Alphageek Vs Capital One ***WON***

[mkandy]

Same with mine dude, just keep bombarding them with letters!

[Paintball]

Alpha

 

I agree with Mkandy up to a point, you ned to be persistent with them so that they know you mean business. However, personally, I think you shoudl stick to your guns re the adverse marker data (as Doo did last year) and insist that, as it is part of your claim, they remove the data. They did with her claim and I feel that they will with yours too ... eventually

 

xx

[steven4064]

I agree with PB 100% (I have to, she has a gun )

[Alphageek]

I think something like this;

 

Claim Number xxx

 

Dear PERSON,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 22nd and your Allocation Questionnaire dated 28th Jan 2008, their content duly noted.

 

Enclosed with your letter dated 22nd Jan, the copy statement details a further charge in the amount of £12 and £4.43 interest applied whilst the account is clearly in dispute that you fail to take in to consideration at all in your calculations. This is in addition to a similar charge from Dec 20007 that I detailed to you, and the Court, in my letter to PERSON dated 16th Jan 2008.

 

I understand that you will be in receipt of a large number of claims for repayment of such charges but I do wonder if you have actually completely read the letters I sent to you or the Particulars Of Claim.

Since my initial complaint to you and subsequently having to take the serious step of issuing a County Court Claim, I note in the letters from Ms Renshaw, PERSON and yourself and the papers you have filed with the court that you have failed to address my points about data provided by Capital One to credit reference agencies and other third party data controllers.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, you should understand that no one part of my claim has greater importance than any another part.

I note the total you say you have refunded, albeit without admission of liability, differs to that which I claim. In the interest of the over-riding principal and wishing to avoid putting you to further costs, I will propose these terms as a settlement.

·You will within 28 days remove all data relating to this account from all third party data controllers with whom you have shared such data.

·You write-off the remaining balance of the account in the amount of £4.43 as at statement date 19th Jan 2008

·You confirm you are willing to undertake the above two actions to me and the Court, in writing, within 10 days of receipt of this letter.

·I will accept your method of calculating the funds you are to return to me.

·I will not pursue you for the charges levied to the account in December 2007 and January 2008.

·I will apply to the Court for an extension of 28 days in order that I may audit the files of credit reference agencies.

·I will seek the Court’s permission to bring the claim to an end when the data in question has been removed.

 

oNB: I will not accept any entries in the files of any credit reference agency that seek to show this account has been settled to my detriment.

I do hope you give my proposed terms sincere consideration so that taking up the Court’s valuable time can be avoided.

This is my final offer. I note we still have a difference of opinion on legal matters and have to tell you that should we need a Court to adjudicate, I am quite confident of a favourable outcome.

I trust this clarifies my position?

 

Yours Sincerely,

Alphageek

CC/ x County Court

 

I am not sure about this bit;

 

·I will apply to the Court for an extension of 28 days in order that I may audit the files of credit reference agencies.

 

Would I need to apply and, indeed, could I do this?

 

And;

oNB: I will not accept any entries in the files of any credit reference agency that seek to show this account has been settled to my detriment.

 

I am sure there is some terminology they use when they want to make it known that an account has been settled when they did not like the terms. I just can't remember what it is?

[steven4064]

This is the wording used in the Data Protection Act s14:

14 Rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction

 

(1) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.

I think you should require the data to be erased or destroyed and evidence provided to you that this has been done.

[Alphageek]

Hi Steve,

 

As ever, thanks.

 

I'll just do a quick re-write.

[Alphageek]

Ok, I have inserted the reference to s14;

 

 

·I will seek the Court’s permission to bring the claim to an end when the data in question has been removed.

o

NB: The Data Protection Act s14 states

§

14 Rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction

 

(1) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.

I require the data to be erased or destroyed and evidence provided to you that this has been done.

What about the bit where I would ask the Court for a 28 day "stay" - is that right?

[steven4064]

What you would be asking the court for would be a 28 day stay so that you and Cap1 can come to an out-of-court settlement. From your point of view that would be to verify that the negative markers are removed.

[Alphageek]

Thanks, will amend and get it in the mail in the morning.

 

I have been watching Sky Sports News all night waiting on transfer news. Not really concentrating on CapOne tonight.

 

Will post final version tomorrow.

[steven4064]

You do need a break from it now and then. Sleep well

[Alphageek]

Is it still necessary to send via Recorded Delivery when I send this offer of settlement?

