FAO Gravytrain

[ken100464]

I think we were somewhat filling Beefys diary up with our discussion so have started a new thread.

Taking your point about the data controller only being responsible for actual events.

Perhaps in view of the amount of time being taken for these cases to be resolved by the fos, the initial complaint and calculations should be copied to him.

Then if legal action for damages is to be considered after the award the claimant would have a stronger claim that the data controller was negligent in the interim.


I personally would find this hard to support others may disagree.

For me the time the data controller would be at fault would be from when the redress is agreed not when a claim goes in. And time between the redress, the data controller being informed, the data stream updated and the CRA's starting to report must be factored in too.

So if it took FOS 18 months to get it sorted it would be FOS who is at fault not the data controller. He is supposed to process data factually. The fact there is a dispute doesnt alter the account prior to the dispute being resolved.

If it did we would all be asking for these defaults to be taken off just incase. And this in my view leads to the position where consumers feel they are being wronged.

Most of the time they are not and just because a bank screwed up our CRA file doesnt mean the bank is wrong.

I even doubt if a default remained a couple of months after a dispute is resolved in your favour would really constitute something a court would entertain. As long as it is corrected then I think the data controller is doing his job.

By the time your claim is getting anywhere the CRA's will have updated and any judge would be wondering what an earth this is in his court for.

Take us for example. I have had an issue with wrong reporting on an account. Its taken me 5 months to correct it. I got a grovelling apology and £50. Not alot and probably didnt even cover my time and effort. But the entry has been corrected.

But I wont bother with more compensation because the CRA is trashed by 3 other defaults so the fact this one was wrong hasnt really made much difference as it was trashed already.

But its being reported correctly now which is the main thing

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Yes good idea.

Ther are a number of issues about the DPA that i would like to discuss.

Regarding the data controllers actions during the period whilst the complaint is being investigated.

Isn't there something in guidelines that states if the question of a marker is in dispute then the action must be taken to the benefit of the data subject until the dispute is resolved.

I am sure i read it somewhere(perhaps i dreamt it) i will have a look.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Most probably there is.

But once again is it the default that is wrong as in does the recon balance go positive or have they terminated you so cannot rectify that is the problem?

Or is it just redress reducing the balance of the debt?

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Most probably there is.

But once again is it the default that is wrong as in does the recon balance go positive or have they terminated you so cannot rectify that is the problem?

Or is it just redress reducing the balance of the debt?

Yes i think the recon balance would have to be in credit to provide cause for any action.

I have been following Durkin Vs HFC.

I don't know if you are familiar with it, but it seems to have sparked a number of similar claims over on CAG, all actual provable damages resultant on misplaced markers.

Here is the bit from the ICO guidelines on default registering i was thinking of.(Data Protection technical Guidance)

43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

4Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date


7The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where—
(a)having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and
(b)if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject’s view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact.

This is from the act itself.

So between this and the ICO's view I can see lots of wriggle room.

CAG has its uses but for me it is far too encouraging of non legal people to take on a bank in a court room.

Too often you see someone being encouraged down the court route by internet warriors only for when the shit hits the fan then they are off encouraging someone else to make mistakes.

I have just watched someone with a large CC debt and a lender accepting installments and small PPi claim being advised to take the PPI to court cause FOS is slow.

Ok it is but now that poor guy has a counterclaim for the full amount to fight.

What have the internet warriors achieved. A probable CCJ when there wasnt one before.

And he had been abandoned on a subforum as soon as the claim came in.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

[QUOTE=gravytrain;258279]Yes i think the recon balance would have to be in credit to provide cause for any action.

I have been following Durkin Vs HFC.

QUOTE]

Yes I have followed some of it. I am a bit wary as he seems to appear on many threads activly encouraging litigation where the OP wasnt even considering the fact before.

I always dislike the term its easy money just issue the claim and its £5000 in your pocket.

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

4Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date


7The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where—
(a)having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and
(b)if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject’s view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact.

This is from the act itself.

So between this and the ICO's view I can see lots of wriggle room.

CAG has its uses but for me it is far too encouraging of non legal people to take on a bank in a court room.

Too often you see someone being encouraged down the court route by internet warriors only for when the shit hits the fan then they are off encouraging someone else to make mistakes.

I have just watched someone with a large CC debt and a lender accepting installments and small PPi claim being advised to take the PPI to court cause FOS is slow.

Ok it is but now that poor guy has a counterclaim for the full amount to fight.

What have the internet warriors achieved. A probable CCJ when there wasnt one before.

And he had been abandoned on a subforum as soon as the claim came in.

