are warned by Infolink only to supply this sort of information in clear-cut cases. They should not notify a default where a debtor is disputing his liability to pay. If the customer subsequently notifies Infolink that the default has been satisfied, thisfact will be added to the record; if the customer notifies that the default wasregistered in error or should be removed for some other reason, all references to the default on the file will be cancelled. it comes from the information tribunal definition of when a default should be withdrawn. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

good luck mate...go get um....

This is quite good fun...reading how experians investors feel. EXPERIAN Discussion EXPN EXPN.L - Interactive Investor

mods, Is there anyway we can get this moved to the front page so all visitors coming on to the forums see it and maybe sign/send the letters and stengthen the case to the oft? This is one of the most important areas of CAG as the CRA's are the ultimate punishment for most DCA's and lenders when they have no where left to go and turn vindictive. It may not affect all people but one day it might and it's in our intrest to start making them accountable. please please please:p

INEWTON08, I think we are in danger of splitting our fcorces here. We have a thread running ... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html On that we are trying to challenge all unfair practices, for instance defaults with out CCA agreements, time of default notices, no real right of a fair appeal etc. we are asking everyone to sign a petition there and send a mass complaint letter to the OFT. I don't know if you agree but we may end up splitting between these two petitions and weakening both.

No need to apologise ... its giving us an idea how these people operate. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GOTO THE OTHER THREAD ON THIS AND SIGN THE PETITION AND POST THE LETTER. IT'S VITAL WE START MAKING A NOISE. GET YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, MILKMAN ECT TO DO THE SAME. THAT WILL REALLY STIR THE HORNETS NEST. POST THE LINK ON OTHER BLOGS AND TELL EVRYONE ON ANY FORUM YOU READ ABOUT IT. IT TAKES THEM 5 MINS BUT WILL GET RESULTS. THE GOVERMENT STOPPED ROAD CHARGING WHEN THE PETITION GOT SO LARGE THE COULDN'T IGNORE IT. as for me I am awaiting replies to my enquiries before I return to good ole Millsy with an ultimatum .............. RBS rang me up the other day threatening me with a home visit.. I told um to s#d off ...do enjoy that..QUITE STRESS RELEIVING

First response... wonder what it will be like when the letters really start pouring in?. keep the presure up people.

if you wish;)

Experian Terms and Conditions this might give you an idea of their 'contract'

on the link attached we have started a campaign to get an oft investigation. I urge all people who read this thread to post the letter to the oft and sign the petition. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

thanks surf boy its a start.........

In the meantime i suggest that as we appear to have hit a brick wall with any new ideas or progressing this as a block complaint we stick with the original plan. Post the following letter to this address. Enquiries Unit Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London, EC4Y 8JX Dear Sir/ Madam. This letter is being sent to you as an Official Complaint against Experian Ltd, Equifax Plc and Callcredit Ltd in their capacity as Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint also encompasses those Companies who subscribe to the services of these Credit Reference Agencies. The Complaint relates not to the handling of Consumers Data but to the uses that this Data is managed. In particular, I am concerned that ‘Default’ markers on Consumer Accounts are being abused and manipulated by these Companies and their clients as a form of punishment against those who raise legitimate Disputes with them. I believe that this is contrary to natural justice, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidelines and possibly a violation of the right to a fair trial under The Human Rights Act 1998. Currently, a Default marker is put onto a Consumer's Account after a Default Notice has been sent to them. The issue of these Notices is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These Defaults are meant to be a pre-cursor to Enforcement Action through the County Courts. In effect, they are a means to an end. In the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Parliament clearly intended these Defaults to be a temporary marker to allow other lenders to see that Legal Action is pending on an Account. If the Legal Action is successful then it was intended that a County Court Judgement should replace the Default, which is, then on view for 6 years. However, it is apparent to me that these Default markers are being used when no Enforcement Action is being taken or has any realistic chance of such action being taken. This then renders these markers no longer a means to an end but an end in itself. This is not how they were devised to be used. Instead of being used as a marker indicating pending Legal Action they are being used as an arbitrary punishment against Consumers, imposed by an industry with no legal authority and no system of fair appeal. If a victim of these Defaults wishes to challenge these markers, then they are passed from one institution to another, given no reason why their claim is rejected and, ultimately, can only seek redress by taking Legal Action themselves to have the marker removed. This is invariably too expensive and too stressful for almost all Consumers. A Default marker, once placed on record, lasts for at least 6 years. Thus, the Default has nearly the same negative effect as a County Court Judgement, and yet requires no input from a court. This Adverse Data affects a Consumer's ability to gain Credit, Housing (Landlord Credit Checks) and, in some cases, their ability to gain employment (Employer Credit Checks). This can be interpreted as an attempt by the Credit Reference Agencies and their clients to bypass the Court system and issue their own punishments against those who have genuine Disputes. In turn, the threat of a Default is also being used as a tool to try and deter those wishing to raise or discuss genuine Disputes. I would request as a Taxpayer and concerned Consumer that the OFT investigate this situation as a matter of great urgency. I suggest that it would be productive to investigate what percentage of the millions of Default markers issued over the last 6 years, have actually resulted in any Enforcement action being taken in Court. I feel that as a public body, you have a Duty to investigate any action that may be in breach of HRA1998 and I trust you will do so now. Signed IF PEOPLE CAN MAIL THIS OFF TO THE OFT PUTTING THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGNING IT THEN WE MIGHT GET THIS MOVING AGAIN. REMEMBER THE MORE THE MERRIER AND THE MORE THEY ARE LIKELY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. PLEASE POST ON THIS THREAD IF YOU SEND THE LETTER AND WE CAN TRY AND COLLATE HOW MANY HAVE BEEN SENT. TELL ALL THOSE YOU COME ACROSS ABOUT THE LETTER AND ENCOURAGE THENM TO POST IT AS WELL. A MASS MOVEMENT IS A FRIGHTENING THING AND WE MAY HAVE A REAL CHANCE OF GETTING AN INVETIGATION LAUNCHED. IMAGINE HOW UPSET THAT WOULD MAKE THE CRA'S FURTHUR TO THIS I HAVE ATTEMPTED LODGE A PETITION WITH HO10 DOWNING STREET BUT IT SEEMS TO BE TAKING FOREVER. HOWEVER THIS ONE DOES EXIST. Petition to: Enforce the provisions of the Data Protection 1988 so that Credit Reference Agencies have an obligation to correct any and all inaccurate information they hold on an individual. IT CURRENTLY HAS 31!!!!!!!! SIGNATURES. COME ON PEOPLE ROAD CHARGING GOT 1000000!!!! GET ON THERE AND SIGN IT. GET YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILLY ETC TO SIGN IT. ONCE IT GETS TO 500000 THEY WILL TAKE NOTICE. I AM GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL THREAD NOW. I HAVE SENT THE LETTER AND WILL BE SIGNING THE PETTION. LETS BEAT THEM ONCE AND FOR ALL GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY AND REMEMBER PASTE HER WHEN YOU POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION.

