Barclaycard enter false account on credit file

[Sparkie1723]

I have just signed up to Call Credit on line service and look what I have found in my name on my file

sparkie

 

Entry reference: F3

 

• Name:MR SPARKIE

• Account Address:XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX xXXX

• Date of Birth:xx/xx/xxxx

• Provider:Barclays Bank PLC

• Account Type:Credit Card

• Account Number:***************8273

• Account Status: Normal

• Date Updated:31/05/2008

• Account Start Date:09/09/2004

• Account Opening Balance:--

• Regular Payment Amount:--

• Repayment Frequency:Monthly

Payment history last 12 months. View Status Key

Status History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Limit History 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300 5300

Balance History 1247 1079 1111 12 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

 

I have never had a credit card bank account or anything to do with Barclays in my life.

So I rang them a while ago the person who answered in their customer relations did not have a very good command of English I could hardly understand him

so I've sent this E-mail to them....what the Bloody hell do they think they are playing at.

 

It is urgent that Barclay card contact me.

I have information recorded on my credit file held by call credit that has been supplied by Barclay card appertaining to a credit card account that I do not own, I have never held any type of account with Barclay card and yet Barclaycard have supplied details of this account to CRA's,

I wish to enquire how and where Barclay received my details from and produce any kind of agreement, application or any other records including a Data Protection Act declaration of consent or fair processing notice, this data is false and contains a missed payment entry on an account I have never held which affects my credit rating and credit score.

I demand explanation and the reason for this unlawful intrusion into my credit file personal and financial details in contravention to the Data Protection Act and my rights under the Euopean Convention on Human Rights ...the Right to Privacy of home life and personal correspondence,

I await your immediate response.

I am not happy with this

 

Yours sincerely

 

Now I've got to go through the process of getting it removed as if I havenn't got enough with the RBS.

 

Just had an E-mail from Barclaycard....Below...

 

 

note the apology bit as if that is good enough

Dear Mr Sparkie,

 

 

Thank you for your e-mail.

 

In order for us to assist you accordingly, please send us a copy of your

credit file with a covering letter to our Correspondence address at:

 

Barclaycard

Barclaycard House

PO Box 5592

Northampton

NN4 1ZY

 

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

I trust this information is of assistance.

 

 

 

Kindest regards

 

Ashwini Desai (Miss)

Customer Account Manager

Barclaycard Online Service

www.barclaycard.co.uk

 

How did you rate the way we handled your query? To help us improve our

service, please complete our Customer Survey on

www.Barclaycard.co.uk/Survey. The category Code for this Email is CE1

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

 

Barclays Bank PLC.

Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered

in England. Registered No 1026167.

Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP.

 

[Sparkie1723]

Sent this E-mail to Call Credit

 

To Call Credit

 

 

Having been a member of the Credit Reference Agencies Equifax & Experian on line credit file access facility for some years, I decided to join Call Credit’s on line facility.

 

On accessing my file held by Call Credit, I have discovered some very disturbing and very vexatious entries, not only have they been unlawfully entered contrary to Data Protection legislation, but have been further processed by Call Credit also in complete disregard for that legislation, namely breaches of the First, Second Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Principles of that legislation.

 

In doing so in the initial receiving of this data, I submit is nothing more than negligence and failure to proffer due care that you are obliged to give having assumed the position of a Credit Reference Agency, whose first and foremost priority to an individual data subject is to ensure that the information and data is accurate, true, and more importantly lawfully supplied, conforming to all the rights of the individual under the DPA legislation and other statutes.

 

I now refer you to the entry stated on my file as F3, this is an entry made by Barclaycard, you will see the history, include in this history it is stated that I owed Barclaycard £1200 you will also see that there is also a late payment entry, none of this is correct.

 

1.…..I have never held a Barclaycard in either my personal name, or my Business name of Port Auto Electrics.

 

2.…..I have never applied for a Barclaycard in either of the names above.

 

3.…..I have never held or applied for any financial product offered by Barclaycard or any

its of subsiduaries.

