They probably do a Table 1 search to see if you are worth chasing (to see your current credit situation) ...... Then pretend it was an error.... Can the DCA do a proper credit check legally I wonder? If the account is active the creditor can check you as much as they like I believe, but once it is deado I wonder if they can continue doing that seeing as no more credit is on offer? Edit: I am talking about a proper credit check BTW not just debtor tracing etc.

On the bbc news website today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318 It says he is a "High Court Judge" but doesn't say what court he was sitting in when he made the judgment. Might be worth getting the decision/transcript...

I can't find a thread here about this news article on the bbc today, anyone here involved in the action? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318

So you have 5 accounts that have gone south, albeit with faulty default notices and maybe unenforceable agreements? Why do you think going to manual processing will help you in anyway? What are you trying to achieve? Maybe you could do a CIFAS protected registration, that should force everything to go manual: http://www.cifas.org.uk/pr

You would be best just sticking to making a complaint to the ICO and seeing how they respond. A court claim will take even longer probably anyway. The ICO complaint is free and no risk. The CRA will simply defend saying "we don't make any credit decisions"...... Don't go near a court unless you are 100% sure you know what you are doing, best case is you may waste a lot of time, worst case is they will go after you for costs! The CRAs send large law firms to defend... If the ICO say you don't have a basis for a claim then you know it is a complete non-starter.

I have always used a Part 8 Claim to get companies to comply with the Data Protection Act, that is what the ICO office says too. It would cost £150 to start a claim asking the court to make an order. Not sure if this works, takes ages to load for me: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_a_case_to_court.pdf If you are after damages too you'd have to pay extra for that part of the claim. The only automated credit making decision process CRAs do is providing a credit score to a lender I would think, do Callcredit do that? I think Experian and Equifax do. If nothing is inaccurate data wise they hold and you agreed the organisations reporting data on you could, I am not sure where you will get with it. You might ask them if they provide any sort of credit scoring to lenders first.... Caveat Emptor!

You shouldn't have to file an application for a strike out. If the court hasn't received directions as requested they should have struck it out as per the order. Maybe send the court a diary (cheeky) with your letter when requesting they strike it out.

If you are not happy with just gifting it and "hoping for the best" repayment wise, maybe you should keep things simple and treat it as a gamble. Amount you are giving her/Estimated value of House x 100 = Your % share of the house The Mould is right though, look after your family within reason. There is too much "everyone for themself" these days.

You can send them the Letter Before Action now and give them 14 days. Always have it look like you have been reasonable. Make sure you send it Special Delivery. Recorded sometimes doesn't work out... I think what might have happened is the only way they can have your debit card pay each month is to enter your information on some arrears payment system so it can take it. So now it looks like you are someone behind in payments making an arrangement to pay. You need to remind them that you never entered an "arrangement to pay" were never behind with payments and always made the required minimum payment. Your account live without restriction and you feel an error has been made in the inputting it as an "arrangement to pay". Send them a photocopy of what they are reporting to the CRA and advise them that some lenders deduce an "arrangement to pay" means the customer is struggling or behind payments. You really need to spell it out to them. I worked for a credit card company 10 years ago and it amazed me how some of the employees managed to dress themselves in the morning. LOL! If that doesn't work then legal action usually gets them to jump up off their seats. Advise them that once proceedings have commenced you may make an application for an injunction against them for reporting this, claim all legal costs against them and you will be sending the court file/copies of all communications with them to the Office of Fair Trading, Consumer Credit Fitness Enforcement Section.

You are right about Equifax. All my past problems have been about searches they have allowed without my permission, no other CRA. I think they own Wescot, a DCA. O2 have done a credit search on me with them last week and I have never had anything to do with O2. I think it might be some sort of marketing search/trawl Equifax have allowed but they have recorded it as a Table 1 Credit Search. I keep asking what information they are providing to these 3rd Parties and if the 3rd Party provided my correct DOB before they released it. Never get a clear reponse from them. Also, even if you subscribe to their credit report service for a monthly fee they never answer their landline and take 5 or 6 weeks to respond to an online query which is usually some out of the country agent that gives a generic response. Dreadful service.

I have taken a few companies to court to force them to correct their records under the Data Protection Act. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/14) Before you can do that (the nuclear option) you need to give the Data Controller 40 days to correct the data. After that, if it remains wrong, I would send a Letter Before Action too giving them a further 14 days, by Special Delivery to the Data Controller of the company. The register can be searched here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp I would ignore the credit reference agencies and focus all of your attention on Opus to get this corrected. I know you are probably angry and want to blame the CRAs too and quiet rightly you should, they seem to accept what they are told with a pinch of salt. However, it is better to focus on the organisation providing them with the information as the CRAs are used to defending all claims and it would be a waste of time going after them and confuse you even more. Are you 100% sure that the data is inaccurate? Is it some sort of discontinued credit card they are allowing to be paid off over time instead of in full? They might have a defence that it is accurate. Are you wanting to apply for credit elsewhere and thinking this "arrangement to pay" will make you look like you are in some way struggling? One thing to note though, even the court option takes ages, (over a year for me to get to a hearing!) so you might as well get your ICO complaint in straight away if they refuse to "correct" it.

If he is going it alone... might it be worth his(or her) while to send a CPR 31.16 letter and ask for the medical report? This is asking for disclosure before proceedings commence and might help out costs wise. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part31.htm I think you seriously need proper legal advice though! Check your insurance policies for legal cover pronto as per the previous post and don't admit anything before getting proper advice.

