Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

[slainte caragh]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

again please don't shoot the messenger here, I am playing devils advocate.

I can appreciate that they have fouled up to the worst degree but to make sure all the ts and crossed and the Is dotted, I suggest tagging @Diana M and asking her, if there is a legal case of fraud going on, could the OP end up liable for any costs of taking action should the courts decide they have to wait for the fraud case to end?

I am not saying they will say so, just think this should be addressed. The last thing I want for you is to take Vodafone to court and be told "no, this will jepordise the fraud case, throw it out!"

Why have someone who works for a law firm and not pick her brains eh?

[MIKE770]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

seperate each para if I received that I treat it as mumbo jumbo

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Yes that's a massive help, thanks!

I believe there are plenty of aggravating factors in this case that would increase the amount claimed. Do you have any details around the case where the guy was awarded £750? I assume he had to justify this amount and give a cost breakdown, or was this just a sum for 'compensation' without going into detail about actual losses, stress caused etc? I think I should include this in my final letter, bearing in mind I have already sent two letters before action that have been ignored. This was the first one (with the second being very similar):


****************
14^th of February 2017
Customer Relations Manager
Vodafone Limited
The Connection
Newbury
Berkshire
RG14 2FN
Reference: **************** Fraudulent Vodafone Account

Dear Sir/Madam,

As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Please accept this as a formal letter of claim in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

Claimant
*******************

Defendant
Vodafone Limited
The Connection
Newbury
Berkshire
RG14 2F

Summary of Facts

On 07/05/2014 a Vodafone mobile phone contract was created using my personal details obtained through identity theft. This was reported to the police on the 8th July 2015 (who provided the crime reference number NFRC150601097082), my bank and Vodafone. My bank, having conducted an investigation, determined that the signature used to set up the Direct Debit Instruction was fraudulent. As a result of this, the bank recovered all monies paid to Vodafone.

Since then, Vodafone have not accepted that this account was created fraudulently and have continued to send correspondence to an unknown to me address provided by the fraudsters when they created the account. Vodafone have also applied default notices to my credit record and have refused to remove them (see Siebel Account Notes pg. 9) I have made repeated requests (see Crystal Account notes) asking Vodafone to supply me with details of any fraud investigation conducted, the identification documents and proof of address given when the account was opened and all other information pertinent to the fraud investigation and I have numerous email responses (see Crystal Account notes) where Vodafone have refused to supply me with these.

In October 2016 I sent a letter advising Vodafone that I plan on pursuing them through the Consumer Ombudsman and will take legal action if necessary if they refuse to remove the default notices from my credit file. Vodafone confirmed receipt of the letter but refused to remove the default notices or provide me with the information I previously requested. In December, I made a request for information under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and obtained documents relating to the account. This was supplied on the 23rd of January and showed that Vodafone had been told by my bank that the Direct Debit Instruction contained a fraudulent signature (see Crystal Account Notes pg. 13). It also has all my correspondence and repeated requests for further information. It specifically does not include details of the fraud investigation or the identification documents and proof of address used to open the account.

Basis of Claim

Based on the evidence provided by Metropolitan Police Mobile Phone Crime, ActionFraud and Natwest bank, and the lack of evidence provided by Vodafone despite persistent requests, I assert that Vodafone have been negligent in allowing this contract to be opened with insufficient documentation and have incorrectly applied a debt and default notices to my name/credit score.
I further assert that the fraud investigation carried out by Vodafone has been insufficient. On pg. 14 of the Siebel Account Notes it is stated that ‘the usage on this account is also normal, normal calls to UK landlines and mobiles, no fraudulent usage’ yet on pg. 17 and pg. 19 of the Crystal Account Notes it shows that this account was referred to the Fraud/Credit & Collections team in June and July of 2014 due to high usage in ‘more than £100 in 1 day’ in Spain and Portugal on separate occasions. I intend to base my claim on the following documents:

Vodafone 689728830 Crystal Account Notes
Vodafone 689728830 Siebel Account Notes
Letter dated 30/10/16 Reference: ***************

Amount of Claim

I am not liable for the outstanding debts of £883.38 on the account and the defaults on my credit file should be removed immediately. In accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct I request that Vodafone supply myself with:

Copies of the ID and supporting documents (both proof of signature and proof of address) used to open this account
The fraud investigation carried out by Vodafone, as referenced in both the Crystal Account Notes and Siebel Account Notes provided by Vodafone, in its entirety.
I will also be claiming for the £10 charged by Vodafone to access my information obtained under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and any and all costs associated with taking this matter to court.


Next Steps


You are expected to acknowledge this Letter of Claim within 14 days of the date of this letter and either remove the debt and default notices from my file in full and provide me with the documentation requested above or provide a detailed letter of response within 28 days.

Your attention is drawn to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and in particular the Court’s power to impose sanctions if you fail to comply with the same. If you ignore this letter or fail to provide a detailed letter of response within 28 days, Court proceedings will be issued against you and this letter will be brought to the attention of the Courts in their dealing with costs. Your non-compliance with the Rules may increase your liability for costs.


Alternative Dispute Resolution


I am prepared to consider mediation and other forms of dispute resolution procedures prior to issuing Court proceedings. If you are a member of a trade association that offers this service or you wish to nominate a mediator, please forward me the details for my consideration. Please note, these details need to be supplied within the 28 day deadline.

Yours faithfully


***********************


My final letter has been drafted in this format, though I plan to better quantify my claim in the 'Amount of Claim' section and to fill in more details in the 'Summary of Facts'. And will obviously revise based on any advice I receive on here. Thanks again!

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

They've confirmed that this information is accurate, so I'm afraid I can't make any changes to it.

Total contradiction to what the ICO is suggesting in their email to you above where Vodafone are aware the information may be inaccurate, so it's not 100% certain it is accurate.

Well I think you need to take one step at a time and the first port of call is a proper letter before action. Yes you do need to quantify any damages you are seeking but that is difficult because each case for damages will vary depending on the specific facts of the case. For example there is one case where the creditor applied a default but was immediately removed after a month or so and he was awarded £750. Yours has been on for some time now and I would say it is within the realms of possibility to try and obtain up to £1,500 or even more based on Vodafone's conduct and conflicting information but also overlooking clear evidence from your bank, all of which could be aggravating factors. Any damages you seek will of course increase the amount you have to pay for the application. So if you want a modest sum then you could opt for £750 and you would pay £60 to issue the claim and £80 to proceed to the hearing if it gets to that stage. Or even £500 which would cost £35 to issue the claim and £55 for the hearing fee.

All of the above would be a reasonable sum of money that you could expect to get from Vodafone if you are successful. You could even suggest in your letter of claim that you are prepared to accept X if they accept within 14 days but if you are forced to issue a claim then you will pursue the full amount of damages that you are seeking.

Does that help?

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I can see the ICO's point of view but I also disagree with it. Indeed the own ICO's guidance suggest that at least the default should be marked as 'in dispute' or something to that effect rather than as reporting you to have defaulted which gives the wrong impression, thus the information is not accurate.

To my mind, an investigation into fraud is a pre-requisite to criminal charges being brought against the suspected individuals who are alleged to have committed the fraud. Secondly, even if those persons charged are cleared of fraud, is not conclusive evidence that the account was set up by you - this all leads back to the fact that the bank has recognised that the signature on the DD mandate was concluded as being fraudulent, and it seems Vodafone have looked over that key and important piece of evidence.

It seems the ICO hasn't really grasped the issue here and as above, if the individuals have been arrested and are in custody pending a court appearance, the an an investigation must have concluded since there was sufficient evidence to bring such charges. Maybe I've missed something?! The other key issue to note in the letter is that the ICO also seems to understand that the information held on your account may be inaccurate, and the specific reference to the court case suggests that there is a real possibility the account and information is fraudulent.