 

4.…..I have never entered or am considering entering into, any contract with Barclays or any of its subsiduaries.

 

Therefore I put to you the following;

a)….Call Credit in accepting this false, untrue, incorrect information and failing to ensure that it was accurate true and correct before accepting the said information, and furthermore that it was fairly and lawfully supplied, are in complete breach of all the Principles stated above.

b)….Furthermore have been negligent in the performance of their duties as a business as also stated above.

 

I suggest, demand that this entry is removed forthwith without any notice of correction delaying its removal and I rely on the following which briefly says;

“It is not considered a sufficient defence against a claim for damages, for a CRA to rely on the fact that they have marked the data as “under dispute” or added a notice of correct submitted by the individual, as the reason for “having taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of data”.

 

It is quite apparent that Call Credit took no steps at all on accepting the initial data.

 

This information was unfairly, unlawfully and wrongfully supplied in the first instance and Call Credit accepted it and have further processed it by accepting updates and have passed it on to third parties.

 

Quote from the Legal Guidance given by the ICO

 

There are circumstances where an obligation of confidence arises between a data controller and an individual about whom information is recorded, for example, in relation to medical or banking information. The effect of an obligation of confidence is that a data controller is restricted from using the information for a purpose other than that for which it was provided or disclosing it without the individual’s permission. It would be unlawful for a data controller to do this unless there was some overriding reason in the public interest for this to happen.

 

Credit Reference Agencies are Data Controllers under the Data Protection 1998

 

This defines “the data subject’s consent” as:-

“…any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed”.Call Credit have never requested or obtained my permission, nor have Barclaycard.

 

 

 

I therefore suggest that Call Credit refer to the case law stated below and make a substantial offer of compensation bearing in mind these rulings by the Law Lords.

1...King v British Linen & Co…….1899

2...Wilson v First Counties Trust Ltd

3...Khopraror v The Woolwich. 1996

And finally the one with the most impact

4...*Durkin v RSG and HFC Bank* 2008

The range of compensation for damages to a persons credit status in these cases have reached over

*£116,000:00.*

I may add that my files with Equifax and Experian have never contained any such data, I have been supplied with all my SAR information from both Agencies covering the last six years.

 

 

I therefore suggest a reasonable sum of compensation for all the above submissions to be £5000:00 no more no less, although I truly believe that an award for more would be obtainable should it be necessary to proceed down that avenue, under these circumstances I do not believe that Call Credit would embark on such a suicidal track.

 

I await your speedy response

[Sparkie1723]

Am I having some problems now ...(and some fun) Went to Barclays Bank ....they didn't want to know...told me to get in touch with Barclaycard....rang Barclaycard .....spoke to "nice lady"......she checked both Barclays data Banks ....personal and BUSINESS .....they have no account recorded on their systems ...anywhere ......not even my name....

 

they told me to contact Call Credit....Called compliance unit at Call Credit........they said send them an E-mail ( already have)…… she then told if that is right then it will be investigated in "due course" said they would not discuss it with me over the phone (and get this for a joke) ....BECAUSE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT ...they couldn't be sure it was me they were talking to.

 

I can see lots of fun and games over this one

 

sparkie

 

[slick132]

Hi Sparkie,

 

I just wonder if you may be better addressing your concerns in writing so you set out your grievances and can demand a written response from the CRA.

[Sparkie1723]

Hi Sparkie,

 

I just wonder if you may be better addressing your concerns in writing so you set out your grievances and can demand a written response from the CRA.

 

 

Hi slick123

I sent the e-mail letter to Call Credit (post 2) and am now sending it recorded delivery and adding what Barclaycard have said for the attention of the Managing Director's personal attention.

 

If Barclaycard never entered it where did Call Credit get the data from...that's my big question.

This another example of CRA's accepting anything from anyone. If they had checked with Barclaycard they would have told Call Credit exactly what they told me I am just not on their system anywhere.

 

sparkie

[foolishgirl]

Wonderful!! Priceless!! Unbelievable!!

 

And these people think they have a right to hold information on us!

