EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Complaint

[R0b]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

The thread is a bit drawn out with questions and answers all over, I will try over the weekend to condense and summarise my thoughts for easy reading. I'll also provide links to sumaries of case law in relation to breach of the DPA so you have an idea of how things are calculated.

Although no win no fee agreements are common, damages based agreements are newer and rarer so you might need to do a bit of googling around for firms who do this type of agreement. On the other hand others may agree a fixed fee instead, I know @Diana M's firm does this and you may want to direct your inquiries there to see whether your case is something they are willing to take on at an agreeable rate.

[Patch007]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hi R0b,

Tuesday 10 October 2017.

Just checked Equifax - despite all E.ON's assurances that they had removed the Late Payment Markers and the Default - it was all lies. They never removed any of them.

I've just sent a copy of the credit report to E.ON - Director's Office.

Wait and see - what their response is now.

At least it's all in writing and they have accepted liability.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi R0b,

I agree with you that this "thread is a bit drawn out with questions and answers all over".

Apologies if my posts have been a bit long but the whole thing is a mess.

Feel free to condense or do whatever you want with it.

Once again many thanks.

[Patch007]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hi R0b,

If you get a chance during the next week - I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of Letter Before Action template that I could amend in my action against E.ON.

They didn't amend the Late Payment Markers and Default as they said they would - so the case is heading for the court.

They have admitted liability.

I would like to claim for:

* Mishandling my data information
* Damage to credit rating.
* Libel for stating that I missed 6 payments when I didn't.
* Messed up gas bills.
* Harrassment.
* Time wasted on trying to sort it out.
* Stress suffered.

The ball-park total claim for me and my wife would be £5,000 if they pay up within 14 days - £3,000.

Any help, as always will be gratefully appreciated.

Many thanks,

Patch007

[R0b]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hello,

I don't have a specific LBA for that but I did provide an example for one on another thread (see below). If you sue for libel then as far as I can recall they must be started in the High Court unless both parties agree that it should be started in the County Court. You could also seek harassment too as an alternative claim. I've also attached a case tracker for relevant and recent case law relating to privacy and data protection claims - they are all fact specific so you ca't simply apply one to your case, but you could use them as guidance as to whether some or all of those cases might be similar to your circumstances.







-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Vodafone account number: [Insert reference number]

I write with reference to the above matter.

This letter before action is sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (the ‘Practice Direction’) as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The purpose of this letter is to place Vodafone on notice that I consider it to be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 by inaccurately reporting a default to credit reference agencies in connection with a fraudulent account. I also believe Vodafone to be negligent by causing or permitting the default be reported to credit reference agencies without reasonable belief. [Furthermore, the way in which Vodafone have acted by instructing third party debt collectors on various occasions to recover the alleged debt also gives rise to an actionable claim for harassment.]

Background and nature of the claim
As you are aware, for over two years I have been grappling with Vodafone in respect of a fraudulent account that was set up in my name in or around [DATE] (the ‘Account’). The Account was set up without my authorisation and as a result of an alleged non-payment, Vodafone have [terminated the contract and] reported the Account to credit reference agencies as having defaulted. At no point prior to the existence of the Account being created have I been a customer of Vodafone. [On the contrary, I was, and still am, contracted to another mobile service provider.]

[Except for the defaulted Account, my credit file is in an excellent condition free from any adverse entries. Naturally, the default or other adverse information reported by Vodafone to the credit reference agencies has caused considerable distress and inconvenience the result of which, has prevented me from applying for a mortgage and/or other credit at a favourable interest rate.] Given the seriousness of my complaint, it is my contention that Vodafone is under a duty to investigate my complaint in order to reasonably satisfy itself that the Account was not fraudulent before reporting the default to credit reference agencies. By notifying the credit reference agencies of the default, Vodafone owes a duty of care to ensure that the information reported is accurate. To date, I have received no supporting evidence from Vodafone indicating that the Account is not in any way fraudulent. In the circumstances, by causing and/or permitting the default to be reported to credit reference agencies without conclusive proof that the default is accurate, Vodafone are in breach of its duty of care (see Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and another [2014] UKSC 21). This unlawfulness is further compounded by the fact that Vodafone have admitted in a letter dated [INSERT DATE], that the Account may be linked to a previous mobile phone scam back in 2014 (of which I am led to believe Vodafone were made aware by the Metropolitan Police Mobile Crime Unit in 2014) yet it insists that the I remain liable for the Account.

