barclaycard default removal

[Guest willowb]

Hi all:)

 

Right well, I sent the first letter off last month and got the usual response...

 

Once registered, all Barclaycard defaults remain on the Credit Reference Agencies database for a period of six years.....etc etc

As most of you know, I've been rather busy with RBS so I hadn't readily responded. I had, however c&p'd SB's AMAZING!!!! letter template which I have adjusted to relate to my case.....I'm going to paste it for the record....

 

 

Re: Formal notice to desist from processing or disclosing personal subject data

 

Further to your recent letter dated 14th August 2006, I would like to take the matter further.

 

As stated in my previous letter it is noted that there exists, within all three files, an entry referenced as "Barclaycard plc" indicating a former account (now closed) of £2,321.00. This is recorded as "In Default" albeit showing a 'satisfied' status.

 

I am contesting that Barclaycard's continued processing of my data is an unwarranted act and I enclose a Statutory Notice to that effect, which is deemed served as of the date noted on the Royal Mail's Recorded Delivery service audit.

 

My written permission allowing Barclaycard to continue processing, or disclosing, my personal subject data was revoked upon termination of that original contract and I hereby reiterate that revocation. I also do not recall receiving any such Notice of Default being served on me, as required by the conditions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Unless the Bank can provide a true copy of the said Notice, then I consider that any default entry on my credit files to be wholly unwarranted.

 

However, if you can supply the copy, then I also contest Barclaycard's continued processing on the following grounds.

As you are aware, I am afforded principled rights under the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act), Schedule 1, Part 1 ("The Principles") in relation to the manner in which my data is collated, stored and processed. Of particular note, are Principles 3, 4 and 5:

 

"3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

 

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

In my case, Barclaycard is still processing data after the cancellation of the contract, whether or not this is a simple renewal process of the default flag, daily or by other timing factor. As that contract is no longer in situ, then my written permission has also ceased from the date of cancellation.

 

This is confirmed in Principle 2 of the Data Protection Act, which states:

"2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."

 

I emphasise the term "specified and lawful purposes" as in ‘those specified within the contract’, and no more. I also emphasise the term "shall not be further processed".

 

The matter has been taken up with the Credit Reference Agencies, and they had claimed that they had a

"legal right" to maintain this type of adverse entry for up to six years. When They were challenged to quote the exact Statute that includes this so-called "legal right", they remained remarkably quiet. Only after a continued insistence of disclosure did they eventually concede that, whilst they have no statutory right, it is

"standard industry practice" but they added that they are "allowed to by Law". After further challenges, they finally admitted that unless this was a County Court issue, their term actually referred to contractual Law, but continued to emphasise that it was "standard industry practice to record default entries for six years."

 

"standard industry practice" does not correlate with "legal right".

 

Further investigation has also led to the conclusion that the only six-year data ‘retention rule’, to which they may adhere to, is in relation to information in the public domain, e.g. Bankruptcy Orders/Discharges, IVAs, CCJs, etc. These are kept in the public domain for six years. But, these are sealed orders issued by a judge through the Courts who oversee the ultimate jurisdiction in all matters relating to Law, be it the criminal code or the Common Law. It is not up to Credit Reference Agencies, or lenders, to decide legal issues.

 

In addition, the agencies may also hold information that is deemed ‘in the public interest’ for the avoidance of credit fraud or deliberate repayment avoidance; I refer, of course, to CIFAS and GAIN entries on a credit file. My former account was not subject to any such marker, nor is my former civil contract with Braclaycard a public matter.

 

After scrutiny of all the relevant legislation, including the Consumer Credit Act (As Amended), the various Financial Services Acts and the Data Protection Act, etc., it is clear that there is absolutely no legislation that allows a lender or supplier (e.g. Barclaycard) to collate, process or distribute any other information unless there is express written permission from the data subject.

 

In fact, Section 10 of the Data Protection Act awards the real authority, regarding privacy of data, to the data subject, not the Data Controller. The Act is also very clear as to the rights of the data subject in respect of withdrawing permission to continue data processing and disclosure:

 

10. - (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons-

 

(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

 

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

 

However, there are some exclusion provisions for Data Controllers, and Section 10 does continue with various exceptions to subsection (1) above, and these are quoted, in full, below:

10. - (2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

 

(a)in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met,

or

(b)in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.

