Write to HM Land Registry, with copies of the court hearing and order for the final amount, plus proof of payment, plus copies of the letters that you have sent asking for the charging order to be removed, all with a cover letter stating that you are now contesting the grounds for the charging order, and wish to have the order removed. The Land Registry will then write to the agency asking if they wish to contend the matter. Saying that, did you not ask for it to be removed as part of the final payment settlement?

And anyway, even their new terms say: "We will keep your information for a reasonable period after your contract with us finished in case you decide to use our Services again and may contact you about our Services during this time" Which means, in English: 1. We/Us/Orange will keep.....on OUR systems internally, NOT the CRAs, nor have we included the word disclose. 2. for a reasonable period after your contract with us has finished... unless you write to us to remove it 3. in case you decide to use our Services again... i.e. if you want to come back we can check internally if you were a good mug or a pain in the ar*e customer - so this data is ONLY being kept for internal checking and marketing only, we are not disclosing it to others. 4. and may contact you about our Services during this time...we might ring you up and badger you to come back. These new clauses STILL do not specifically mention ANYTHING about disclosing data to the CRAs, so Experian's example here in the letter is actually a pi**-poor example to use. This is, actually, a very badly written clause... maybe I ought to shut up posting these anomalies as they are obviously watching and learning themsleves.

Those are the CURRENT terms in Orange's contract... they were not the ones in mine or my mate's contract from 3 years ago...that's why I keep saying to people....CHECK. Orange changed them after I kicked up hell with Experian... Last email which preceded this response is posted in the hard copy post above.

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----->

2. Doesn't matter who closed it ... you or them ... or whether it was closed by default or not... if a contract's finished, it's finished. Also, Experian have now admitted that their right to hold default entries should be dependant on what the specific terms of the contract said. QED.

Hi Neo, Sorry, I never got round to answering this earlier... The book is: The Law of Contract (Fundamental Principles of Law) by Sir J C Smith Published by Sweet & Maxwell (21 Mar 2002), ISBN: 042178170X Enjoy...

I sent him a PM asking if he was going to answer some of the questions on the forum, as we hadn't been blessed with his omnipotent presence lately? Following error occured: JamesJ has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her. For the so-called UK Education Mangler, you'd think he'd answer questions from his public every now and then, i.e. those poor mugs without whose data he'd be out of a job. I wanted to ask him when we'd see the change in the wording of Experian's website... which still crows on about their "legal right" (ho hum...laugh?, I nearly pi**ed myself) but alas, no Milky Bar Kid today folks to enlighten us mere Hobbits in Middle Earth. I'll bet the Fat Controllers at Experian have stopped James the Red 'Data' Engine and the other jolly chuffing characters on the Island of SodOff...sorry, I meant Sodor...from contributing their pearls of wisdom to the great unwashed. Either that, or he's on four months of courses learning about the Data Protection Act and contractual law. Has anyone heard from him lately... or has he simply faded into the night like a spritey wisp of an orb... So, who was that masked man?

Initials are L J H Consumer Compliance Executive Directors' Office

This is almost word-for-word the first one that I had from them dated 31st August. However, after chewing their ears off on the phone, and threatening to sue their sad ars*s off if they couldn't prove the Ts and Cs allowed ongoing processing, I got the second one fromt he same chap dated 6th September... this is the one posted as the sticky thread. Hard copy arrived a few days later. Phone this idot up and ask if they've spoken to the other so-called Director's Office Execs.

Only include this particular paragraph (from the template) if you are actually writing to the company secretary... otherwise, substitute it for the job title of the person you are writing to. Might be worth taking out "highly-educated", if it's a numpty, as they might think you're taking the pi$$.

deflamation = non-ignition, extinguish???;-) I think you mean, defamation??? If you can prove the loss due to the default, and your current lenders will need to write to say that you are on a different leding rate because of the marker, AND NTL have admitted the cock-up, then you can star on a case. But, you WILL need all of this before you can even think about making a claim. Also, tell NTL that now they've admitted the balls-up, then they are to remove the default and write to you confirming that this has been done. You need to gather the evidence before throwing compensation claims about- otherwise they tend to clam up, because they know what's coming.

There's no such 'body' as CIFAS... it is simply the name of a scheme that the financial services industry subscribe to, including the CRAs who lodge the markers. Write to the CRA(s) and Liverpool Victoria with a 21 day StatNote. Make the CRA do the work, they have just as much responsibility to hold correct data, as LV have in providing it. Warn the CRA that if they are holding inaccurate data about you, you will enforce the full authority of the Data Protection Act against them as a Data Controller. Make them provide the proof that they are correct, not you trying to prove your innocence. Tell them that you want to see the actual copies of all documents proving this marker otherwise what are they basing their inaccurate data storage on. Copies should be provided with any response letter. Don't accept the typical CRA "We can't move it, until the lender says so" bulls**t - because that's all it is, bovine scatological faecal matter.