 

Opinions please.

[mkandy]

Personally i sent everything recorded to speed up the process. I even resorted to email towards the end.

[Alphageek]

Hi MK, I was wondering if I should give them my email address to help matters?

 

If I send them my CAG address, they would be able to find this thread easily. I'm sure they're reading anyway.

[mkandy]

I sent them an email off the cuff, because i couldnt be bothered typing up letters, sending them recorded and going to the post office. After my first email, i got a letter confirming they would settle my claim

[Alphageek]

What address did you send to?

[Henry01]

What email address did you send too please and was it a credit card? I'm after Capital one

[WendyB]

Capital One staff use this as email: firstname.surname@capitalone.co.uk as far as I know

[Alphageek]

Thanks WendyB.

 

I have left it to them to initiate email contact if they want, but that could be useful in the future.

[mkandy]

Yup, as Wendy said.

 

I emailed them first, they replied, but had a more formal reply by letter.

[Henry01]

Where did you get the email address from, as in the contacts name?

 

Thanks

H

[WendyB]

from letters they sent

[Alphageek]

Received from the court today form N157 Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track.

 

The hearing is set for 19th March, I have to pay a hearing fee of £75 by 25th Feb and "Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including any experts' report) on which it intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing."

[Alphageek]

Received this from CapOne today;

 

13 February 2008

 

Dear Alphageek

Court Claim number: xxx

Claimant: Alphageek

Defendant: Capital One

 

Thank you for your letter dated 3 February 2008. I apologise that the matter of amending your credit file was not addressed until now. However we are not prepared to remove data relating to your account that we have shared with credit reference agencies.

 

As responsible lenders we have an obligation to ensure that the information we report is accurate and that it will not mislead future lenders. There is a consistent approach for financial institutions to record account management activity in order to assess your credit worthiness. This practice is in accordance with the Data Protection principles, guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner and our Consumer Credit Licence.

 

It is a matter of fact that you have made late payments to your account. The terms of your agreement are set out in your credit card terms and conditions. The terms and conditions advise you of the circumstances in which information will be recorded with credit reference agencies, which include making late payments.

 

If you have missed payments and your payments have been in arrears, to remove this information would be inaccurate. Your credit history reflects how you have managed your account and to assert otherwise would be misleading to future lenders.

 

The letter we sent to you dated 3 July 2007 also advises that whilst you are disputing fees that were applied, you must maintain the required payments in accordance with you Credit Card Agreement to avoid negative information being recorded on you credit file. This is because your account itself is not in dispute and balance includes genuine, purchases.

 

As I outlined in my letter dated 22 January 2008 we will not pay your claim to interest. You have not provided a legal basis to claim interest at 34.93% and we do not believe you are entitled to this.

 

We have refunded all default fees, PPI premiums, 8% statutory interest and all the interest charged on fees and purchase since your account was opened. In refunding all interest charged for both fees and purchases you effectively have had an interest free credit card.

 

Your account balance is now £0. If you wish to close your account please confirm this in writing and I will arrange for this to be done for you.

 

In light of the above it is our view that you have no further claim against Capital One and we are confident in our decision to defend the elements outstanding. We have acted entirely reasonably and have refunded over and above the amount you are entitled to claim in an attempt to resolve this matter.

 

I trust I have clarified our position.

What next?

[WendyB]

Well thats pretty straight talking of them. Doesn't look like they're gonna budge on it. Not sue what to say really. If there were late payments before you started all this, then I suppose they have a point in not removing those. As for the ones during your battle with them, I'm not so sure about that. Although if they didn't provide a true CCA then you would have a case for it being unenforcable and not paying. But then again, its either charges or unenforceable. so as you've got your charges back now, that chucks the unenforceable out the window.

 

TBH, if it was me I'd give up now. late markers aren't half as serious as a default, and a judge might not look as kindly on the claim if you proceed, having had everything else back.. Just my opinion. And you can add a statement to the credit files explaining that the payments were late because you were disputing the account.

[mkandy]

TBH, if it was me I'd give up now. late markers aren't half as serious as a default, and a judge might not look as kindly on the claim if you proceed, having had everything else back.. Just my opinion. And you can add a statement to the credit files explaining that the payments were late because you were disputing the account.

 

 

Agreed with Wendy tbh.

 

What's your reason for trying so hard to have the late markers removed? A default is a biggie in terms of adverse credit, the late markers are not really too bad.