I aint happy reading this thread to see you have posted identical letters to mine from barclaycard. lol !!!!!!! I have just sent a summons for cost to answer the unlawful harrasing phone calls. lol - the debt they claim is 276 i have claim £10 per call and £25 costs. I also recorded the calls £325 summoned. will start a thread lol

Does anyone have a statatory demand template i could use lol!

I like a dare lol - but will give them chance to pay me lol.

I intend to pursue this matter and now applying for compensation. The amount owed was for my costs pursuing the matter i am more than happy to chase them for more if they wanna play. I have also notified the ICO of the letter they sent saying that the information i got from the ICO was not the way they wrote it and that i still need to pay. mmmmm sad that as the matter has just opened the case and that the ICO will ensure they remove the information about me if needed. I had a really helpful chat with them (for once). This will no doubt generate further evidence for court as well so i get a win / win situation lol. They can apply to set aside but will fight it also. Finally the agreement doesn't have my name on it - So i hope they ready for the fun, 5 years of a default that was unlawful - how much compo is that worth. :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool: I do hope equifax and experian are also prepared i have contacted my house insurance as have legal protection and feel this is a personal legal dispute, i also have a director policy too and as a member of a large institute that provide legal support. one or the other will no doubt assist with legal costs and challeneges. Watch this space i will update as much as possible. :):):)

Judgment Issued. 23rd of June 2009. Northampton County Court. Considering statatory demand and hope they ignore that too lol.

Judgment was issued at Northampton County Court 23rd June 2009 They have a CCJ now lol. I hadto phone to gloat and wonder if i should phone them 10 times a day demanding payment lol. Whats the best way to go for SD then someoe give us a clue more than happy too!

A what:p

I have issued judgement today as they haven't put in defence, i love it lol

I am pleased to report that I have now requested Judgement against Lowell. I also recieved a letter stating that i wrote to them prior to the conclusion being received from the ICO. What a shame they wrote to me on the 30/04/09. Sent them letter on 12/05/09 ICO wrote on 20/05/09. Summons served on 09/06/09 Judment Requested 23/06/09 Does anyone want to become a certified baliff and go collect a few PC from Lowells office lol. I believe the scrap value of £50 per PC is about the Limit with a £250 fee and collection charges lol. thats in excess of 15 computers lol - I also wonder if it is worth sending it to REDDIE collections and Hampbums legal lol - Now i have judgement should i consider bankcruptcy proceedings against them. Oh the options are endless. If anyone know who there main bankers are happy to email the public info as will affect there credit rating lol. As you can tell i am enjoying them squirming compensation claim next. That was for my costs answering them.

Ok to update on the situation they have until 2nd July to enter there defence. Lowell have until monday to file a defence, mmmmmm if not judgement time lol I have prepared the paperwork for the case but been advised not to post on here just yet, dont want to give them a head start when we go to court. I am aware they often have people reading the threads lol. Roll on Monday when i want Judgement re Lowell Portfolio as for equifax (the one i have also summoned to answer hope they are readyto eplain the three defaults that were on my account all of wish ended with a legal process challenge or the ICO. All of wish were deemed unlawful) How much compensation should i get for 7 years of misleading processing of information. Once this is resolved the same action will be taken today.

Hi all - i have had 5 years of hell and some tasty threats from lowell and co. revenge is sweet look at some of my threads - I am taking them to court, they aint responded yet, sadly i want them to explain to a judge about all there threats and enjoy the compo. ICO already ruled they have acted unlawfully so i am quids in lol, maybe if this wins i do same for red and hamptons lol (easy money)

Well still no update, got details of the legal advisor for equifax today gonna enjoy the fun, i think they haven't read information commisoners report, silly people. Think the judge will find it quick, had enough of playing around now though so appointed legal action on six breach of cca. Costing me 1100 in legal bill - but will be writing off 20000, so good investment Made my day when they said they will claim costs back lol, so even better. AQUA Breach of CCA Barclaycard Breach Vanquis Breach MBNA - Breach Capital One Breach Black Horse unsecured Loan Breach ______________ So i notified Equifax of Breaches asking them not to process and provided with solictors details and offered copy of report ________ Still processing it lol - Judge gonna love it!

