NI court - late placing of a Default By Barclaycard/lowells - **SETTLED OUT OF COURT**

[register]

the point is that they will need to hire a northern irish solicitor.

So he is saying its worth a punt of £100. It would at least cost them more than this. He already has the default. he has little to lose. I admire OP for this.

 

 

How much is the disputed debt?

 

In order for you to win your claim, it is at least necessary for you to show that the underlying agreement is not enforceable. As you are effectively disputing the whole debt, then if the debt is more than 3k it seems to me that the amount in dispute would be more than 3k (regardless of how much you are claiming in damages) in which case you can't be sure of ending up in small claims.

Edited May 16, 2015 by register
spelin

[SabreSheep]

I think the warning here is that there is a chance it will not end up in the small claims.

 

The OP would then be vulnerable to costs if they lost.

[noomill060]

I brought a DPA claim in NI Small Claims quite some time ago.

 

 

There should be some info in my thread of use to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?135360-noomill-v-NCO-(round-2)

[johndeevoy]

The Small Claims Court in N.Ireland are not able to deal with "libel" claims which, unfortunately, this could well fall into that bracket. If so, the matter would be escalated to the county court which carries a greater risk of costs.

 

Noomill - your thread is quite old and one of the posters on there had put up a link to a pdf that is now broken. The pdf may have been some direction from the ICO in relation to the power of the SCC to hear DPA claims. Any chance you saved that pdf or can help me find it online?

 

Just thinking out loud here but I recall seeing that a claim for compensation can be brought under s13 of the DPA. I don't have time to review the legislation directly right now but if this is correct and there is a statutory avenue for seeking compensation then I would argue that this is not a "libel" case and the statutory provisions for seeking compensation are the key to opening this to be heard in the SCC?

[noomill060]

My claim was against an organisation (NCO Europe Ltd) who were processing incorrect data related to myself. This was not NOT a libel claim, do not get the two confused!

 

 

I brought a SC action against them for an order under DPA 1998.

 

 

Initially, the judge was persuaded by NCO's barrister that SC was not the correct place for this to be heard due to the wording of the ICO guidance which at that time related only to the England and Wales SC procedure. As usual, they had forgotten about Norn Irn's parallel, but simplified SC system.

 

 

She did not throw it out though.

 

 

Instead, she adjourned the case and asked me to come back when I could show that she was able to hear my case, which I did, drawing attention to the fact that the ICO stated that in E/W a judge would normally place such a claim in the SC track and that in Norn Irn, it is tha Claimant/Applicant who decides whether or not to make an application through SC or through a heavy duty claim in the County Court, known here as a Civil Bill.

 

 

At the next hearing, the judge agreed with me that she could hear a DPA claim in SC and gave judgement in my favour.

 

 

I pointed out to the judge that the ICO had appeared to forget about Norn Irn and a short time later (perhaps in response to my case) the ICO issued new guidance in relation specifically to bringing a DPA case in Norn Irn, stating that SC is the way to go.

 

 

Read the ICO guidance on how to bring a claim under DPA 1998.

[johndeevoy]

I cant find any guidelines for this on the ICO site. The closest I can find is https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/compensation/ and they seem to just refer to the CAB for advise on claiming via the Courts.

 

Of course there is duality in my claim, I want the information corrected AND am seeking compensation for damaged caused. Any help in finding that ICO guidance much appreciated; I guess it would have been available on their old site before they switched from .gov.uk to .org.uk

 

I've emailed the ICO asking for them to direct me to the guidance; the documents do not seem to be available on their new .org site. I wonder how long it will take for them to reply!?

[noomill060]

If you can you show that you have suffered a financial loss as result of their action, you've got a claim.

 

 

Have you suffered a financial loss? Can you prove that, within the balance of probabilities, it was caused by their actions in relation to the processing of incorrect data relating to yourself?

 

Just noticed this thread starts in 2009- is this not statute barred by now?

[johndeevoy]

As I predicted Lowells offered to settle this prior to the hearing,

removing the Default and paying my legal costs (Court fee only as I issued in the Small Claims Court).

 

 

This was the best possible scenario for them,

there was no upside at all for them to consider defending my claim,

even if they won they would have incurred legal costs of way more than the settlement sum,

and a significant downside of up to £3,000 if they lost. VICTORY!

 

Just noticed this thread starts in 2009- is this not statute barred by now?

 

The dispute dates back to before 2009, the original amount claimed by the creditor was statue-barred but the fact that there was a "live" default on my credit file made that element actionable.

[dx100uk]

hey wonderful news.

 

 

thread title amended.

[slick132]

Hi JD and Big Congratulations on this win. :whoo:

 

[register]

congratulations! you took them on and won.

 

As I predicted Lowells offered to settle this prior to the hearing,

removing the Default and paying my legal costs (Court fee only as I issued in the Small Claims Court).

 

 

This was the best possible scenario for them,

there was no upside at all for them to consider defending my claim,

even if they won they would have incurred legal costs of way more than the settlement sum,

and a significant downside of up to £3,000 if they lost. VICTORY!

 

 

 

The dispute dates back to before 2009, the original amount claimed by the creditor was statue-barred but the fact that there was a "live" default on my credit file made that element actionable.