Are you saying there is anything wrong in your view with this Court of Appeal judgment? Check this out: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/English_court_system.png Waksman is the 3rd rung down.

The 2nd claim could bring in all sorts of arguments against it so it wouldn't be worth them re-filing. They'd have to explain why they claimed the previous copy was true when it wasn't etc. Unless they had the original who would believe them the 2nd time after they told a previous "untruth". The CCA allows them to be unbinded from providing a wrong copy under s78 doesn't it? Then again we are not just talking about complying with s78 are we, we have litigation in progress, CPRs etc. Nobody would re-file and open pandoras box surely?

They would have to re-file a fresh claim. The previous claim would be dead once judgment was made as they had not complied before judgment. If they lost once and had to pay costs they might think twice re-filing against someone who wasn't a pushover. This is what happened here isn't it? Once it was dead it was dead. Even if they complied in the meantime the previous judgment was based when they hadn't complied.

I don't think anyone here is talking about unfair relationships or seeking declarations of unenforceability etc. If they don't comply properly with the s78 it is a defence and they cannot enforce, as per this case. You would go for the actual original agreement under CPR 31.14 anyway before even filing a defence. (Maybe get the train to their office and inspect in person too! LOL)

Why are we going around in circles? If you don't satisfy a s78 request properly then you can't enforce. Simple as that. What reason would the creditor not comply correctly with the s78 in the first place? (Other than being lazy) Either they have no idea what the original agreement was (so can't comply with the s78 request) because it is lost or that they know the original agreement was irredemably unenforceable so don't comply (naughty). Nobody is saying they can't just come up with it eventually then enforce, unless it turns out to be irredemably unenforceable. The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove it is a true copy.... e.g. How do they know it is a true copy, do they have other agreements on file from that time, etc. It has been a long time since I seen anyone mention taking the creditor to court on here! Madness.

If you do nothing they will almost certainly apply for a "default judgment". You get 1 month then to pay it when the judgment is issued which is usually within a day or so if they ask for default judgment on moneyclaim. You then need to get a receipt from the person you paid confirming it was paid within the month and send it with a completed form to the court, with a fee. This is the leaflet about it: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex320_0406.pdf If you admit to it you might get the judgment made earlier, so if you are happy to pay it in 28 days you might be best doing nothing. Make sure you allow time for it to be cleared funds too just in case i.e. cheque clearance.

You might want to read the pre-action protocols for this "stuff" so you know what you are up against. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_hou.htm http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_pic.htm

If they get a CCJ against you then you would have to pay it within 28 days in full for it not to appear on your file. Surely you could find some employ that would pay £250 in 4 weeks to clear it? Other than that you could always submit an embarassed defence and demand to see the agreement.... by time it got to any hearing it would be after April anyway so you could pay them (allegedly) in full anyway, before the hearing. I can't see anymore costs being awarded on a £250 (small) claim, although your agreement with them might let them charge you more late/arrears fees. They'd would probably have to take you to court again to get them though. Time would be better spend making some money though LOL!

You need to pay the full amount the judgment was for so that this will not appear on your credit file the next 6 years. Then you can start complaining to try and get money back off the Water Company. If you do not pay the full amount of the judgment within 28 days of the judgment your credit file will be trashed for 6 years.

I don't think there is anything legally stopping them. I get the feeling though that they aren't able to even reconstruct the originally agreement because they don't know what it was anymore to even keep a straight face and say it was a true copy. They have had plenty of time to!

Is there anything legally clear on what "enforcement" actually is yet under the CCA? Is obtaining a judgment "enforcement" or enforcing the judgment e.g. sending in the bailiffs, 3rd party debt orders, garnishing wages, etc... I remember reading one of the cases and the Judge was sort of inferring you'd have to go for injunctory relief to stop "enforcement". Does that mean technically they can get a judgment against you without complying with a s77/78 request properly but not "enforce" it? Leaving it up to you to try and get an injunction against them enforcing it if they tried then suddenly have them magically comply with the s77/s78 request. It is seriously important people fully use CPR 31 the day they get the claim form and go all out to kill the claim before they even have to file a defence. Sadly Joe Public has no clue about this.

Hopefully PT will confirm this but you cannot sue someone with no cause of action then just create the cause of action in the middle of the claim. They would have to settle that claim and re-file if they had not complied with the S77/S78 request when they commenced their claim. It would be a clear abuse of process to commence proceedings when you infact had no cause of action, they would have to discontinue and pay costs to the defendent. I think this is exactly the outcome of this case in this thread. Of course this doesn't stop them from complying and re-filing. Which they might even do in this case or just go away back to their kennel tail between legs rather than risk it again with someone who knows the score! I am pretty sure they cannot just comply with it in the middle of proceedings, confirmation PT?

I know the searches can be derogatory and I do always get them removed (eventually). Any credit application has the clause they can use your data to "trace debtors". So this clause which is included in every single credit application/agreement out there might be what a DCA relies on when they do a search on say "anyone called David Smith born 01/01/75" So I am thinking the DCA can pretty much legally look at your file if you have the same name and DOB as a debtor they seek based on the fact that when you opened any credit account you agreed that your data could be used to "trace debtors". It seems too much of a wide power for them to have, especially as there are many William Smith's, etc born on the same day each year. They need to add another stage when a DCA performs a search, not only do they need a name and DOB but they should be obligated to supply a "connected address" so as to rule out these unwarranted invasions of privacy of individuals with the same name sharing the same date of birth.