Equifax have filed acknowledgement of service 28 days to explain themselves. Lowell not responded yet lol If they dont anyone know any good baliffs when i issue judgement. lol

I issued proceeding in relation to a catologue and breach of CCA charge £250 for damage and got CCJ, they soon back down lol they remove all credit file info and paid all costs CCA them then issue procedding it takes them three or four weeks to read letters Stephen

Will also request when we go to court for an order placed on CRA to stop processing disputed data until legal complaiance is asserted (i have 6 disputed accounts) awwwwww

Update the item is classed asserved from the 7/06/09. the court summons has now been sent, they have till 21st to resolve the matter, Equifax were made aware that the LBA time expired on day of issue, they were given the county court claim number, i am presenting the ICO report as part of the claim which clearly states that Lowell have no record of the account yet registered two defaults maintaining these were accurate (two for the same account) The ICO considers this to be a breach of the Act. Not posting court info on here yet but both parties are cited as defendants let them sort it with 500 costs lol

After having a ruling from the information commisioners office and then sending a letter before action to Lowell and Equifax without reply i have now just issued a CCJ request for costs incurred and also for an order of compensation for damages to my credit file. I will also be posting a useful telephone number for the PA to the cheif exec of Equifax as they inadvertantly gave me the number early. Shame she didnt answer as i have issues the summons now. I have asked for an order to remove all disputed information lol As this is getting heavy I have now paid for solicitors to reduce stress lol!, they also have looked at numerous credit card ageement lol - 5 credit cards and 1 bank loan - None comply and all are uneforceable lol. Will post reasons later for each and maybe if you hold one u should check lol.

I am about to challenge all CRA's in respect of disputed accounts that are unenforcable. This include the finding of on an account that is viewed unlawful by the information commisioner. can people add or advise on the following letter. I am asking they stop processing items in serious dispute fully, a notice of correction is not acceptable and formally removing consent to process while the matter is legally resolved. _________________________________________________________ Name and address details with date of birth The information can be verified from your own records. Accounts in Dispute Letter Before Action Please be advised the the following accounts are now in disputes for breaches of the consumer credit act or have been found to have breached the data protection act. As such I require you to immediately stop processing the disputed information as continued processing will be viewed as a breach of the data protection act. I require to remove information in accordance with the act until the matter has been resolved using the legal process or until the regulatory or official bodies have made judgment on these matters. Confirmation from the provider is not sufficient evidence to continue processing unless legal or regulatory conclusion is reached I do not accept a notice of dispute placed on my file pending a resolve to the matter as you will still provide information that is misleading to third parties. These items are in serious dispute and should therefore not be processed from receipt of this letter. While the accounts are in dispute you do not have consent to process disputed information, unless you provide me with a copy of a written excuted agreement that I have signed in respect of the accounts giving consent to continue processing. As the information pertains to me as the data subject you should seek legal guidance form the information commissioners office if you are unsure of the validity of this request You are required to ensure data you process is accurate if you fail to ensure this then you will be in brach of the data protection act and I will pursue for compensation should I find you have ignored this request. This letter should be consider as a letter before action for court purposes. Below are the details of the accounts in dispute and a brief reason including details of any agencies that have assisted in the dispute being raised or any formal requests. Account details including solicitors appointed by me and who complaints have been rasied with ie - FSA ICO Telephone Hararament ect. ________________ Finally i will be requesting they send a confirmation letter of this request and will consider it served two days from posting allowing 2 days to stop processing. After 14 days i will request a DSAR. lol

