Compensation for incorrect data on CRA files ** RESOLVED **

[arthur256]

Have been following the Durkin case, and now have a query:

 

In 2006-2008 HSBC applied excessive bank charges after DWP stopped my DLA payment (in error) but later paid the arrears. I had been very ill and the local branch had said they would be sympathetic as it was not my fault. Charges were inflated to £1315 and although I requested a review as a priority case they started putting DCAs in touch (four of them in all). Eventually I got fed up and issued a MoneyClaimOnline, last month, and have now filed Judgment.

 

The last of the four DCAs also registered the "debt" with CRAs, so I sued them jointly. They however sent the file back to HSBC and therefore I cancelled my claim against the DCA, and asked them to remove the CRA entry as they had surrendered the matter. They haven't removed it, and it is now the only remaining "debt" on CRA files for me. My credit score is low and quotes the debt as a factor.

 

Is there any guidance somewhere on quantifying compensation in this situation?

[Bazooka Boo]

Four figures is the standard damages for defamation.

 

However, if you failed to get a job or mortgage because of inaccurate data being reported on your file then the figure goes up.

Did they give you a time frame by which they would remove the inaccurate data?

 

IMO, I would be informing the CRA's so they can add a notice of correction against the entry, then send whichever circus outfit it is, that is dragging their heels, a letter before action (LBA) sent recorded delivery, giving them a further, say 7 days in which to comply or you will seek legal remedy through the courts.

If you threaten them with this, and they call your bluff, then take them to the ruddy cleaners!

The ICO might also like to know who this outfit is with blatant disregard to the Data Protection Act...I would also be pursuing HSBC as it is because of their error that it has got to this stage, might be the final nail in their coffin!

[arthur256]

Thanks. The DCA's solicitors wrote apologizing for the delay in removal, and promised that it would be removed urgently by the end of this week. It has already gone from Equifax but not the other two.

[arthur256]

Apologies for delay in updating. Although (as previously posted) I had judgment entered online, the court had made a blunder earlier, and had failed to process acknowledgment from HSBC, meaning they had more time to defend. They noticed the day I instructed a bailiff (under the old rules), and it was then scheduled for mediation, but nothing on that happened at the Court. HSBC made a small offer which I ignored, and they subsequently offered almost exactly what had been entered in the judgment, including fees, which I then accepted and it was settled last week. I am not sure whether I got all of my bank charges back, but the settlement was acceptable.

 

End of matter.

[citizenB]

Thanks for the update. Pleased to hear this is now resolved. Will amend your thread title to reflect this.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Apologies for delay in updating. Although (as previously posted) I had judgment entered online, the court had made a blunder earlier, and had failed to process acknowledgment from HSBC, meaning they had more time to defend. They noticed the day I instructed a bailiff (under the old rules), and it was then scheduled for mediation, but nothing on that happened at the Court. HSBC made a small offer which I ignored, and they subsequently offered almost exactly what had been entered in the judgment, including fees, which I then accepted and it was settled last week. I am not sure whether I got all of my bank charges back, but the settlement was acceptable.

 

End of matter.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent result!!!

[Bazooka Boo]

Brilliant.... well done