Yes there is a lot of that unfortunately, I tend to take responsibility for my own actions and base them on my own judgment.

I haven't checked on CAG for a while, I had no idea that the idea had taken off to such an extent.

So what exactly is the cause of action for these claims, is it breach of DPA principles or is it just negligence.

If it is the later couldn't breach of the guidelines be used to support a claim ?

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

TBH I have seen a few being encouraged to take court action on this when they had no intention of doing so.

So as to why they are doing it I am unsure.

To fight a bank because they have taken you to court is one thing. To take a bank to court is a complete different animal.

But going back to where we started if the account PPI has yet to be paid back then how can the data controller be held liable for a wrongful default.

Its isnt wrongful until the redress happens and under I would think a few of those principles mentioned before.

And something that sprung to mind is that if the PPI claim is at FOS then why is it there?

Has it been upheld yet? If not then I would say its even stickier ground to be on.

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

TBH I have seen a few being encouraged to take court action on this when they had no intention of doing so.

So as to why they are doing it I am unsure.

To fight a bank because they have taken you to court is one thing. To take a bank to court is a complete different animal.

But going back to where we started if the account PPI has yet to be paid back then how can the data controller be held liable for a wrongful default.

Its isnt wrongful until the redress happens and under I would think a few of those principles mentioned before.

And something that sprung to mind is that if the PPI claim is at FOS then why is it there?

Has it been upheld yet? If not then I would say its even stickier ground to be on.

Well speaking for myself, I have a claim with the FOS against Virgin that was upheld last June, they were supposed to reply July and they haven't yet. The account was not defaulted, but it could have been.

The FOS just say that it is in the queue. I think if I would have had a default on my file i would be litigating.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with holding the banks to account for all consequences of a miss-sold ppi.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

As is always said each debt is different hence why the diaries are so important for the site team


I have a claim with the FOS against Virgin that was upheld last j
June, they were supposed to reply July and they haven't yet.

But I would think the problem is with FOS. Do you mean its been upheld and the redress not calculated?

So are we talking about what could happen if x y or z had occurred here?

I have found its always best to stick to what has happened cause tomorrow could be very different.

Finally the bit about Virgin not defaulting you. Earlier on I mentioned Halifax didnt default us when by rights they should have done. Maybe lenders are not all bad and in both instances they realised a PPI claim was probable.

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

As is always said each debt is different hence why the diaries are so important for the site team


I have a claim with the FOS against Virgin that was upheld last j
June, they were supposed to reply July and they haven't yet.

But I would think the problem is with FOS. Do you mean its been upheld and the redress not calculated?

So are we talking about what could happen if x y or z had occurred here?

I have found its always best to stick to what has happened cause tomorrow could be very different.

Finally the bit about Virgin not defaulting you. Earlier on I mentioned Halifax didnt default us when by rights they should have done. Maybe lenders are not all bad and in both instances they realised a PPI claim was probable.

I got the letter from the FOS saying that my claim had been upheld and that Virgin should contact either me or them within 14 days, they didn't, still haven't.

I wasn't defaulted because I wasn't in arrears.

I don't think it is a question of creditors being," that bad", any more than them applying default charges is, but i do think that what is sauce for the goose etc.

PPI redress is as you know retrospective, if they hadn't charged it some may not have had a "D" on there credit file with all that entails.

I think that they should be liable for any actual loss caused by the error up to the date of repayment.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Am a bit unsure what was the point of this thread was IF you dont have a default.

In therory they are supposed to put you back to where you would be if you didnt have a default.

So if you could prove losses then sure you could try a claim

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Academic from my point of view regarding PPI, however I am considering making a claim for incorrectly entering A default on a VT'd HP agreement.

I am just trying to get the legal side of things straight in my head before I commence.

[gravytrain]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

I rang the FOS bout the ongoing SAGA of my PPI reclaim. The latest "deadline for them to respond to the preliminary decision(which was in my favor)was October the 19th.

I received an email this morning saying that they had tried to contact MBNA and had not been able to get though, so they had e-mailed them and told them to respond by the 3rd of December. This will be the fourth deadline issued.

Bit of a joke really.

[ken100464]

Re: FAO Gravytrain

Totally sympathise with you on that.

Think its one thing you learn with FOS. It aint quick.

But perhaps FOS should have a sliding scale of charges then maybe they would start to see timewasting being a thing of the past. And perhaps then the blacklog would start to be dealt with.

Bit like the rugby 10m retire rule. If you dont do as the referee says you get an automatic penalty ontop of the penalty.

But of course thats way to simple.