Anyhow, their hands may be tied but the Courts are not, and you are back to where you were before Abbie. You either wait until the trial has concluded or, you take the risk and press ahead.

I've replied to the ICO with the points you make, as kind of a final plea and to ask them to explain their reasons to me if they disagree with those points. Thought I should also include this on the thread, response from Experian after having spoken to Vodafone when I lodged a dispute with the credit agency:

I did that, here is the response from Experian:

Thank you for your contact received on 04 January 2017

I'm writing in relation to your recent query with:

*Vodafone (Account Started 07/05/2014)

They've confirmed that this information is accurate, so I'm afraid I can't make any changes to it.

They have further stated that :

"The current overdue balance on the account £883.38 therefore the credit file is correctly recorded.The customer will need to contact Vodafone Customer Services on 03333040191 to arrange payment and discuss this further."

I understand that this may not be the outcome you were hoping for. If you'd like to discuss their decision, you should contact them directly. Their contact details are:

Vodafone Shelton Boulevard (off Forge Lane), Festival Park, Etruria, Stoke on Trent, ST1 5GP

Don't worry, if they send us any further instructions regarding this matter, we will do as they ask.

As this data was previously suppressed from your report it will be re-added now that we have received a response to the query that we raised on your behalf.

Our standard dispute statement will be removed from this information shortly. If you'd still like there to be a dispute statement on this information, I can add the following:

"The consumer has disputed the accuracy of this entry. Given that this data is disputed, please take care if making an assessment of any kind that may include this data."

Please let me know if you'd like this statement to be added to your report, where it will stay until you ask us to remove it.

Alternatively, you can add your own statement to this information. We call this a 'Notice of Correction'. If you'd prefer to add one of these, please let us know, in writing, the exact wording that you'd like to use. Please note that we can't add a statement that is longer than 200 words or one we think is defamatory, frivolous, scandalous or unsuitable for publication for some other reason.

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

I asked them to add the statement to say I dispute this, but the default still remains. Is there a thread on here for how to go about starting a civil case against them? I know I need to send the final letter and will be doing that this week, but I also need to quantify my claim and initiate the proceedings, two things I need advice on really.

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I can see the ICO's point of view but I also disagree with it. Indeed the own ICO's guidance suggest that at least the default should be marked as 'in dispute' or something to that effect rather than as reporting you to have defaulted which gives the wrong impression, thus the information is not accurate.

To my mind, an investigation into fraud is a pre-requisite to criminal charges being brought against the suspected individuals who are alleged to have committed the fraud. Secondly, even if those persons charged are cleared of fraud, is not conclusive evidence that the account was set up by you - this all leads back to the fact that the bank has recognised that the signature on the DD mandate was concluded as being fraudulent, and it seems Vodafone have looked over that key and important piece of evidence.

It seems the ICO hasn't really grasped the issue here and as above, if the individuals have been arrested and are in custody pending a court appearance, the an an investigation must have concluded since there was sufficient evidence to bring such charges. Maybe I've missed something?! The other key issue to note in the letter is that the ICO also seems to understand that the information held on your account may be inaccurate, and the specific reference to the court case suggests that there is a real possibility the account and information is fraudulent.

Anyhow, their hands may be tied but the Courts are not, and you are back to where you were before Abbie. You either wait until the trial has concluded or, you take the risk and press ahead.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Guys,

I have received a response from the ICO:

Thank you for your further correspondence dated 21 September 2017 regarding your concerns about Vodafone.

We note you would like us to consider whether or not Vodafone are in breach of Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act (DPA). This is because you feel you have gathered enough evidence to show that the default should not have been applied to your credit file.

Although we appreciate your concerns, it is our understanding that Vodafone are aware that the information they are holding on your account may be inaccurate as they are currently carrying out a fraud investigation.

In the event that an organisation is aware that they may be holding inaccurate information due to possible fraud and they are currently carrying out an investigation into this, then this is not an issue that the ICO or the DPA can address.