 

To paragraph (b), I can only presume that Barclaycard has not applied to HM Secretary of State for an order allowing you an exclusion, which leaves Barclaycard with the only remaining possibility of requesting an exemption under paragraph (a).

 

So, we must turn to the exemptions permitted in paragraph (a) to find where Barclaycards’ Data Controller may invoke his perceived exemption to the Data Protection Act, namely, those listed in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2. I have reproduced these exemption paragraphs, in full, below:

 

"1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject."

 

It is my contention that Barclaycards’ supposed right of obtaining an exemption is not contained within any of these paragraphs. I have followed each in turn with my notation to give a clearer explanation, should there be any lack of clarity.

 

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.

 

That consent was terminated upon the cessation of the contract and, as stated earlier, I reiterate the revocation herein, and by the attached Statutory Notice.

 

2. The processing is necessary-

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract.

 

For (a), there is no contract being performed, and for (b), Barclaycard and I are not entering into any form of contract, and certainly not at my request.

 

3. The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.

 

According to the Information Commissioners Office (I.C.O.), exemption 3 includes all other statutory obligations for which the interests of national security and welfare override personal privacy.

 

These obligations allow for the provision of data to Official agencies and organisations, e.g. disclosure to crime prevention agencies (Police, Intelligence Services, etc), official Government agencies (DVLA, DSS, Passport Agency, etc.) and health authorities, etc., and for any other purpose not agreed within a civil contract.

 

We all know that the three major credit reference agencies are not Government bodies, nor official agencies, but for-profit companies, even though they like to think they are official. None of these three agencies are listed in the appropriate Data Protection Act Schedule that names the specific organisations that are permitted any such exemption rights.

 

4. The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject."

 

With reference to the I.C.O. again, this is interpreted as anything that affects the data subject as a matter of life and death. This clause is included in the Data Protection Act to permit data, like medical records or contact details, being disclosed in emergency situations. I do not believe that my former account details could be described as anything like a matter of life or death.

 

So, it is clear to see that there is neither statutory provision permitting Barclaycards’ Data Controller to assume continued processing rights of my data at his discretion, nor any exemption. I can then only assume that Barclaycard is relying on the Common Law, and contractual law, as determined by the contract that both parties originally agreed.

However, the contract that I originally signed with the bank, only gave Barclaycard permission to process data during the term of that contract. I think it is fair to assume that you agree that the contract was terminated some years ago, whether or not a Default Notice was served.

 

The contract neither included any other permission, nor did it imply that your perceived 'rights' to process my data would be ‘in perpetuity’. There was also no clause contained within the contract that stated that Barclaycard had any arbitrary right to continuing processing data for up to six years after the ending of the contract.

 

Also, I cannot recall any clear statement that gave my express permission for barclaycard to continue disclosing my subject data to third parties after the end of the contract. You are no doubt aware that any non-agreed disclosure of personal data to third parties, without express written permission, is a criminal offence under Section 35, of the Data Protection Act.

 

However, if I am mistaken, and the contract did, indeed, specify unlimited time extensions, then you must provide me with a copy of those signed terms indicating where I have agreed to them. This should be sent to me as one of your enclosures, if you wish to contest the enclosed Statutory Notice. You should be aware that you have, by statute, twenty-one days in which to either comply with my Notice, or give written notice stating your reasons and why you consider the Notice unjustified.

 

In summary, in relation to this former loan contract, I am formally instructing you, as an authorised officer of the Bank, from this day onwards, to:

1) cease to continue storing, processing or communicating my data;

2) remove all such data from automated process systems, as per the provisions of Part II, Section 12 (1) of the Data Protection Act, namely:

(1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect 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.

 

Of particular note is the Acts own term "his creditworthiness";

 

3) cease to disclose any data to any third party including, but not restricted to, Equifax plc, Experian Ltd and Callcredit plc; and

 

4) instruct Equifax plc, Experian Ltd and Callcredit plc to remove all data pertaining to your records on me, to the extent that no data entry in relation to Barclaycard will exist on my credit files.