 

If you haven't already done so, read Finlanders thread on Experian - you may want to combine forces to take on CallCredit too....

[Sparkie1723]

Wonderful!! Priceless!! Unbelievable!!

 

And these people think they have a right to hold information on us!

 

If you haven't already done so, read Finlanders thread on Experian - you may want to combine forces to take on CallCredit too....

 

Add another word to those foolishgirl ....amazing..Iam the first to agree there has to be records kept on people...BUT lets be honest ..until they get it right ....NO...what CRA's are doing at present is wrecking peoples lives and think they are bullet proof.....but I've got amour piercing bullets to fire at Call Credit.

 

By the way I've PMd finlander

 

 

sparkie

[slick132]

Just another thought. What about an SAR to CallCredit asking for all the data they hold concerning you. This may well show where the errors come from.

 

Is it possible, however, they could refuse to send ANY info, based on the information which you have now supplied saying their data CANNOT refer to you.

[Sparkie1723]

Just another thought. What about an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to CallCredit asking for all the data they hold concerning you. This may well show where the errors come from.

 

Is it possible, however, they could refuse to send ANY info, based on the information which you have now supplied saying their data CANNOT refer to you.

 

 

Hi slick123,

 

I'm by passing the whole Call Credit system and writing direct to Mr John McAndrew ..managing director recorded delivery attaching the e-mail letter I have already sent informing him that his reps refuse to speak to me over the phone and tell him I intend to sue him for Libel ( published false info that has been passed on to others) and in other words get his "finger out" of his ........................................coffee and crumpets.:D

Will post the letter when I have drafted it.

 

 

sparkie

Edited June 30, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[foolishgirl]

Can't wait to see it!!

[Sparkie1723]

Here's my letter off to Mr McAndrew

 

sparkie

 

For the Personal Attention of

Mr John McAndrew Managing Director

Call Credit

The Bailey

Skipton

N. Yorkshire

BD23 1DN

 

1st July 2008

 

Reference my credit file data held by Call Credit

 

Dear Mr McAndrew,

 

I write to you direct to request your personal action and personal reply to this letter which I believe is serious enough to warrant that personal attention and involvement.

 

Attached to this letter is an E-mail letter sent to your Companies Customer Service Department, to which I ask you to refer along with this letter.

 

 

Bullet Point 1.

 

The entry referred to in the attached E-mail letter as F3.

On contacting Barclays Bank Ltd who according to the data entry held by Call Credit supplied the information, have carried out extensive searches of their data base’s, both Personal and Business data banks under my name, my address and my business name ( I am a small business operator) and they have informed me that they hold no information on me whatsoever.

 

Therefore in order to verify this data I demand that you now obtain from Barclays a copy of the signed executed Consumer Credit Act Agreement appertaining to the Credit Card that Call Credit state the data is related to.

I say this and remind you that you must take these steps to comply with not only the Legislation of the Data Protection Act 1998, namely;

 

a) The First Principle, in that it has been lawfully supplied and further lawfully and fairly processed by Call Credit.

b) The Fourth Principle that you must now go further than stating that you have taken “reasonable” steps to ensure the accuracy of the data received and further processed by Call Credit processed, the steps and the lengths that a data controller is obliged to take required will depend on the circumstances of each case.

c) I submit my case requires those extra steps to be taken immediately and by you personally.

d) Obtaining this document will without doubt absolve you from any claims I have agaist Call Credit and yourself, without it, I do not think I need to expand on the consequential flow of that.

 

Bullet Point 2

 

On contacting your Company yesterday in an attempt to resolve the matter quickly, on speaking to an advisor by the first name of “Sarah” ( you will be aware your employees do not give second names for identification purpose) I was informed that no discussion would take place over the phone for reason….The Data Protection Act.

Quote” She could not be sure it was I she was talking to”… that brings me to the question,….then…. How do Call Credit know that ALL the data you hold and allegedly stated by Call Credit actually belongs to me?????

 

I find that both ludicrous and incredible.

