Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Mike_hawk

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,686

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mike_hawk

  1. Mike_hawk
    Seems sensible enough, don't forget to copy any 'open' dialogue to the court for filing in case you need to rely on it later.
  2. Mike_hawk
    Up to you...... All I can say is that your claim would remain live whatever the outcome of the PPI/Data string alone, ergo the other side would still have a case to answer regardless of whether the court decided to proceed on that matter. Its browbeating you into dropping the issue by attempting to conflate a monetary/equitable remedy with the underlying DPA issue. The problem with defences bound up in bare denials is that they eventually become undone but they do require a vast amount of patience and tactical perseverance.
  3. Mike_hawk
    I suppose it could suggest that the claim was/is settled as there is no reference to processing of data...... but then does it excuse it from its obligations to the DPA? Its standard terms [assuming yours are] subject its activities to the following: 18.2 This agreement is governed by the Laws of England. Does its settlement compromise its obligations to law [DPA 1998]?........ I doubt it thought that far ahead of the game and without a term specifially compromising the DPA it seems it's still a valid question
  4. Mike_hawk
    It won't respond, to be frank its gone downhill in the last couple of years and now seems more akin to Bryan Carter.....I guess its what you should expect with back office legal compliance contracted out to the lowest bidder. Could you bring forward you soc and hilite the sections which refer to data processing
  5. Mike_hawk
    It appears it alleges you accepted the cheque in F&F, one can only assume it claims relief to issue estoppel [no 2nd bite at the same cherry]...... without reading back through the thread I'm not sure if you accepted in full and final or whether it issued a cheque in the hope the matter would 'go away' without recourse to settle matters of its published opinion..... processed to contracted CRA's. There are a few authorities on what does and doesn't constitute acceptance, although I'm not sure the effect of same could ever undermine the principles of the DPA. I suppose you have to ask yourself if the claim would fail on that string alone, if the second string [charges] remains live in the event that you lost on the issue of PPI its difficult to understand what it hopes to achieve by browbeating on the matter of costs [unlikely] on the sct. One thing that Wragge does understand is that if it presses the issue of track it risks exposure to disproportionate costs against its client for what is a relatively small claim. If it believed that costs were material and tactically useful it would have engaged same within AQ. Its really up to you how [or if] you respond... the usual adversarial type response would be something along the lines of.. I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated ......... and respond as follows: Thank you for your acknowledgement that Coversafe was indeed mis sold and [partially] settled by your client, whether or not that partial settlement provides it relief to issue estoppel in the case is a matter for the court. I confirm that a copy of this correspondence has been filed with the court
  6. Mike_hawk
    Dot Purely out of interest.......... has SL retained the file or has JT become involved?
  7. Mike_hawk
    That's good news, certainly saves a wasted day at court
  8. Mike_hawk
    I'd attend, if only for peace of mind. Bit late in the day to be requesting its heard on the papers alone and the other side appear to be either inept or sitting pretty in the knowledge that the dj cannot go beyond the terms of consent which can be disposed of at the hearing. Assuming both parties engrossed [signed] the order its pretty much a done deal. Why did it opt for consent to dismiss?......... there are instances where the other side has pursued a costs order on sct discontinued cases, in this instance the other side paid the trial fee which its now out of time to recover so it relies on the court sealing the order with no further cost or risk. I can only assume it realised its case was very weak and believed the court may stamp down hard on its nuts if it threw the towel in and discontinued. Sound the judge out first though, if the other side don't appear s/he may be minded to strike out their soc in entirety, if s/he does........ask for your costs.
  9. Mike_hawk
    Have you got this thing moved to your home court yet?
  10. Mike_hawk
    It won't respond...... far too arrogant I'd prepare for trial and the possibility of a compromise being poked under your nose on the day Have you got this transferred to your home court yet?
  11. Mike_hawk
    Yep, you need something within an FCA regulated instrument to trigger FSMA........ and, yep - the FOS would be the sensible first port of call but I have not got a scooby how much it may award
  12. Mike_hawk
    Guidance notes are here and refer to standard directions...... https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/standard-directions/general/trial-arrangements If you're sure of your arguments and don't believe you'll need to address anything new at the last minute it's simplest to file/serve your skel with the bundle.