Enclosed Documents
Although Vodafone are already in possession of the relevant evidence which I intend to rely on in support of my claim, I have nonetheless enclosed the following key documents for your perusal:

· Document 1
· Document 2
· Document 3
· Document 4

Action required
In the spirit of reaching an amicable agreement and to obviate the need to commence legal proceedings, I propose that Vodafone, in full and final settlement:

· immediately notify all credit reference agencies to remove all adverse entries in connection with the Vodafone account reference [number]. For the avoidance of doubt, the Account shall be permanently removed so that it no longer exists on any file of information credit reference agencies may hold about me;

· [pay [£amount] by way of compensation which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the length of time and resource I have spent in relation to this ongoing dispute] OR [pay [£amount] which is calculated at a rate of [£5.00] per day up to and including the date of this letter, which I consider to be a reasonable sum in respect of Vodafone’s statutory breaches and/or negligence.];

· [provide an assurance that Vodafone (including any third parties acting on its behalf), shall not attempt to recover or otherwise pursue any monies in connection with the Account.]

The above offer shall remain open for acceptance until 4:00pm on [14 days] at which point the offer shall be revoked. If you do not accept this offer or deny the allegations set out herein, please provide a detailed response by the above mentioned date. If I do not hear back from you either way, I shall have no other choice but to commence legal proceedings and without further notice to Vodafone. If that is the case, Vodafone’s liability will likely further increase as I will be seeking additional costs incidental to the application including interest at a rate the Court sees fit.

I look forward to hearing from you by [DATE].

Yours faithfully,


[Your Name]

Enc.

[List the documents you enclose]

[Patch007]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hi R0b,

Many, many, many thanks for all your help and suggestions. This thing is driving me crazy and it's only you and the fellow posters on this site that are keeping me going.

This is where things are at - as at Wednesday 18th October 2017 - 09:56 AM

E.ON claim that they have removed the late payment markers (or shares as they call them) and the default.

Equifax hasn't updated my file and hasn't responded to my messages.

I wrote to e.ON last week and I got the following email (see blue ink below with my notes in red ink) yesterday. I slept on it overnight before checking with Equifax this morning only to discover that they hadn't updated my account.

E.ON seems to be palming me off to Equifax and saying that I should pursue them. It should be remembered that ALL of this has been of Equifax's creation.

What are your thoughts on what I should do from here?

This is E.ON's email.

Dear XXX XXXXXXX

Thank you for your email.

If an account is in dispute then we share a ‘U’ with Equifax to show this. This is done regardless of whether an account is up to date or not.

We sent an update to Equifax on 5 September 2017 to change the 6’s shared for April, May and June to U’s and we then sent a further update on 2 October 2017 to remove the Default.

If you’ve requested a new credit report after our last update and there are still some inaccuracies then I’m really sorry but you will need to contact Equifax regarding this(E.ON seem to be suggesting that it's no longer their problem but my problem with Equifax)

The account numbers shown on your Equifax file are references numbers for Equifax (this is a load of BS - E.ON filed the markers and default which gave the impression that I had done a runner - when in fact I was in contact with them to get them to amend their incorrect gas bills) and are not your E.ON account numbers.

We obtained your date of birth via a third party organisation (who gave them this information - E.ON won't say? Again this gives the impression that I had done a runner) on 24 May 2017. If it’s not correct please can you let me have your correct date of birth and I’ll ensure our records are updated.

I confirm the only Credit Reference Agency we use is Equifax and as the account is solely in your name we’ve never affected your wife’s credit file. We’ve also never carried out a credit check on you or your wife.

Kind regards

XXXXXXX XXXX
Directors' Office
Customer Complaints Resolution
Residential Transformation and Business Support

[R0b]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

You really need to decide what steps you take, the more correspondence you send, the more Equifax may see this as bluff and nothing more.

Credit reference agencies are data controllers in their own right but this is usually in respect of information they have gathered such as electoral roll, CCJs etc. where that information is freely available. At the same time, they can be data processors where they receive information from companies in respect of certain contracts for supply of services that you enter into. My view is that EON are the data controller in this respect as they have fed the information to Equifax and in turn they have recorded it on your file. The DPA does hold data processors accountable for any breach so on the face of it, it is up to EON to ensure the inaccurate is removed, being the data controller, irrespective of whether they think they are liable or not.

