sky/virgin defaults

[fergal71]

Hi can sky and virgin put defaults on credit file if they are not covered under CCA. IF yes what protocal do they have to follow in issuing default notices.

 

Surely they are still covered by data protection act... filing default whilst account in dispute etc????

 

any help much appreciated got court date very soon as default caused significant damage financially...

[IdaInFife]

just like any utility company

 

normally send you a demand

 

then a reminder if not paid within blah blah then a default will be applied

[fergal71]

but what law is it based on... they are not covered by consumer credit act... placing defaults must be covered by something. if they can use them in this way it has to be an unfair contract as surely they can ruin your credit file for 6 years for what could be a very small amount?

[IdaInFife]

it just the same with utilities re credit refernce agencies within the t and c's

[buzby]

Nothing to do with CCA - they are not Defaults but showing you are in 'default' of your agreement to pay. They can only send the data to a third party CRA IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED THEY CAN DO SO. So if you don#t want this to happen, don't agree to it.

[fergal71]

they have stated by accepting their equipment is fact that I have accepted terms and conditions which I am assuming includes sharing my data...

 

can anyone direct me to wilson case I think in which they were awarded compensation for breach of DPA default would like to reference case in my argument.

[buzby]

So, as you'veaccepted that they can share your data - how do you hope to raise the issue of you non-agreement to this?

 

YOU don;t get compensation for abreach, the ICO fines them, and they get the money. You would have to prove actual financial loss and quantify it - suing them yourself.

[fergal71]

i can prove financial loss, I am just wondering wether to use data protection act, unfair contract act????

 

they changed amounts frequently, bills used to arrive after direct debit was due to go out.... contract was with telewest so never really accepted virgin conditions or changes... also amount was in dispute at then end and the bill changed 5 times before default was placed and default was placed before they sent deadlock letter....

[buzby]

There's not much point quoting the acts if there is nothing within them that assists your case.

 

Sure, bills came after the DD was taken, but that's an issue for the DD Guarantee. You are also mistaken that you 'never really accepted' their T&C's - we all got notification of the change, the new T&C's of the new company, you can then reject them and terminate - but you cannot keep on using the services, and say you didn't agree to them. Continued use means you actually have.

 

Finally, I don't know why you believe the default being placed befoire a deadlock letter is relevant. This isn;t a CCA arrangement, but a service contract. The default means you didn't pay - nothing more. If you can prove their error, you can get the default removed, but not otherwise.

[fergal71]

hi buzby they have removed default just not in time... I am in court in a few weeks and I am just preparing paperwork... I am appreciating your input even though it is not what I am wanting to hear... they changed bill 5 times after restrictions on service despite me asking for breakdown of bill, which was never received... I really feel strongly about this obviously as it nearly cost me my home... cant rely on CCA, surely they have a protocol to follow for dpa if they dont then they breach it? what about unfair contract....

 

we charge you in advance for services you have not received and when you dispute what we charge you , we are right and if you dont pay we default you and ruin your life for 6 years, no comebacks as you agreed to these terms by having our equipment???? hang on a minute this cant be right????

[buzby]

I don't disagree with what you say - but this is simply the tail wagging the dog. It is the DCA's PRIVATE database - it is not a public record, and it is our willingness to accept these onerous terms and conditions, possibly in ignorance, that has got us to where we are today.

 

I always opt out wherever possible, I refuse to do business with firms that treat my data as a commodity, I don't always succeed - but I make iut my business to sure my exposure is limited. If most of the consumers took an interest in this, then the loss of income would cause these firms to rethink this strategy - there is no legal compliance required, they do it because they can.

 

It is the CRA's who decided 6 years was a 'reasonable' time period and the ICO did not disagree. Whe get what we deserve, sadly.

[fergal71]

this is all good and well, but if you need TV and phone and you do not agree to share data and they say you can not have services then what do you do????

 

surely this is an unfair contract when they mess up what can I do to them refuse to pay ? then they default you????

 

like bank charges there has to be a stand against this ind of thing!

[buzby]

What to you do? Find an alternative supplier that doesn't. It isn't rocket science. Currently, BT Vision do not report to CRA's.

 

If they mess up, they must fix the problem. YOU cannot arbitrarily decide to 'fine' them for their mistake. And unfair contract is defined in law, just because something isn;t to your liking doesn;t automatically mean is is unfair (as defined).

 

If enough people said - I wo';t sign up, as I don't like your terms - what do you think will happen first? They change their system, or do they go bust? What we need is enough people to take a stand. I've done it. Will you?

[fergal71]

off course I will, but our economy and the masses will not affect these businesses you and me will not make much of a difference... I will post on here how I go in a few weeks at least I will be getting my say in court... I will play on the fact that these companies circumnavigate the judicial system by way of county court judgements as somewhere down the line because of credit reference agencies companies can place defaults which are just as bad for the consumer without the costs or time of going to court... they merely send an email.... when did this all start any ideas when this started to be allowed??????????????? I have had phone accounts since I was 17 and cant remember any defaults like this?

[buzby]

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the consumer. For those who do not have the brain powert to see the ramifications of their actions, true, it may take some time. For for the bulk of folk, all they need to be is told the pitfalls c- they can join the fots up themselves and vote with their wallets and purses.