  13. Mike_hawk
    No cheque just yet but SP is aware that it's on notice that a claim will be filed if not received by the 18th Pretty sure I've mentioned it before but just in case anyone missed it, SP is a shower of s*** In the 16 months I had the misfortune to take supply from it, it has withheld payment of credit, changed supply terms in breach of contract and...... withheld payment of credit balance [again]. Whilst I'm sure I could have sued it prior to this week it has nonetheless credited sums of £22.00, £22.00, £50.00, £200.00 and £69.76 in the space of 7 months, notwithstanding the chq for £69.76 still to be receipted. In total I paid it something iro £3120.00 for 16 months dual fuel supply and it credited/refunded £433.52 I'm fairly sure that would/should have knocked it for any possible profit to the account. It continues to amaze me that it does not provide any semblance of customer service, perhaps promoting more complaints would be the sensible course of action.
  14. Mike_hawk
    If you have a compromise in writing from the EO then it's straightforward to enforce it, I have to admit when a business p's me off I drag it out to the Nth degree and ensure I burden it with multiple costs issues because I can not because its necessarily the sensible option.
  15. Mike_hawk
    Apparently it issued a cheque on Friday, it deleted my bank details so can't effect a BACS transfer......... sounds like b....x to me. Anyway, I'll believe it when it's [the cheque's] in my grubby little mitts The EO telephoned me about 30 minutes before Margaret at SP, off the record [but clearly on mine] it has over 10,000 unresolved SP complaints on its files, can't for the life of me understand why
  16. Mike_hawk
    Ignore and pay what you can afford.........
  17. Mike_hawk
    You can file a N322a part 8 app with the court and go on to enforce the ombudsman decision.
  18. Mike_hawk
    Enforcing the decision may still be on the cards -----Original Message----- From: To: EStage3a@os-energy.org Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:23 Subject: Fwd: Message from Ombudsman Services - Case xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx Dear Maham Probably not sensible to accept the word of the business at face value.... Final bill......... still not accessible or provided, apparently its on SP's web portal but the attachment is corrupted and appears as an invalid item when attempting to download. In the big scheme of things it's not a major issue but it was part of the agreed terms that it would provide me with a final electricity bill If credit balance issue credit refund....... balance set to zero but the business helped itself to a further £69.76 this week, account balance now at the inherent £69.76 in credit, advised by SP's staff this morning that this may take up to 2 months to refund It [sP] had 5 terms to effect, it has [and persists in doing so] failed on 2 Please ensure the case remains open until such time that I am satisfied it has complied with the agreed terms Regards
  19. Mike_hawk
    Final version was filed today, didn't tinker much but have had to redact a bit as there's a reference to the earlier Tomlin/contract. Some of it is pretty much an automatic fail [expunging data in any medium can't be done] but it should hopefully get the point across for a claim on the sct Particulars of Claim The defendant unlawfully processes and shares inaccurate and manipulated personal data to Credit reference agency/s. Its xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, contrary to the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and ICO high level guidance on reporting to CRA's.The Claimant has made representations to the defendant requesting correction, it has served its final response upon the Claimant, it denying relief in the matter.The Claimant seeks damages including aggravated,for misuse of personal data and/or breach of confidence and/or compensation pursuant to s.13 of the DPA. The Claimant further claims other relief as is just and apposite,to include the expunging of inaccurate personal data where processed, shared, reported or published in any medium. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxx on £1,000.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.22.
  20. Mike_hawk
    Ah, with you now. The CRA's are already on notice, all seemed a bit confused as to why the creditor was reporting the data...... each seemed to believe it was only possible in the event of a new agreement superceding the defaulted entry. Each of them have put the question to the other side but none will remove the entry until a response is received one way or the other. I suppose if it does get as far as trial I could look at joining the CRA's but they are a bit of a side issue to the case at the mo.
  21. Mike_hawk
    Hi Ford I was keeping it all within sections 13 and 14 of the DPA to simplify matters. I left the para re expunging data wide enough to include anything I can find within the DPA to support s.14 [i think]. The ICO is shockingly slow to do much of anything lately, although its had my file for 2 weeks I don't think its looked at it yet. I think an order pursuant to s.14 will be the quickest route to remedy but if the ICO intervene in the meantime I won't argue.