 

It will bee seen by a reasonable thinking person that if Call Credit had taken even reasonable steps to ensure that the information initially received about this entry and enquired with Barclays Bank Ltd, they would have received the answer I received, I am not on their computer system, and Call Credit would not/should not have accepted it and applied it to my Credit File, I do not have to point out to you the effect of alleged debt and alleged late payment entries have on an individuals credit score, and credit status,

It lowers it do you not agree?

 

I therefore suggest that you consider very seriously about the compensatory payment I suggested as failure to do so will result in action by me through the County Courts for an action of Libel against you personally, as I have now bought this to your personal attention and intervention , you are the person ultimately responsible for the actions of your Company and your employees, I also advise that libel action can be pursued through the County Courts in the small claims track as I am asking for the sum of £5000 this will be in the remit of that track.

 

I trust that you will respect the fact that my advise of Libel action is not the action of a “paper tiger”.

I will pursue it, unless a satisfactory outcome is achieved, in the meantime I demand the permanent removal and permanent deletion of this entry immediately, this demand is made under sections 10 and 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I look forward hopefully to a full response from yourself in the very near future.

 

sparkie

[ukaviator]

You should make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office also. I am sure they would be interested in your case.

[Sparkie1723]

You should make a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office also. I am sure they would be interested in your case.

 

Hi ukaviator

 

I have had so many dealings with the Information Commissioners Office to know they are absolutely useless.....so much so that my MY "summoned" the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas to his office in Westminster and rail roaded him and his office over my other complaints ....my Mp is till waiting to hear back after this roasting, and has written another strong letter to him ....so the Information Commissioners Office in my personal opinion and experinece is a waste of public money, he has now said that if he doesn't get answers he'll haul him in front of a Parliamenary select committee of which he is chairman to answer facxe to face the other MP's.

I have got another serious complaint with the ICO submitted in March ....it hasn't even been allocated an case worker yet.

 

sparkie

[zootscoot]

1...King v British Linen & Co…….1899

2...Wilson v First Counties Trust Ltd

3...Khopraror v The Woolwich. 1996

And finally the one with the most impact

4...*Durkin v RSG and HFC Bank* 2008

The range of compensation for damages to a persons credit status in these cases have reached over

*£116,000:00.*

 

None of these cases you refer to relate to claims under the Data Protection Act. I suggest that it is important that you read this case before proceeding:

 

Johnson v Medical Defence Union [2007] EWCA Civ 262 (28 March 2007)

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry zootscoot I completely disagree the Data Protection Act is all about Damage to credit status and such.

section 13 and the fourth principle.......damage caused by breaches of any part of the act and those cases are all about that.....Damage to credit status.... data held by CRA's causes damage if it is incorrect innaccurate and not up to date, and these cases are all about that damage.

 

sparkie

 

Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

 

5. Kpohraror confirmed that such damages were available to individuals who were not traders. In that case a cheque was dishonoured and then the matter put right within 24 hours. Also in that case the plaintiff claimed both special damages and the general damages of £5,500. Lord Justice Evans said at page 124 "The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

Edited July 1, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[zootscoot]

The Court of Appeal in Johnson v Medical Defence Union is quite clear that loss of reputation is not a head of damage available under DPA:

 

1. Compensation
   
2. The legislative structure
72. Article 23 of the Directive states that
    
    Member States shall provide that any person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation or of an act incompatible with the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive is entitled to receive compensation from the controller for the damage suffered

    The Judge recalled that article 249 EC leaves to member states "the choice of form and methods" in achieving the results required by a Directive. That choice has been made in section 13 of the 1998 Act, which provides:
    

    13. – (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
    (2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if –
    (a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention
73. Mr Johnson sought damages under three heads: pecuniary loss, incurred in achieving cover from another society, the MPS; damage for the distress caused to him by the removal of his cover with the MDU with no explanation given; and damage inflicted on his reputation by the removal of his MDU cover. Damages for distress are, by the plain terms of section13(2)(a), only available if the claimant also suffers other "damage". Mr Howe argued that that limitation was inconsistent with the general rule of compensation for damage to be found in the Directive. The latter should be read in an autonomous Community sense, as requiring the provision of compensation for any sort of damage recognised in national law.
    