ok...quick reply to Milsy (Good ole Milsy) Dear Mr Mills, Re : Your refs ; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thank you for your recent letter of the 31 July 2008 and it’s interesting contents. At this time I am awaiting replies to enquiries made to The Information Commissioners office, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, The Queens Bench Division of The High Court and The Solicitors Regulation Authority. Once I have received replies to these letters I shall be responding to your letter in full. In the meantime I would like to state that as of this day your company continues to defame my an my wifes names and would request that you disist immediately, Your truly, I think you can see where we are going with this. I'm not going to post the enquiries I have made of the fine people above as I don't think Experian need to know that yet until they have dug the hole a little deeper. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave......' as the saying goes

Im going to write to the ico and post the letter on my Experian thread. I want a specific question answered by him first.

Thanks Dave:)

any threads for these cases?

if there were they wouldn't necessarly have all the prescribed terms on them. so what do we do now? application form, t&c and no prescribed terms on either......... do they claim that the prescribed terms were fully available for inspection at their branch on the top of Mt everest?

do you have threads for these cases.... forewarned is forearmed as they say. and forearms is better than two;)

I will take my risks. If they want to break the law with a forgery then thats there decision and their look out. I know where the applications came from and if there was a 'reverse' side possible. Hope they remember as well or we move into criminal territory then.

Its no just diputed charges. Its unenforcable CCA agreements as well. If they are unenforcable then the defaults etc must follow the same fate. The problem with improperly executed is the judge can, and has said in several cases he will, make an enfircement order if asked. It appears they are willing to do this unless you can show you have been significantly disadvantaged by the agreement (not likely). Unenforcable is stone dead unenforcable. for all the reasons the law lords stated and if you have a rather grubby application form with no prescribed terms and your signature on it they are rather knackerd. I have three.........

and as i said .....we however are only dealing with unenforcable and defaults made of unlawful charges not and i repeat not improperly executed. Unenforcable only...........not improperly executed......

But your arguement doesn't make sense. A true copy is for the purposes of a CCA request. Great. But when they send you a signed application form with no prescribed terms then they have already shown their hand and that they don't have enforcable agreement. That is what I have. Even then if you get to court on a copy with no signatures but all the prescribed terms 'true copy' they still have to produce one with your signature at court or you have never even entered the agreement lawfully. Otherwise what would be the point of an agreement?

bluesmartie, We have covered this before.. we understand that improperly executed ids not the same as undenforcable and carries a risk of enforcement. we however are only dealing with unenforcable and defaults made of unlawful charges not and i repeat not improperly executed. Also I remember reading that in the house of lords appeal above the law lords recognised that the penalties for unenforcable were SO DRACONIAN that they could only have meant that the primary legislation did delibertly deny the creditor to any of the original funds as a sanction. and therefore it was compatible with the HRA

But regardless of that ...isnt this... House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant) the final part of the wilson saga...