Tell the CRA to prove the notice and details of the company registering the notice, or order them to remove it within the statutry period. proving the notice, means that they are to supply wyou with a copy of the notice supplied to them by this company, together with a copy of the agreement that this company claims to contain material falsehoods, clearly indicating which submitted pieces of information are alledged to be false. Normally the credit file (usually the first page) should include details of all the companies that have supplied data for the production of the file, and their addresses.

Their reply is complete bo**ocks and is the usual scare tactics. Even though Wescot think they now own the loan, the Data Protection permission was granted to the origianl lender, NOT Wescot. Default Notice still HAS to be provided... unless they can produce a copy of the ORIGINAL, then no default is deemed to have occured (CCA 1974) You don't automatically accept liability by making payments... this is a ridiculous assumption for them to make. you can write to them and state that any payments to date, do not accept liability whatsoever. Anyone in the country can make a payment to anyone else, but that doesn't automatically infer that you have accepted liability. Half the banks we are suing, are paying up, but not accpeting liability. The master agreement between Lloyds and them is not valid to you, unless it also contains a schedule of debts (with your name on it) and the amount. They should have served one on you originally otherwise you don't have to accept the transfer of ownership. Believe me, I have had dealings with Wescot with some people I'm helping and they are one of the biggest bunch of soft, brown, smelly lumps of bullying liars, I have ever had the displeasure to tread in. However, did you actually admit to them - as they claim - that you have previously written to them accepting the debt, and agreeing to apy in full. If you did, then you have sort of shot your foot off. By the way, whatever the outcome of who owns the case, they have admitted in this letter that the account is now closed, so any default that they or Lloyds have registered with the CRAs can now removed under the DPA. Write to the CRAs and tell them that unless they can be provided with the terms and conditions from Lloyds stating that you are happy for account details to be passed on after the closure of the account, then the CRA must remove them within the statutory period. I assume that you have not signed a Data Protection agreement with Westcot?

It's actually S18 ... unfortuantely the site HTML turns an "8" ad right bracket ")" into a "cool" smilie Have edited the original post.

Okay, the section of the Data Protection Act that allows the data subject ALL data rights, not just your financial data: PART II RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS AND OTHERS Right of access to personal data. 7. - (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled- (a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller, (b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of- (i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject, (ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and (iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed, © to have communicated to him in an intelligible form- (i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and (ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and (d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking. ... (7) An individual making a request under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description. (8.) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day. How much more of the actual Act do they want thrown at them????? ... really, these people are absolute Muppets... and they shouldn't be in the damn job if they can't read English. If I had any employee acting as stupid as this, or giving information that was blatantly incorrect, then I would issue a very final warning. It's the same with the Freedom of Information Act, you can ask youor local Council for example, for every damn email that's ever been whizzed around their system about you.... but that's another very long story ...;-)

No, not quite.... the FSA requirement is for the retention of data to help prevent money-laundering, etc. and provide an audit trail of the account. You don't actually use the FSA to see the data. The data is requested under the DPA... but it is only there in the first place, because the FSA, and other Acts, says that thay have to keep an audit trail. Hope that clarifes it for you.

I had seen the article, and as I work on banking systems, I'm only too aware of what they get up to. I know fully well that banks will share your log entries with other lenders - after all, you said they could when you signed the contract! - it's classed as data. Log entries are all the ancillary notes and copies of correspondence, etc between you and the bank, and they can use their own entry fields and free text fields... in the industry there is a well established joke that there's an ABC marker = Awkward Bl**dy Customer... there are plenty of others too, a bit like doctor's shorthand on patient bedboards. However, it is simple... do a full data request on the bank's internal systems, including copies of all emails, etc. concerning you. You can also ask for a complete log of everyone who has ever accessed your account details, including members of staff, dates, times and reasons why. 'Access reasons' have to be provided with a lookup reference table if they are in coded form. Under the FSA, all banks have to keep an audit trail, usually called MI for short, so ask for yours. Banks however, are not allowed to give any type of "reference" to another bank as to your banking conduct, unless you give written permission for them to do so. It states this clearly in the Banking Code - Section 11.2, and you can insist on approving the copy before it is sent.

1. Individual clauses in contracts can be deemed unenforcable, but the Unfair Terms Regs does state that despite one or more clauses being revoked, if the contract can still be performed after the removal of those specific terms, then it is still valid. However, if you are claiming unfair charges back, make it a condition on your letters/LBAs/Court Claims, etc. that the default is to be removed as part of your claim. If the default has occured solely or primarily as a result of penalty charges, then your letters/Court Claim should mention this, and insist that the default was then unfairly applied through THEIR breach of contract. I used this against argument against First National in the great where's-my-settee debate. 2. If they have issued a default notice and terminated the contract... then the contract is dead... and the permission to disclose died with it, unless there was a clause that allowed disclosure after the end of the contract...which I doubt there was.