 

Any failure on your part to adhere to these statutory timescales will automatically be interpreted as your non-compliance with the legal procedure. In that case, you will be expected to unconditionally comply with my Statutory Notice or I shall have no alternative but to refer the matter to the Court to seek an Order to that effect. Should it be necessary to refer the matter to the Court, then I shall also apply for Court fees and legal costs against the Bank. I shall also reserve the right to seek redress for damages as per the remit of the Data Protection Act.

 

I trust that I have made my position clear, and that Barclaycard will now make a serious effort to understand its legal obligations and effect the changes requested. Should you be in any doubt as to the Banks obligations as a Data Controller, then I would advise that you consult your corporate counsel.

In any event, I shall expect a written confirmation from you acknowledging the contents of this letter within 5 working days, as per the requirements of section 15.3 of the Banking Code.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

I've checked and re-checked for mistakes, hopefully this is spot-on as it's going in the post RD today.....wish me luck....

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

Hi peeps,

 

So how long do I wait before I send the DSN? I've read up but can't find exactly where I read it before, does anyone know?

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

D'OH 21 days!!!! it's in the letter.....errrrrm thought I'd read it somewhere! LOL

[Guest willowb]

Errrrrrm.....well, I received a response today from Barclaycard, and I'm puzzled to say the very least. This is what they say in their covering letter:

 

Please find enclosed copy application and copy of the formal demand that was posted to you via Gregory Pennington.

I confirm the full and final settlement was received but was too late and the default had already been registered and will remain for a period of 6 years from the date of registration.

The full and final settlement received will be reflected on your credit file.

 

Right, now......within the so called copy of the default notification (which isn't even signed) it states the following:

 

Date: 15th Feburary 2006......it was actually defaulted on 28th Feburary 2003.

What are they playing at?

 

This letter was apparently sent to Gregory Pennington who were not acting on our behalf at the time, we transferred to Southern Tree Finance in Feburary of this year (we have always had an arrangement with barclaycard and had been paying them every month an agreed amount). I can categorically state that we have NEVER EVER seen this letter before or indeed a default notice this year......as far as we are aware and as far as our credit file states, we were defaulted in 2003 not 2006.

 

We settled this account in April 2006, after we re-mortgaged our house to pay off some debts.

 

I'm absolutely bemused as to what I do next. For one, the letter is very fishy, no signature or anything, it's not even a photocopy it could have been typed and printed off there and then. How can they say we have been defaulted twice....is this possible? My head is scrambled!

 

Please, can someone respond?

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

anyone?

 

Wxx

[ncf355]

Might be worth PM'ing SB with the link to your (this) thread, but I think the saying 'bang to rights' comes to mind

 

I wouldve thought you need to write to them stating what you state above and if they dont give a decent enough reply commence action, but that's all IMHO

 

:-|

[dayglo]

my advice,

 

write back to them disputing the accuracy and authenticity of the 'default notice' they have sent to you.

 

make it clear, that upon expiration of the 21 days, you will send them a letter before action giving them, for example a further 7 days to comply before you issue court proceedings.

 

Then, fill in an N1 using the particulars of claim that are dotted around, and look up the differing views that are around concerning claiming damages.

 

In a nutshell, this comes down to court fees. A non-monetary claim costs £150 or you can include a small (or large if you are feeling brave) claim for damages and that brings the court fees down a little (between £30 and £120 depending on the amount you claim)

 

Good luck

[Guest willowb]

Thanks for the responses guys:)

 

I thought I might pm SB with a link to my thread, I'm just tentative about what I write back to them really. I'm unsure of how to word my response, I know that the default was issued in 2003 so why they are stating that it was defaulted in 2006 is baffling me. Also, the authenticity of the letter of non-compliance with the default notice is dubious aswell as the fact that they haven't supplied me with the actual default notice itself...so???? And why send to us a default notice in the first place in 2006 when the account was already in default?

 

I need to get it all really clear in my head (lol) before I respond.

