Defaulted in error by capquest/Natwest considering Court Action - Advice needed

[matrix2012]

Hello everybody,

 

I had an account with Natwest which was marked as satisfied on my credit file in 2009 after massive rows with the bank. I am not banking with them any longer.

 

Everything was fine until September - October 2011 when I received a letter from Natwest stating that my account (the satisfied one) was sold to Capquest.

 

Then I received another letter from Capquest confirming the same.

 

As expected I was inundated with calls sometimes as late at 8 p.m. and letters asking for payment.

 

I spoke on two occasions with Capquest and advised that the account they were chasing was already settled unfortunately they would have none of it.

Furthermore the guy I spoke last advised that if I don't pay up Capquest will enter a default on my credit file.

 

Now a little bit about myself.

 

I am a sole trader (working from home) and I run a very successful business with a turnover of about £250,000.

I work approx 12 hours everyday and around Christmas when I am really busy sometimes I hardly get the chance to sleep. I am married and have two young children.

It's hard to imagine how it is when you you are trying to work to have Capquest ringing constantly and asking for money.

 

I think the worst it became when my parents came to see us for Christmas and Capquest kept on ringing us.

 

In order to complete the ordeal Capquest entered a default on my credit file I believe at the beginning of March.

 

As I monitor my credit file very closely I noticed the default straight away

and contacted Capquest advising them that I was in process of applying for an overdraft increase to expand my business

and asked them to remove the default prior me making my application to the bank.

 

Unfortunately Capquest refused and kept asking me to pay up.

I spoke with my bank manager and he clearly declined my application for the overdraft increase.

He advised to have the default removed first and then re-apply.

 

I went back (via email) to Capquest and explained that I was refused the overdraft increase and advised them that I will take legal action to seek compensation for the financial loss.

 

I provided them with a hard copy of my credit file and asked them to investigate.

 

After they completed the investigation I learned that Natwest sold my account in error and consequently

I should not have been chased for money or having a default entered on my credit file.

 

Capquest apologized for the error and stated at first that they acted on the basis of the information provided by Natwest and they don't have to pay me compensation.

 

Then they asked me to prove that not being able to obtain an overdraft increase for 4 months caused me any financial loss.

They removed the default obviously at the beginning of June.

However I already lost four months and I will now have to delay my business expansion until the next year.

 

Although the default was removed from my credit file I believe that I should not have been subjected to such treatment from this debt collection agency

and I am just about to take action in the county court to claim compensation for financial loss and harassment over the phone and mail.

 

I have been looking into the templates library and I cannot find any template for such case.

 

If any one out there can provide any information or advice on this matter I would greatly appreciate.

Many thanks for having the patience to read this.

Edited June 30, 2012 by matrix2012

[dx100uk]

can you please use the edit button

on the gray bar below [your] the above msg and enter some blank lines to

make reading easier.

 

dx

[postggj]

interesting this

 

for crappyquest to update your credit file, they must have been assigned the rights and duties of this account, absolute assignment comes to mind

 

for them to blame natwest will not do any good

 

as they are now data processors, they have to make sure the data supplied is correct and accurate, not natwest

 

PRINCIPLE 4 DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

 

take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of any personal data you obtain;

ensure that the source of any personal data is clear;

carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of information; and

consider whether it is necessary to update the information

 

their is case law that awards £1000 per default but i believe their is new case law that means you can claim actual monatary loss suffered as a result of the default on your credit file

 

i will try and dig it out

 

i would write to crappy quest and ask them about the assignment of the account from natwest, was it absolute or equitable. the normal is equitable

 

if crappyquest state that the deed is confidential and cannot be disclosed, throw this at them which is the case law to allow you to inspect the deed of assignment

 

(Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824).

Edited June 30, 2012 by squaddie

[matrix2012]

I already submitted a request under Data Protection Act 1998 to Natwest as I wanted to see what they were playing at. After nearly three months they have not cashed the £10 check or responding to my request. I will report them to ICO in due course.

[postggj]

did you send the dsar by recorded delivery

 

if not then you will have to resend the request

[matrix2012]

It was sent via special delivery and delivered the next day.

[postggj]

i believe in the library their is a template to send for the default and non compliance of your dsar request

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?593-Data-Protection-Act-Non-Compliance-Template-Letters

[citizenB]

I think you need to sort out the NatWest non compliance first - this will give you extra leverage when making any further complaints regarding the selling on of an account that was clearly NOT a debt.