Sent letters to the following companies Black Horse - Now with solicitor (They have agreed not to charge me for the work as there are over 7 significant breaches on the agreement) sand will claim costs lol (They still phone lol) Aqua Card - Ask to stop calling 32 phone calls after receipt of letter including to my employer. (Shame that they note all incoming calls lol it in the work log) Barclaycard - no phone calls - Silly letter saying they have complied (not) check by solicitor. Vanquis - Lots of phone calls Now for the stars of the show weighing in with 47 calls and a telephone recording of a manger refusing to stop the calls until i make payment on the diputed account, yes he understands the concerns arounf CCA request and that i have provided written authority for the solicitor but he is required to ensure i make the payment. (on recording) I explained that pursuing the debt is not permitted as disputed and as they have failed to provide a copy of my agreement. The got told to stop delaying the bill as it is now being referred to collections and will affect my credit rating - hahahahahaha i asked if that was a threat, he stated that he didn't beleive i was recording calls and all i am doing is trying to delay payments, They are not prepared to accept the requests and will continue to phone. I asked for his manager (wa going to play it back) he refused saying he will when i have made a payment. I hung up lol and had to play it back just for fun! How should i now proceed lol this one i want a judge to hear.

Thank you i love this one lmfao my sides still hurt

Thanks for sorting this mate

1. The Claimant is at all material times an individual (Subject) under The Data Protection Act 1998. The Defendants are at all material times a Data Controller in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject. 2. On the listed dates, the claimant sent formal disputes to the defendant concerning the data within the claimant’s credit report that they were sharing with third parties. It’s admitted by the claimant that the defendant placed a dispute marker on the claimants credit file and contacted the lenders to confirm the data was correct. The claimant contends even though the defendant placed a disputed marker on his credit file, doing so had no effect and the data on the credit file still embarrassed the claimant in such way he was not able to obtain full banking services with any high street banks and was declined by estate agents for an application on a mortgage and a car loan only being given sub-prime options. The defendant then removed notices of dispute without the express consent of the data subject. The defendant was made aware that the data within the credit report had been disputed and the claimant believes it is against the Data Protection Act 1998, to place a default or continue to allow a default to be published where a legitimate dispute exists. 3. The claimant raised a formal complaint with the Information commissioner’s office in respect of these matter this included obtaining a county court judgment against JD Williams. Further complaints were made against Welcome Finance, Hillesden Securities, First Financial and Lowell Financial. I enclose a copy of complaints stored by the defendant using the MyEquifax website access for customers. 4. The defendant although made aware of the inaccurate information failed to remove the items or to follow the guidance within the Data Protection Act breaching several principles and causing me loss of full banking and financial services or excessive interest rates on loans and mortgages. 5. It is the claimants opinion that over the past five years, The claimant has to battle to have incorrect information removed from the claimants file including taking legal action against the defendants business associates JD Williams. The defendant has failed to verify satisfactorily the information they process and therefore processed and provided Inaccurate and misleading information to other data controllers and third parties. This prejudiced the rights of the claimant as a data subject. 6. The information commissioner views their roles in relation to be a credit reference agencies for the processing that is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. 7. The following statement appears on the information commissioner website 8. “We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the 9. interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note 10. here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular 11. individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file 12. may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole 13. processing operation prejudicial to all individuals.” 14. It is therefore recognise that processing incorrect data has had a significant effect on the claimants credit score and the numerous disputed items that have remained until legal action or intervention from the courts and information commissioner have concluded. 15. The defendant when contacted has offered little protection for data subjects and this has left an unfair balance against their paying clients and the legitimate disputes of the data subject. On every occasion during my disputes they have failed to act and refrain from processing disputed information that has had a significant and adverse affect on their ability to access products where a credit score is required. 16. The third principal States that information shall be adequate and where necessary kept up to date. 17. Information processed by the defendant has not been kept up to date and was inaccurate on numerous occasions bringing the quality and safety checks and complaints process of safeguarding data subjects into question. 18. The fourth Principal States that information should be accurate and up to date. 19. It is clear from legal proceedings against their clients and also from investigation by the Information Commissioners office that information has not been process in accordance with the Act and has not been accurate or up to date. 20. The six principal states that personal data should be processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject. 21. I asked the court to consider if this has happened during the past four years with numerous complaints being raised and then not upheld. The legal routes and distress this has caused also the significant hardship trying to obtain banking services. 22. I would therefore ask that an order be made that Equifax stop processing my personal data until such time as they review and satisfactorily demonstrate an ability to protect data subjects from its customers providing them with misleading information. 23. I would also request an order be made that when an item is disputed that it be placed in a disputed area of the file so that it does not have the adverse affect on data subjects and therefore enforces compliance with the legislation. 24. I would further ask the court to impose a fine for these breaches and consider an award for compensate and for their failing to protect my information to include the distress this has caused me and my family over the past 5 years.