If the banks are continuing to play Three-Thick-Monkeys, then equally put the pressure on the CRAs. Ask the CRAs to prove they have permission from NW and VF to disclose your data, by sending the CRA a copy of the terms and conditions. Make them do the work...not you. Experian have now admitted that it is dependant on the Ts&Cs, and are also advising this to Equifax and CallCredit. If it ain't in the Ts&Cs, no contest - they've said so themselves. After all, where are you trying to get the default removed from?? NW and VF, who I'd doubt you would ever use again - if your posts imply... or the CRAs, that disclose it to all, and does actually affect you. A bit of De Bono laterals methinks...;-)

A single creditor has to petition £750 or more, and then any other creditors have to be declared to form the Creditor's committee. Although I have been aware of some creditors selling debts to another to then enforce a petition. But, as Lizzy says, if you've won a default judgement against them, go get 'em. However, if a petition is presented, then you can go to the petitioner hearing and present your case that you are not insolvent and that this is unnecessary and vexatious action.

Not quite... lack of searches doesn't usually impair scores, on most of the banks systems... I know, becuase my company installs this software quite often. I am working on the legalities of historic searches with a barrister at the moment...I'll update when I have more.

Go to the link on my post to Experian's other page... I know that they have two pages that contradict each other. I saw the same think... maybe I need to ring their Milky Bar Kid Education 'expert'... ho hum. However, I PROMISE YOU THIS: If the creditor agrees to a 'set aside' of the CCJ, then the Court will issue an order to that effect. That Order will be noted by the Registry Trust Ltd, who will then notify the CRAs to remove the entry. And they have to do it or they are in Contempt of Court. Nobody, in this country, can ignore the ruling of a judge, and if he Orders it so, it must happen. The CRAs are NOT legal bodies, or judges...and their web pages are written with so much spin, their web designers must get dizzy. It is all a big attempt to look official and important, and it doesn't cut any ice with people like me who have always stood up to corporate bullies, which is all they are. Experian need to synchronise their two web sections urgently.

Yes, in a nutshell. Experian has now admitted in writing that they hold no legal right to store, process (inc. disclose) your account data (whether in non-public default or not), if the contract is now concluded and that there was nothing in the terms and conditions that categorically gave the lender permission to dislose your data after the ending of the contract. All contracts that I've seen from days gone by, include disclosure for the term of the contract, but check to see what your contract says. For them to hold it past the closure date, it would have to include a term along the lines of: "You give your permission for us to store and dislose your account information to CRAs and other lenders for the purposes of providing an overview of your payment history. You agree that such disclosure may continue even after the ending of this contract, and in the case of the account going into default, you give us, and the CRAs, permission to manage such data for up to six years." As to YOUR right to control the data, that is absolutely correct. The Data Protection Act states clearly that the data belongs to you... it is termed "Personal Subject Data" and nobody can do a single thing with it, unless you give express written permission, either in a letter, or signing a contract. The only people you can't stop using it are official Govt. agencies that use it for reasons of public interest, or national security, health,etc e.g. DVLA, NHS, Police, MI5, DSS, etc. The credit Reference agencies ARE NOT Govt. bodies, and are not included in the Act's Schedules as an "Exempted Body". Even then, you are still allowed to ask for a copy of your record from Govt. Agencies. What people don't seem to realise that unless you tick those two small boxes on the back of forms about disclosing data, then you've made your own bed. then you have to go through the machinations of writing to everyone to stop it. Two small ticks on a contract are far less than 30 or so letters!

Data Controllers are allowed under the Act to disclose data to people who can show a "legitimate interest" (S10-6). If there is a potential claim against you, whether correct or not, about an insurable event, then they would have a legitimate right. In the same way, that someone hit by your car, could apply, after showing reason why, to request your details. Clamping compnanies can even do this with the DVLA to find out owner information, although this is being challenged severely, and the DVLA are making sure that these are more legitimate. Your neighbour probably wrote to their insurers who, in turn, checked on the insurance database - this is standard practice, and is usually accepted as allowable IF THERE IS A GENUINE LEGITIMATE INTEREST. But, at the end of the day, all citizens of this country are protected by the Bill of Rights, in that no one can be penalised or fined unless first held in a recognised Court of Law. So, they can't just assume you're guilty of any damage, but they will try and bully you into thinking this - after all they're trying to protect their own payout. Do you have public liability on your house insurance Most policies include it as standard? If so, refer the whole matter to your insurance company and let them deal with it. They can argue the actual matter amongst themsleves - you will just need to provide evidence.