 

If you have proof that the DSAR was received by them that is good

[matrix2012]

Capquest invited me about three weeks ago to prove that I had suffered financial loss as apparently they wanted to sort the matter out in an amicable way. After I emailed them the information I heard nothing else apart that they will consider my request. I am pretty sure they are hoping I will get bored and drop the whole thing. All I need is some advice on how to fill the N1 form or what to put in the claim particularities.

[citizenB]

Will try and find someone to help you fill out the N1

[postggj]

before we start talking of an N1 FORM

 

you need to give crappyquest/natwest an opportunity to address and respond to the issue

 

(pre action protocol)

 

you must send a letter before action before doing anything, i would to begin with send to both natwest and crappyquest

 

head it 14 day letter before action and send recorded delivery

[matrix2012]

The default on my credit file did show Capquest and not Natwest.

[postggj]

natwest supplied the original default data

 

crappyquest are at fault as well as they did nothing when they were made aware of the inacurate data

[matrix2012]

I have proof of email correspondence between myself and the person who dealt with my complain that I gave them nearly one month to sort the compensation matter out after they removed the default. As I previously mentioned they are hoping that I will drop the whole thing.

[postggj]

but you still must send them the 14 day letter before action

 

the judge will not like it if yiou dont and their solicitors will pick up on it

 

you have waited this long

 

whats another 2 weeks

 

have you quantified your loss the default caused you to the penny besides the actual compensation level

[matrix2012]

It's not a matter of time. I can wait as long as it takes.I bet they have done this to other people. I hope I manage to get a judgement entered against them to enable other people to use my case as Common Law. That would be cool !

[postggj]

well i had the same done to me, not crappyquest but another well known dca

they put a default on a statute barred debt that was 10 years old

i served an N1 claim on them and they did settle quite quick

 

you just have to go through all the hoops first

[matrix2012]

Is there a letter before action template I could use for this type of case? Or it's just a standard letter informing them of my intentions of court action and giving them the opportunity to sort the matter out? I am sorry, I am not very good with this stuff .

[postggj]

it is better in your own hand

 

just put out your intentions and what they need to withdraw and action

 

head it 14 day letter before action

[matrix2012]

I will do that and let you all know the outcome. Thank you very much for all your help. This is indeed a very CRAP QUEST.

[erimus1]

I completely disagree with the assertion that Capquest is liable. Whilst I would agree that you should be due some compensation, it was Natwest that breached their duty of care to you. Albeit Capquest would have had a duty of care towards you, the fact that they had shown due diligence, and were in reliance on the information that Natwest provided would discharge thir liability.

 

Insofar as Natwest is concerned, you need only prove that they had a duty of care towards you, that they breached that duty of care, and that the breach resulted in a detriment. Whilst, on face value, this process is fairly simple, indeed, it would seem that Natwest has already stated that they made an error, and effectively admits liability, you would have to apply various tests, such as 'reasonable foreseeability' and so on to ascertain how far thi liability would reach.

[postggj]

but once capquest became aware that the data they were processing was inacurate, to keep on then processing that data while in dispute makes them culpable

[erimus1]

but once capquest became aware that the data they were processing was inacurate, to keep on then processing that data while in dispute makes them culpable

 

Absolutely not, according to the details supplied. However, you could take both Natwest and Capqest to court as joint tortfeasors, allowing a court to decide proportionality of blameworthness (culpability). But, as I have previously stated, Natwest have effectively admitted liability so why waist time with Capquest - it's a no brainier and very easy.

[Mike_hawk]

I'd be inclined to acquaint yourself to the references within Durkin v DSG

 

Paras 117 - 121 may be helpful

 

Phil

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html

 

117. 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.

 

 

 

118. 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."

 

 

 

119. Evans LJ went on to consider the issue of special damages separately. There is, however, nothing in the judgment of Evans LJ to indicate that had the special damages claim been made out he would not have made an award in terms of the general damage claim. Lord Justice Waite and Sir John May each agreed in all respects with the judgment of Lord Justice Evans

 

 

 

120. The cases of Kpohraror, King and Wilson were all based on contract but it does not seem to me that there is any difference in principle between the nature of damages to be awarded in respect of a loss of credit brought about by a breach of contract, and one brought about by negligent misrepresentation.

 

 

 

121. In these circumstances and standing such a recent decision where the claims appear to have been treated as being capable of existing together, I find that the pursuer is entitled to an award for the general damage to his credit in addition to an award in respect of the actual loss flowed sustained. Having regard to all the circumstances I consider that an appropriate award would be £8,000.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Mike_hawk

[postggj]

durkin is going up to the supreme court on appeal