74. While, like the Judge, I find this point not entirely straightforward, also like him I cannot accept it. In the absence of specific Community authority, none of which we were shown, I do not accept that the Directive has to be read so widely. I bear in mind Mr Spearman's warning that the national laws of the member states differ in their approach to damages, and in particular in relation to compensation for injury to feelings or reputation. There is no compelling reason to think that "damage" in the Directive has to go beyond its root meaning of pecuniary loss. Nor do I accept Mr Howe's contention that the fact that the Directive envisages the protection of rights under article 8 of the European Convention (as to which, see §15 above) entails that compensation must be available in every case for loss of a type or category that would be covered by article 8: for example, damages for distress. If a party could establish that a breach of the requirements of the Directive had indeed led to a breach of his article 8 rights, then he could no doubt recover for that breach under the Directive, without necessarily pursuing the more tortuous path of recovery for a breach of article 8 as such. But that is not this case, since it is agreed that Mr Johnson can make no complaint under article 8: see §16 above. There is no reason to think that the Directive nonetheless requires Mr Johnson to be able to recover for a head of loss available under article 8 even if domestic law denies him that recovery.
    
75. This issue of construction matters in the present case in particular because by the terms of section 13 distress damages are only available if damage in the sense of pecuniary loss has been suffered. With that in mind I turn to the three heads of compensation that were claimed.
    Pecuniary loss
    
76. Mr Johnson originally claimed substantial amounts allegedly incurred in his attempt to obtain cover from the MPS. All of that case failed. However, at a late stage of the trial, and after Mr Johnson had left the witness box, a hotel bill was produced allegedly relating to the negotiations with the MPS. That bill showed items that, as the Judge found, were incurred by Mr Johnson for other purposes, but also included, apart from Mr Johnson's own bed and breakfast charges, a sum of £10.50 for an additional breakfast. After some lengthy consideration of the matter the Judge concluded, at his §230, that
    
    I am prepared to find, on the probabilities, that the £10.50 for the extra breakfast was referable to the meeting with the MPS representative. I have no reason not to accept Mr Johnson's evidence that such a meeting took place

    No doubt the meeting took place, but the Judge had no evidence from Mr Johnson that it was over breakfast or that the extra breakfast that he paid for was eaten by the MPS representative; and much less that any purchase of breakfast was required of Mr Johnson as a step in the process of obtaining cover, a matter that I am certainly not prepared to assume. The Judge was not entitled to find that this, the only item of pecuniary damage that survived, was attributable to damage for which the MDU was responsible.
    Distress
    

77. Applying as I do the terms of section 13(2)(a), this claim fails in limine by reason of Mr Johnson's failure to prove damage in the terms of section 13(1). The Judge would have awarded £5,000 under this head if he had found the case proved. Mr Spearman criticised that amount, as plainly too high for the modest level of distress that the Judge had found, when compared with the standard measures for various kinds of personal damage. I agree with that criticism, but in view of the findings in the rest of this judgment it would be an undue use of judicial time to reason the matter out.
    Reputation
    
78. Unlike "distress", this head of loss is not envisaged in the 1998 Act, and there is no reason to think that it is inherent in the provisions of the Article. The Judge rejected on the facts a number of specific claims under this head, and his decisions are not appealed But in addition, and no doubt inspired by the English law of defamation, the appellant, although he did not prove any actual loss of reputation, much less any financial loss or other tangible detriment that had flowed from it, nonetheless relied on assumptions that his reputation must have been damaged and that a financial value must be put on that damage. I am certainly not prepared to import those assumptions, peculiar to, and in the view of some an unedifying feature of, the English law of defamation into this wholly different chapter of the law. Mr Johnson's inability to prove any loss destroys this claim, as the Judge rightly held. Nor can English law be said in that regard not to respect its obligation to give compensation for loss of reputation caused by unfair processing of automatic data. If an Englishman thinks that that has occurred he can always actually sue in defamation, with the prospect of recovering far more, and on a less exacting basis, than he would find in other member states of the Community.
    