However, if you are going to bring a claim, then you might want to consider adding Equifax as a second defendant. EON might argue that they have discharged their duties by notifying Equifax and they have chosen to ignore it, which means they are dealing with your data not consistent with EONs instructions. Thus, Equifax would be a data controller in that respect. You would effectively argue that EON is liable for reporting the inaccurate data in the first place or in the alternative, Equifax is liable for failing to remove it. There could be joint liability though if successful, a judge might apportion the liability like 1/3 EON and 2/3 Equifax as an example.

If it were me, I would also be asking for evidence from EON which proves they have notified Equifax to remove the information.

The email suggests that they have not affected your wife's credit file, have you checked that and is it correct? If so, then she would not have any reason for a claim.

So to summarise, to increase your chances of a successful claim, both EON and Equifax could be a party to the claim but a letter before action will need to be sent to them both, each tailored individually based on the facts and information you have to date.

[Patch007]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hi R0b and everyone,

The situation is as follows:

E.ON still haven't fully removed all their adverse information from my file as at 11 AM - 23 October 2017.

E.ON have tried to wash their hands of the matter and try to make out that the mess is now for Equifax to sort out.

E.ON said I should contact Equifax - which I did:

I sent Equifax a list of 33 questions regarding Equifax's handling of the information on my file.

They replied by telling me that they had sent my email with the 33 questions to an 'UNNAMED PARTY'.

I followed this with another request that they reply to the 33 questions and for them to name and identify the 'UNNAMED PARTY'

They replied by sending me an updated credit report which was still incorrect.

I followed this up with another request that they reply to the 33 questions and for them to name and identify the 'UNNAMED PARTY'

They didn't reply BUT the updated credit report disappeared from my list of credit reports.

If E.ON and Equifax haven't sorted this out by 5 PM Friday 27 October 2017 - then on Monday 30 October 2017 I will be issuing Letters Before Action to both of them.

[Patch007]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Hi R0b,

Still no word back from Equifax to the questions I sent them on the 18th October 2017.

The attachment from my Equifax file (with all private data redacted) shows that they haven't replied except for to advise me that they sent my questions (which were specifically worded for Equifax to address) to a 3rd party.

I'm fed up with it.

I think the best way forward is to issue Letters Before Action to both E.ON and Equifax on Monday 6th November 2017.

Any further thoughts?


Many thanks,


Patch007

[R0b]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Personally, I wouldn't engage in any more ping pong correspondence but that's entirely up to you.

You can either carry on sending emails/leeters/messages or you can simply send a letter before action.

[Rico]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Take the Supreme Court case Durkin v DSG Retail, Mr Durkin spent around 14 or 15 years trying to sort his problem out, although he was claiming a lot higher damages than you, the Supreme Court ended up awarding him £8,000 as a total sum for those damages to his credit rating. Put your claim into perspective and for just over 4 months that the default has been reported, you want to claim over half of what the SC awarded in Durkin.

The £8K was based on folk that had only been stuffed for a day or two. It was far too low given that I have now been stuffed for almost 2 decades, heading for a lifetime. There was a huge injustice in the Durkin case. I hadn't realised the judges and the government were in on it.

Essentially the £8K (may as well call it £10K) should be available to everyone that has been stuffed, regardless of time.

My lawyers didn't ask for more in general damages because there was a large and obvious specific loss (dishonestly rejected by appeal judges). Otherwise, they ought to have done.

Cheers,

Rico

[R0b]

Re: EON Would Remove Late Payment Markers & Default - If We Stopped Ombudsman Compla

Are you suggesting that the £8,000 claim was based on someone who received a default for a day or two? If so, can you point to this anywhere in the SC decision or the lower decisions? As far as I understand it from the SC judgment and other information, your default was reported about 1999 and by 2005-6ish the default still remained on your credit file. I can't see any reference as to the reasoning behind the £8,000 claim except for your lawyers maybe taking a pragmatic view based on negligence and the length of time it was reported. I am not aware when the default was actually removed but the Court of Appeal has already suggested that only a modest sum ought to be given for inaccurate credit reporting albeit this was under the DPA rather than negligence.

You are welcome to your own thoughts on the case but I doubt think the judges and the government were both in on it. Yes it was a disappointing decision but wouldn't go as far as saying that. Perhaps your lawyers shouldn't have relied simply on the dishonesty aspect and ought to have maximised the claim for damages as much as possible.