 

Wxx

[dayglo]

They are just trying to fob you off. Don't try to over analyse what they are doing regarding the clearly incorrect default notice. Just reply saying "I do not accept the accuracy or validity of the copy of a default notice that bears no relevance to my account with you"

[Guest willowb]

Yes, you're right. I've pmed my thread to SB though, I hope he doesn't mind but the more people who say the same thing to me will boost my confidence when I come to structure my response to the barstewards! The more I think about it the more angry I become but I need to be focused and clear as to how I tackle this.

 

Wxx

[ncf355]

At least they made a bit of effort, EGG have taken about two months to send me something and then it was just a template that had no details on it at all, they just didnt even try

 

Needless to say I stated my case and will follow the N1 route if I get no joy

[Guest willowb]

I'm sorry to hear that Ncf, I hope that you get a result at the end of it all:)

 

Right, I've contructed the following letter, could you please tell me what you think? I'm going to give them 21 days to respond and then I'm going down the Court route....

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your letter dated 25th september 2006. There are a few points I would like to raise with you:

Firstly, You state that Barclaycard issued myself with a default notice in Februrary 2006. In which case, can you explain to me two things;

1. Why does my credit file reflect a default on 28/02/2003? This is when the account was, according to my credit file defaulted and you have not provided any origional documentation to support this as required by the Data Protection Act 1998.

2. I had kept up agreed monthly payments to Barclaycard (see attached statements) for the months prior to when you state that Barclaycard had actioned a default notice (Februrary 2006), in which case this really makes no sense whatsoever.

Secondly, you have sent to me as origional documentation of default a letter of non-compliance and not the supposed issued default notice of Feburary 2006, which I never received from yourselves. This isn't a duplicate of an origional default notice and is therefore not satisfactory. You are required to surrender to me a duplicate of the orgional default notice. I wish to make it quite clear that I am asking for the default notice from the year 2003.

Thirdly, the account was was settled in full in May 2006. May I then ask why, on closer inspection of the account statements, does there still remain an outstanding balance of £517.54? I have to say that this is not ethical and is misrepresentative of the account as the settlement I made with you was a full and final one. I believe that you are acting unlawfully by keeping this balance showing on the account when my credit file clearly states that the account is 'satisfied'.

etc etc

That last point!!! I hadn't even noticed before.....Oooooooh I could just throttle someone:mad: Excuse me whilst I go and kick a cushion lol.

 

Anyway.....please please please tell me if it's ok because I'll send it later on.

 

Wxx

[dayglo]

I've made a couple of small changes and you may wish to check the spelling of 'original' (please don't take offence, non-intended) - Good luck.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I refer to your letter dated 25th september 2006. There are a few points I would like to raise with you:

 

Firstly, You state that Barclaycard issued myself with a default notice in Februrary 2006. In which case, can you explain to me two things;

 

1. Why does my credit file reflect a default on 28/02/2003? This is when the account was, according to my credit file defaulted and you have not provided any original documentation to support this as required by the CONSUMER CREDIT ACT (AMENDED 2000)

2. I had kept up agreed monthly payments to Barclaycard (see attached statements) for the months prior to when you state that Barclaycard had actioned a default notice (Februrary 2006), in which case this really makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Secondly, you have sent to me as origional documentation of default a letter of non-compliance and not the supposed issued default notice of Feburary 2006, which I never received from yourselves. This isn't a duplicate of an original default notice and is therefore not satisfactory. You are required to SEND me a CERTIFIED COPY of the original default notice. I wish to make it quite clear that I am asking for the default notice from the year 2003.

 

Thirdly, the account was was settled in full in May 2006. May I then ask why, on closer inspection of the account statements, does there still remain an outstanding balance of £517.54? I have to say that this is not ethical and is misrepresentative of the account as the settlement I made with you was a full and final one. I believe that you are acting unlawfully by keeping this balance showing on the account when my credit file clearly states that the account is 'satisfied'.

etc etc

 

That last point!!! I hadn't even noticed before.....Oooooooh I could just throttle someone:evil: Excuse me whilst I go and kick a cushion lol.

 

Anyway.....please please please tell me if it's ok because I'll send it later on.

[pford]

45. Where a default occurred but a lender has formally accepted in full and final settlement a smaller amount than that owed under the terms of the original agreement, then the default should also be marked as settled or satisfied. It would be unfair to process personal data so as to record an outstanding balance on a default when a lender has led a customer to believe that the matter had been formally and finally concluded.