[Sparkie1723]

The Court of Appeal in Johnson v Medical Defence Union is quite clear that loss of reputation is not a head of damage available under Data Protection Act:

 

 

That is why I never even considered this case in the slightest.

 

The DPA is my Pet subject and has been for over five years I sleep with it go to work with it read it on the"rest house":grin:

 

My Big Claim agaist RBS will enlarge on that.

 

 

sparkie

[zootscoot]

Its your claim

[Sparkie1723]

Its your claim

 

 

Exactly zootscoot it is my claim and so far Its 4 to 1 in case law.8)

 

There is only one way Incorrect financial data such as defaults etc can damage you....and that is by damagaing your Credit reputation the Data Protection Act enforces that data processing and was enacted to protect you from things such as this......any breach that causes you damage is a head for a damage claim.

 

 

Section 13 Data Protection Act "An individual who suffers damage, or damage and distress, as the result of any contravention of the requirements of the Act by a data controller, is entitled to compensation where the data controller is unable to prove that he had taken such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the relevant requirement.

“Damage” includes financial loss or physical injury. "

 

 

Under English Law “damage” generally refers to any kind of harm which is discernible and can be valued in money terms. Increased cost of credit is certainly a good example

 

also there is a little "insert "into the legal guidance given by the Information Commissioners Office which most people completely miss ...and it says this "besides complying with all the Principles laid down in this Act ,data controllers must also abide by all other statutes and laws

and regulations that are in force at the time.

 

What this in fact means is that a data contoller can be brought "to Book" for other offences under other laws besides the Data Protection Act.

 

sparkie

Edited July 1, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[foolishgirl]

I can see where Zootscoot is coming from Sparkie.

 

 

 

Having just ploughed though the Johnson/Med Def. appeal judgment surely it confirms what has been advocated many times on this forum - you have to prove damage i.e. demonstrable loss eg. if you have been refused credit on the grounds of this incorrect information being supplied to would be creditors, not just the possibility of it?

 

 

Quote:

 

"The Judge recalled that article 249 EC leaves to member states "the choice of form and methods" in achieving the results required by a Directive. That choice has been made in section 13 of the 1998 Act, which provides:

13. – (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if –

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention"

 

 

If you could prove that you have been refused credit or your costs for such have been increased because of this info. you would probably have a watertight case for compensation.

 

IMHO that doesn't of course preclude you from going for the libel issue - they are distributing information that is incorrect & therefore potentially libelious.

 

I DO empathise with you & your indignation - I'd feel the same. I'll watch your progress with interest...

[Sparkie1723]

Hi foolishgirl.......( and you aint so foolish either)

Actual words of 1 Judge

 

"Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate."

 

NO need to prove loss or damage its accepted as immediate

 

Appeal Court Judges in Kporaror all agreed with each other

I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

 

The Durkin case went much further and cited all the other cases.

 

The Data Protection Act is "The poor man's Defamation Act".......damage under this Act does not necessarily mean financial loss only. .....in exactly the same way you do not have to prove financial loss under defamation, The wording is " suffers damage"...including "financial loss" ....it does not say " suffers financial loss"

 

I've had this out with my MP at a meeting with him, he was the Chairman of the parliamentary

select committ who initially drafted the New 1998 Act along with the First Commissioner Elizabeth France and I post what his views of it are not mine....damage is damage......... not financial loss although if that occurs also your case is bullet proof .....or should be.

 

sparkie

I understand zootscoot also ...but that is what this forum is about ...everyones views . so we can really get to the heart of matters and issues, I welcome everyones point of view that way we all learn and store the info we pick up

sparkie

Edited July 1, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[foolishgirl]

Well you're obviously well briefed on DPA. I pity the poor (probably junior) solicitor who may have to face you!

[MARTIN3030]

Anything further on this ?

[supasta1]

Does anyone know what happened with this case or are there any similar cases??