 

Get you say in court? Not so... you might - but a lot of things will have to click into place before this happens, there could be a settlement, they could choose to turn up and you lose with a sneakily argued (but correct) statement rejecting your claims. It wil NOT be - as you seem to think - a formum for you to tell the judge where consumerism has broken down.

 

As for CRA's circumventing the courts - well, it's a private arrangement, nobody is forced to take someone to court, and you cannot make them, it will always remain the pursuers perogative.

 

Whent did that all start? Easy, it started when a consumer was told their financial tealings would be passed to third parties, as part of their contract. t was then up to them to agree and continue, or disagree and cancel.

 

As to your last sentence - I don't know how long ago it was when you were 17, but you could not legally enter into a contract until you were 18 (16 in Scotland). Further, as you saying you actually defaulted but no CRA picked up on this? Only when you agree to your details being bassed on could such a defaukt affect you, but then - the networks used the courts to enforce payment. Now they opt to sell on the debts to willing specialist companies, making this form of pursuit wasteful - by selling on, they get between 10-80% of the debt paid, so they're not going to complain.

[fergal71]

when did they start using defaults rather than ccj's ?????

 

I bet it was same time as credit reference agencies started sprouting up?

 

I am not sure I would accept an offer , I really think this needs to be viewed by a court as it has a much wider implication for millions of people whos credit file is ruined by these companies in the knowledge that general public dont know there rights and do not consider implications when they sign contracts...

 

ps would virgin have to bring contract to court as I never signed one I am sure...

 

so what do I need to prove ????

[buzby]

Heck no - CRA's have been going since the late 1960's - initially using publicly available records (Electoral Register, Court Records) etc, and then they started selling on the idea to companies that IF they gave them information on their customers, THEY would in turn provide them with advance working of any potential problems - a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

 

Afraid you still have an unrealistic view of the court - this is a small claims action, if you are siccessful it ONLY has ramifications for you and nobody else, no precedent is set.

 

No contract is required to be exhibited, unless you are challenging the terms of it. You do not need to show you signed anything, they can show you making payments, and the court will accept that it is proved the contract exists. (As why would you pay if you were NOT getting serrvices from them).

 

You need to prove whatever it is you are complaining about is wrong.... and their refusal to correct it to your satisfaction.

[fergal71]

hi buzbt, what about if the default amount was for say £100 and they had charges on account of over £200. would this be grounds for them putting default on incorrectly.... I am trying to look at all angles?

 

is it dpa or cca that states that disputed accounts should not be defaulted????

[buzby]

No - it is the account that is said to be 'in default' - amounts are immaterial to this. Although if they say there is £200 outstanding where there is really only £100, you can get them (force them) to correct their error.

[fergal71]

the error has been corrected nearly 2 years ago , my complaint is due to damage done whilst on credit file... I received 8 different amounts whilst services were cancelled that is what I was disputing they could not give me breakdown of charges... kept changing

[buzby]

OK - providing the error has been corrected, (and there is no residual indication of problems on your file as a result), then they are in the clear - incompetence is allowed as the courts look upon the consumer as a 'partner' in the transaction, in that it is deemed 'reasonable' that providing corrections to errors is part of the process.

 

I'm not clear in what you mean when you sat you 'recieved 8 different amounts' if the end result id fine, then what went before doesn't matter, unless it disadvantaged you at the time, and you were unaware of it.

[fergal71]

I have been disadvantaged significantly

which I can prove!

 

this shower are horrendous.... crap invoicing , breach of direct debit guarantee, constant biiling errors, excessive charges, and when you dispute their actions , they are allowed to ruin you for 6 years and all you can do is move to sky who are pretty much the same slightly better though...

 

sorry state of affairs, I forsee over the next few years lots and lots of people being made aware of their rights and taking many companies to court. if these companies dont do something quick they will be inundated with court claims.

 

I am looking forward to my day in court, if they try and buy my silence how much do you think I could ask for????

 

Have you ever worked for VM or sky buzby?

[buzby]

Carp invoice is a accuracy issue. The direct debit guarantee only applies to your arrangement with the bank (to get it back) so whilst this might prove incompetence it is a reason to dump them as a supplier, no more.

 

Again, 'ruining you for 6 years' is an issue of 'the system' not the supplier. You agreed to the disclosure, and it is the CRA that aids the dissemination of the information so whilst your firm may have contributed to it, making them soley responsible will be an impossible task.

 

As to your third paragraph - there won't be lots of claims, because there is no reasonable chance of success. What you complain of is a general maliase - holding a single firm legally responsible for this will be an impossibility IMO.

 

As for buying you're silence - the pragmatic view is that they'll settle for £50 for any actual loss, with no chance of inflating it in the absence of an actual provable loss due to their errors only. They will also require a gagging clause before issuing the cheque. They may negotiate a higher amount, but they won;t really care for piddling small claims actions.

 

No - never worked for either, but got Sky to the court steps before they settled.

[fergal71]

my claim is for nearer £5,000 , I can prove losses... I will be fighting this all the way. If does not go in my favour at county, I assume I can appeal higher... I definately will be if this is the case. I am so incensed by what these companies are allowed to do...

[buzby]

You'll have no chance. Proof to a court requires substantiation, not ball-park estimates. Also, they can prevent you raising the issue in a higher court (which will cost you dearly).

 

Yes, these companies treat consumers like cannon-fodder, but that's no reason to jump in there yourself with a spurious claim.