What do you think of this: court equifax 1. The Claimant is at all material times an individual (Subject) under The Data Protection Act 1998. The Defendants are at all material times a Data Controller in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject. 2. On the listed dates, the claimant sent formal disputes to the defendant concerning the data within the claimant’s credit report that they were sharing with third parties. It’s admitted by the claimant that the defendant placed a dispute marker on the claimants credit file and contacted the lenders to confirm the data was correct. The claimant contends even though the defendant placed a disputed marker on his credit file, doing so had no effect and the data on the credit file still embarrassed the claimant in such way he was not able to obtain full banking services with any high street banks and was declined by estate agents for an application on a mortgage and a car loan only being given sub-prime options. The defendant then removed notices of dispute without the express consent of the data subject. The defendant was made aware that the data within the credit report had been disputed and the claimant believes it is against the Data Protection Act 1998, to place a default or continue to allow a default to be published where a legitimate dispute exists. 3. The claimant raised a formal complaint with the Information commissioner’s office in respect of these matter this included obtaining a county court judgment against JD Williams. Further complaints were made against Welcome Finance, Hillesden Securities, First Financial and Lowell Financial. I enclose a copy of complaints stored by the defendant using the MyEquifax website access for customers. 4. The defendant although made aware of the inaccurate information failed to remove the items or to follow the guidance within the Data Protection Act breaching several principles and causing me loss of full banking and financial services or excessive interest rates on loans and mortgages. 5. It is the claimants opinion that over the past five years, The claimant has to battle to have incorrect information removed from the claimants file including taking legal action against the defendants business associates JD Williams. The defendant has failed to verify satisfactorily the information they process and therefore processed and provided Inaccurate and misleading information to other data controllers and third parties. This prejudiced the rights of the claimant as a data subject. 6. The information commissioner views their roles in relation to be a credit reference agencies for the processing that is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. 7. The following statement appears on the information commissioner website 8. “We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the 9. interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note 10. here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular 11. individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file 12. may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole 13. processing operation prejudicial to all individuals.” 14. It is therefore recognise that processing incorrect data has had a significant effect on the claimants credit score and the numerous disputed items that have remained until legal action or intervention from the courts and information commissioner have concluded. 15. The defendant when contacted has offered little protection for data subjects and this has left an unfair balance against their paying clients and the legitimate disputes of the data subject. On every occasion during my disputes they have failed to act and refrain from processing disputed information that has had a significant and adverse affect on their ability to access products where a credit score is required. 16. The third principal States that information shall be adequate and where necessary kept up to date. 17. Information processed by the defendant has not been kept up to date and was inaccurate on numerous occasions bringing the quality and safety checks and complaints process of safeguarding data subjects into question. 18. The fourth Principal States that information should be accurate and up to date. 19. It is clear from legal proceedings against their clients and also from investigation by the Information Commissioners office that information has not been process in accordance with the Act and has not been accurate or up to date. 20. The six principal states that personal data should be processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject. 21. I asked the court to consider if this has happened during the past four years with numerous complaints being raised and then not upheld. The legal routes and distress this has caused also the significant hardship trying to obtain banking services. 22. I would therefore ask that an order be made that Equifax stop processing my personal data until such time as they review and satisfactorily demonstrate an ability to protect data subjects from its customers providing them with misleading information. 23. I would also request an order be made that when an item is disputed that it be placed in a disputed area of the file so that it does not have the adverse affect on data subjects and therefore enforces compliance with the legislation. 24. I would further ask the court to impose a fine for these breaches and consider an award for compensate and for their failing to protect my information to include the distress this has caused me and my family over the past 5 years. Can you think of anything else that may give it weight will amend the form then for lowells lol

Does Anyone Have A Template That I Can Use For Preparing This Matterfor Court And To Claim Compensation

so how do i apply to the court for the order for cempensation and for the removal of the default. is there a template i can use kind regards sbfido