[Guest willowb]

Thanks Dayglo:oops: your assistance is greatly appreciated:grin: I will amend and send (oooooh that ryhmes lol) this afternoon, cheers honey!

 

pford, yes I know.....it states in the credit file: current balance 'satisfied' and as far as we were concerned the balance was nil. But when I inspected the statements received I noticed a balance outstanding.....this is surely unlawful? They accepted a 'full and final settlement' even if it was only 70% of the balance. I'm hoping that it's a clerical error!

 

Wxx

[pford]

I know that already but I found that in a DP guidance document

[Guest willowb]

Oh I see, sorry....yes! brain is fryed! LOL

 

Wxx

[Guest willowb]

Received a letter today, I'm confused to say the least.....I can't speak to them until my husband gets back later (his account) and hoped you could tell me what you think please....

 

A copy of the default notice has been requested from our record storage and will be sent to you as soon as possible.

A default notice was sent to you on 19th December 2002, requesting a payment of £212.78 by January 2003. When you did not comply with this, a formal demand was issued on the 10th January 2003. As a repayment agreement was made on the 1st February 2003, no default was issued BUT OUR CREDIT FILE SAYS IT WAS DEFAULTED ON THE 28TH FEB 2003!!!!!

 

your credit file reported as 'I', I CAN'T SEE AN I ANYWHERE!!!! which means repayment agreement made. The repayment agreement continued AND SO DID THE DEFAULT. We then received notification from McCambridge Duffy on the 20th of January 2006, that you may be entering an IVA WE WERE, BUT COULDN'T RAISE ENOUGH ON THE HOUSE TO CONTINUE:( . We suspended the account, but when we did not have an update by the 15th of February JUST 26 DAYS LATER, a formal demand was issued. The formal demand mentioned a recent default notice, however, this had not been issued prior to the formal demand as the previous default notice had not been complied with FROM 4 YEARS AGO??? BUT OUR RECORD SAYS THAT THEY DID DEFAULT US 4 YEARS AGO

 

Further action was halted when a full and final offer was accepted on the 30th March 2006. When a full and final offer is accepted, the credit file is marked as settled, and although the balance does not show nil, we do not pursue it.

we hope this is of assistance to you NO IT ISN'T!!!

 

 

So, what the buggery bol***** are they saying? we weren't defaulted in 2002, but we were! but in actual fact the default was served in 2006 without any notification because 4 years previous they had apparently served us with a demand......oh peeps my brain is fryed!!!! please help.

 

Wxx

[gargoil]

I think you are at cross purposes here. Does the original letter you sent (SBs template!) not ask for them to stop processing etcetc and remove the entry altogether and now you are asking them why the entry is inaccurate by date and amount owed? Sorry I can't be more helpful as I haven't started this process myself yet (waiting till I finish reclaiming charges first) but I think it may be best to stick to the procedure for default removal as if you carry on with this and have it removed you won't need to query the accuracy of it! I may be totally wrong as I have no great knowledge or experience of this. Sorry I can't be any more helpful.

[Guest willowb]

No you're right gargoil, thanks for the reply:) The letter they sent to me on the 28th of September completely threw me and the accuracy of the data they are supplying about the account to the CRAs is baffling me but the statutory notice still stands. I will contact them again and stick to my guns (and SB's letter!) but I will dispute their arguments for keeping the default on.

 

Thanks

Wxxx

[gargoil]

Here's a useful thread I found on my travels with ideas for the particulars of claim if you do need to submit for a court order...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/28785-vodafone-not-playing-ball.html

[Guest willowb]

Thanks love, that was very useful:) I've composed the following letter using some of SB's pearls of wisdom and also including my particulars of claim.....what do you think? is any of it inappropriate? completely wrong? unnescessary? ......please let me know!!!!

 

Dear Ms Williams,

Thank you for your letter dated 4th October.

I would like to raise some points with you....

You say that a default was not issued in 2003. It is clearly stated in my credit file that a default was issued on the 28th februrary 2003, therefore was the information that you were supplying to the CRAs false information?