  22. Mike_hawk
    I've given it quite a bit of thought and......... there are a couple of options open to me, enforce the contract [could be a minefield where there is no 'specific' term regarding CRA entries] or pursue it for unlawful/unfair processing of data in respect of the new event. I think it'll have to be a separate part 7 claim as I don't want any arguments revolving around the Tomlin unless the court decides [or the other side applies] to join the original compromised case. I don't particularly want the case reopened as it may only serve to complicate matters. The effect of its data processing could be deemed breach of [Tomlin] contract but that's for the dj to decide on any application to lift the stay and any financial remedy may be a much lesser sum than the non pecuniary damages recent authority provides for within the DPA alone. Looking at it as objectively as I can, this is a new event and whether it directly interferes with the contract should be for the other side to argue. As the Tomlin includes a fairly watertight non disclosure term it may be caught between a rock and a hard place if it applies to join the case where the contract stipulates that any/all data relating to the original case must not be disclosed. With no regulated agreement persisting it has either created and processed to the CRA's a new agreement or its reporting the contract within the Tomlin.......I can't imagine it would assist its defence by opening that can of worms.
  23. Mike_hawk
    Found what I was looking for...... does this seem concise and wide enough in scope? Anyone have any thoughts on improving the general particulars or should I leave it alone and stop tinkering? The defendant reports inaccurate and manipulated personal data to Credit Reference Bureau,its actions contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998 principles falsely extend limitation and cause damage.The defendant declines to rectify and has served its final response denying relief in the matter. The Claimant seeks damages including aggravated, for misuse of personal data and/or breach of confidence and/or compensation pursuant to s.13 of the DPA. The Claimant further claims other relief as is just and apposite, to include the expunging of the defendants reporting/publication of his personal data The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxxx on £xxxx.xx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.xx.
  24. Mike_hawk
    Says it all in the title really. Without naming names, I sued a financial institution a little over a year ago, the case was compromised by Tomlin. For various reasons [mainly because the terms were thrashed out in 20 minutes in front of a slightly grumpy dj] the agreement made no mention of CRA's. Not particularly a biggie as I got 90% of the money I was claiming and the default was due to drop off about 60 days later anyway. Roll forward a few months and it [a few weeks ago] began reporting the account again. This time without the default marker but with an erroneous £12.00 balance [would have to assume its created a balance with a late payment/other charge]. Ergo, the account was reported as defaulted for 6 years, disappeared for a few months and later reappeared at year 7 with no markers. My problem is....... .what exactly within the DPA prescribes the 6 year data reporting. The ICO guidance [at January 2014] certainly defines that it shouldn't be but what within the instrument says that it must cease at the expiry of 6 years and what prescribes that the account cannot return to normal status at any point during or after 6 years of reporting a default? Is this a simple matter of acting contrary to principle/s in manipulating the data?
  25. Mike_hawk
    Did say it would make your head go pop Green would have failed regardless of limitation as it lacked in the fundamental test of whether it was undertaking an action where it was bound by statutory duty, Greens counsel attempted to argue that it didn't need to show a stat failing and that FSMA s.150 [now repealed by s.138D] provided for a substantive claim in common law duty of care. The court disagreed as it could find nothing to attach FSMA s.150 to. In essence the required elements for a successful claim in COBS are threefold........#1 - You identify the activity within an Act which the defendant is bound to comply with #2 - You subject that activity to the appropriate rule within B/I/COBS and satisfy your self that by acting in a certain way it has breached the rule #3 - You compound the cause by the use of FSMA s.138D as your alternate [or bolstering] argument for remedy. The statutory duty breach can't be found in either FSMA [it provides the means to claim for breach of rules, not the cause] or COBS [ it provides the rules attached to the statutory duty, not the cause], the cause of action begins outside of the rules CCA s.140 provides you with a starting point [the statutory duty]......... the next thing to do is to test the duty, did it fail you by virtue of 140A(b) or ©? I'd suggest yes to both but I am a tad biased Did it breach a rule within I/COBS.... probably, there's plenty of choices but again, I'm biased Does the compounding of its failure in s.140 and the relevant rules give effect to FSMA s.138D...... probably Now comes the rub, which rules are you going to subject its failing to? The first instant of PPI application [long stop barred] The first instant you claimed redress [no stat duty to redress but in the event it was still required to comply with 140A (b) & © in its communications with you]........ However; it could argue mistake, relevance to a non substantive claim, mitigation [alternate remedy/ FOS factsheet] etc etc. You need to find something within your specific circumstances which would apply and which were/are a duty..... that's why I'm being cautious [maybe overly] that the claim has no legs for trial but may be enough to put the wind up the other side to dispose of the case without incurring unrecoverable costs in the long haul Got your message, out tomorrow [family birthday] but will catch up with you in the week

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...