I got compensation from Abbey for default after reclaiming charges

[Robertxc]

I think you can also claim compensation under the data protection act if the misuse of your personal data has caused you distress.it's worth having a look at the data protection act and making up your own mind.

[sycostill]

thanks, will do.

[meagain]

Does having to shop around, and being turned down by three other institutions count as distress? How about the threatening letters afterwards? What price for these?

[greensim]

When i sued Abbey for charges back they put a default on the account and they paid up in full. I applied to the Court to get the Court to order the removal and the Judge said she wasn't aware of any power open to her to order the removal?

 

Does anyone have any legislation (apart from DPA) i can quote at her at the next hearing?

[meagain]

Data Protection Act should be more than sufficient - I'm not aware of any reason why the judge would not have the power to order its removal. It is called "specific performance" (in E+W, at least). If the default was unwarranted the court should have the ability to order its removal. All you need to do is convince the judge that it is clearly more than mere coincidence that the account was defaulted around the same time they paid up - remember, you don't have to prove this beyond reasonable doubt, only that it is more likely to be the case than not.

[Robertxc]

The DPA specifically gives the right to judges and sheriffs to alter or remove incorredct data. I suggest you read the act in full, and you'll find the relevent bit to quote to the judge - I don't have it to hand, but from memory, it's quite near the end, and quite clear in interpretation.

[zootscoot]

Greensim,

 

If you have done a s.10 request then the power comes from s.10 (4) & s.15

 

If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.

 

If you applied under s.14 on the grounds of inaccurate data the power comes from s.15

 

15. - (1) The jurisdiction conferred by sections 7 to 14 is exercisable by the High Court or a county court or, in Scotland, by the Court of Session or the sheriff.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

[alymac]

hi, sorry for the hijack, i recently got £2000 form the hailfax for my default, will start my own thread about this soon, just wanted to give some hope

[zootscoot]

Fantastic news!

 

Can you pm me a link when you've done your thread?

[lookinforinfo]

Well done Robert.

Did you pick on £750 because that was the maximum you could claim, or

could you justify the figure? Did they try and quibble over the amount, or

just accept it?

[Robertxc]

It was the max for small claims. No, they didn't quibble - they just wanted to avoid the hearing.

[meagain]

So does that mean that, since most people with recent defaults will only have suffered inconvenience (both through rejection and having to go to court), it might be reasonably safe to simply pick a value and run with it?

 

More importantly, what steps should people take to ensure that if they are paid cash in lieu of removal that they are not barred from pursuing for the removal again?

[Robertxc]

So does that mean that, since most people with recent defaults will only have suffered inconvenience (both through rejection and having to go to court), it might be reasonably safe to simply pick a value and run with it?

 

More importantly, what steps should people take to ensure that if they are paid cash in lieu of removal that they are not barred from pursuing for the removal again?

You should never just pick a figure - it has to reflect a real loss, such as failure to obtain cheaper credit. It's important in a claim like this to make sure that the compensation is for a specific period in time - such as from October 2006 to January 2007. This means that even if they settle, you'll still be able to go back for the period from January onward.

[meagain]

The only real remedy for this is the removal of the default, but given that if you have a mixed claim and are offered the full cash value of cash elements you may be asked to forego the non-cash elements, people will need to be able to assign an alternative cash value to them. How do you place a cash value on the following scenarios, which clearly cause some form of loss to people that find themselves in them?

 

1. You apply for credit, you are accepted, and given a rate that is higher than you might expect. The lender has scored you with the CRA record, and thus they have no way of telling you what rate you would have received were it not for the default.

 

2. You apply for credit, and are refused. Upon appealing the result, you are told that they will stand by their decision, and it is because of the default you are trying to have removed.

 

3. You apply for bank accounts, and are refused on the basis of their scoring you with a CRA, forcing you to make a postal application for a basic account, taking 2-3 weeks.

 

4. You are refused some other service (by e.g. telco, letting agent, etc.) as a result of your ill-deserved poor credit rating.

 

I'm not trying to be awkward here, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

[zootscoot]

The only real remedy for this is the removal of the default

 

S.13 specifically allows compensation for damgage or distress. The fact that a you can not place a specific monetary value on the damage or distress does not mean you can not claim it. Although the distress must be over and above ordinary levels of annoyance. The courts are often asked to put a monetary value on things such as personal injury which is not quantifiable in monetary terms.

 

With regards to damage claims the claims are always discretionary and not available as of right unlike most damage claims for say negligence. The judge can award a sum to represent the proportion of the loss which could be attributable to incorrect or unwarranted processing or can make an order to stop processing without awarding any damages if s/he feels that the order is all that is necessary to do justice in the case.

[meagain]

S13 was roughly the sort of lines I was thinking about. So, essentially, we can (more accurately, have to) just pick a number, as long as it is reasonable for the great inconvenience that the have been put to (e.g. £3000 for a default filed last week is clearly excessive), and not merely plucked out of thin air.

[lookinforinfo]

Robert, did you consider claiming compensation from the CRAs who, after all,

are the ones who enable the default to be exposed to all their clients. I am

working along the lines of newspapers for instance where several publish

defamatory info on someone. All the papers publishing the libel can be sued therefore, not just the first one.

[Robertxc]

The CRAs are data processors, not data controllers. They only process data on the instructions from their client - the CRA. The relationship between them is a little murky, and suing them is not straightforward.

[lookinforinfo]

The ICO seem pretty definite that CRAs are data controllers. And CRAs

process exactly the data they are given by their clients. If the client is

guilty, then so are tha CRAs that process that data?

[meagain]

Surely in the same way as one can be guilty of handling stolen goods, one can be guilty of "handling stolen data" - i.e. at the very least an accessory.

[Robertxc]

The Information Commissioners Office seem pretty definite that CRAs are data controllers. And CRAs

process exactly the data they are given by their clients. If the client is

guilty, then so are tha CRAs that process that data?

This is what I mean by 'murky'. The CRA becomes the dta controller for your info when you give your permission for a credit search - because they need to collate your data. You give your permission when you fill in the credit application form. When the bank passes your info to the CRA, the CRA doesn't do anything with it until asked to do so by someone else - who must first get your permission.

 

If you wan to take on a CRA, make sure you have a clear head first! This is a pretty complicated issue, and they're pretty confident of their legal position. I would say that if you're concerned about anything on your credit file, by far the best approach is to attack whichever bank put it there.

[meagain]

Is it reasonable to name both bank and CRA as co-defendants on a claim for default removal?

[Guest ian cognito]

What about a case where a CRA has been notified they are processing incorrect data due to a dispute, they add notice of correction then remove it on the say so of the company, if the default is subsequently removed, is there not then a case to be answered by the CRA?

[zootscoot]

They then raise the due diligence defence. ie they have taken reasonble steps to varify the data.

[Robertxc]

What about a case where a CRA has been notified they are processing incorrect data due to a dispute, they add notice of correction then remove it on the say so of the company, if the default is subsequently removed, is there not then a case to be answered by the CRA?

No. They only process the data on the instructions of the data controller. They do absolutely nothing with your personal data unless you have given your permission first. If you have a legal problem with it, you need to take it up with the bank.

 

When you sign up to a credit agreement, you give permission to the bank to process your personal data in any way they deem necessary - subject to the rules of the DPA.

 

This whole issue is something which some of the Mods at CAG are beginning to look much more closely at, but for the time being, my advice is not to waste your time challenging the CRAs