You say that you 'suspended' the account on the 20th January 2006 and then on the 15th of Februrary you issued a formal demand, which I never saw. You sent this to Gregory Pennington, you should have by law sent this to myself. is this right?

There was also a timescale of 26 days between suspending the account and issuing a default (but still my file says it was issued in 2003???) nethertheless, this is not correct procedure according to the Banking Code and you did not allow enough time. Is this right?

You say that the formal demand (which I did NOT receive in the first place) mentioned the recent default notice and therefore you felt no need to issue another. The said default notice was NOT recent. It was, according to my credit file (the people you supply this information to) issued in Februrary 2003 when the account was defaulted.

I have issued barclaycard with a statutory Notice which allows you 21 days to remove the default notice from my file, that is 9 days from the date of this letter. If you have not completely removed the default from my file I will be taking Barclaycard to Court. At Court you will have to show the Judge why you believe that you are exempt from my statutory request. you will also have to show that I gave you permision IN THE FIRST PLACE for you to process my data and for you to disclose it to the CRAs. Considering the fact that you seem to be unsure as to when you actually defaulted the account (as the information YOU have been supplying already to the CRAs for the past 3 years conflicts with what you are now telling me), I think that the Court would take a dim view of this.

You would have to show the Court copies of the ORIGIONAL contract with my signature on it, not templates or samples but the actual ORIGIONAL document. If you can produce a copy of my origional contract then this will show that I DID NOT give you permission and the Judge will order the default to be removed. If you do not produce the origional contract then the Judge will view this as wasting the Court's time.

In the event that you do not take measures to prevent the case from going to Court, i.e, removing the data from my file. For your information, the following will be my particulars of claim:

I signed a civil contract with the defendant on 6/6/00 in which it was agreed that the disclosure of personal data in relation to the contract would extend only to such times as the conclusion of the contract. At no time did I grant permission, either expressly or implied, for the defendant to arbitrarily extend that permission to store, process or disclose my personal data beyond the cessation date of the contract. It is my contention that the defendant's perceived right to arbitrarily choose to extend the length of that contract without my knowledge or agreement would be unlawful and unenforceable under the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations (1999). The Defendant has failed to provide me with any evidence to prove agreement to such terms in perpetuity, and it is therefore my contention that the Defendant is in breach of both the contract itself and the Data Protection Act 1998, by the Defendant's continued disclosure of personal data.

I sincerely hope that the matter can be resolved out of Court and that you do remove the default from my file immediately.

thumbs up or down peeps?

 

Wxx

[gargoil]

I would not recommend putting in your anticipated particulars of claim in the letter like that. You can give them warning that you will apply for a court order but you don't want to give your whole game plan away to them.

 

Personally if it were me I would just leave it this now and wait to see what they send through (if they do within the proper timescale!) even sending them a brief reminder saying that they have not addressed the issues raised in your initial correspondence regarding automatic processing. I would also read as much of the legislation and threads on here as I had time to!

 

If they send the proper default notice through then you can go down the road of getting them to stop automatically processing your data as they don't have permission to etc etc.

 

If they don't send it through then you can go down the road of getting it removed as it is not properly documented. IE they have to show they provided the default notice to you.

 

I may be wrong though if anyone else would care to comment..........

[Guest willowb]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I suppose I just wanted to get them to remove the default asap by contesting their letter and showing that I am serious about taking them to Court. But maybe that you're right, I should just wait....so, when the 9 days are up and I file a claim!!!lol, they haven't got a leg to stand on because they will be out of time as per s10:confused: ....is this right? this is a simple idea but I get bogged down with and don't understand the legalities.

[dayglo]

my advice is to issue a final LBA giving them either 7-14 days (depending on how you feel - it won't make any difference!) to remove the default(s) and any other inaccurate data from their file before beginning court proceedings.

In my experience so far... companies will do one of two things.

1) remove the default stuff immediatly upon receipt of the long template letter (they reckon it's just not worth the time/effort to fight it) or

2) rebuff/ignore and state "ICO say we can do this so we will - na na na nana hope this helps (!?)"

It looks like B/card are going for option 2. What a surprise!

I think you will have to issue court proceedings to take get this default data removed.

good luck