The ICO does not investigate matters relating to fraud or fraud disputes as this is not within our remit.

However, once a fraud investigation has been concluded and in the event that fraud is confirmed, the organisation, in this case Vodafone, should amend / correct your account accordingly.

An organisation is not obliged to amend / correct your account until a fraud investigation has been concluded.

In this case we are aware that Vodafone has previously informed you that a number of individuals have been arrested and were pending court appearance at Southwark Crown Court in September. Vodafone have also explained that your account will therefore be left cancelled and collectable until the case concludes at court.

If you require further information as to when the court case will be concluded we suggest you contact Vodafone directly.

We are sorry we are unable to assist further however hope this information is useful to you.

So looks like that's a dead end! Only one thing left to do now.

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I don't know about the whys and wherefores of the case, but if Abbie goes to court to ask to remove the default, and her account is subject to the criminal investigation it could just be put on hold pending the outcome of that which ties up the court fees ( which would be for specific performance I believe? so £308 ) for goodness knows how long.

My post at #80 explains the criteria for staying proceedings pending criminal investigation. Though I don't think Abbie would need to pay the fee for specific performance, simply because if the claim was successful then it would naturally flow that the default ought to be removed, and she could ask the court to declare that Vodafone were in breach of principle 4, and as such, the order to remove the adverse entries would be necessary. If the court didn't make such an order and Vodafone refused to remove the adverse entries, then it goes back round in a circle in that they're in further breach which would more than likely attract a claim for aggravated damages. Equally, any damages obtained from Vodafone could then be used to bring a claim for further damages and/or specific performance if in breach.

So a money claim online wold more than likely bring Vodafone to the table for settlement, i'd be surprised if they defended it right through to trial, but you never know.

[warwick65]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Sorry I was just worried about discussing an ongoing case and I do see your point. It could easily just be suspended until it was all done which could be - well it seems like it's been ongoing for at least 3 years

[Amethyst]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I don't know about the whys and wherefores of the case, but if Abbie goes to court to ask to remove the default, and her account is subject to the criminal investigation it could just be put on hold pending the outcome of that which ties up the court fees ( which would be for specific performance I believe? so £308 ) for goodness knows how long.

[warwick65]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Is it right to be discussing what may be a huge investigation.
Google only seems to report posts from 2or 3years ago and the link to the met is 404. It also seems several companies(according to Twitter), are not being entirely helpful which suggests something bigger.

[Amethyst]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Abbie, sorry to go back over this, what were the circumstances of the fraud on this account - as if it is involved with this Operation Rosewood it may be you are alleged to have been involved ( although you'd know about that tbf) - as Rosewood is looking at people who paid students to open mobile accounts in their own names, then ran up huge bills on the students account ( as opposed to someone fraudulently opening an account in your name ( which is what I think your case actually is ?) ) ( ie. it could be held up and included in this criminal case entirely wrongly )

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your advice. I will be pressing ahead with and bringing a court case against them and will be seeking damages. I will draft my final letter this week and post it on here before sending. Any help appreciated.

[slainte caragh]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Yeh as I said I don't know why agents are told this, just that we were.

This is to the best of my knowledge when it comes to data sharing, it is again something we were advised as agents so please don't shoot the messenger, when it comes to adding and removing defaults etc etc, the more times a company enters a credit file the worse it looks. For example if you asked for a certain CCA regulated phone contract and the system went down after the credit check we were told to wait at least 48 hours because the fact there had been 2 credit checks in a day would lead the company to believe there had been bad credit or the person was in financial difficulties. Same thing goes with companies changing information, just looking in to a credit rating leaves a footprint,

If a company remove a default and then replace it, it looks worse than if they wait to find out all the info and then backdate it. Now, whether this was the company covering it's own back I have no idea, I just processed the orders and only got involved in CRA disputes as escalations. The above is when I was told by someone in high level complaints when I asked.

With regards to the DPA this is where I think they have dropped one... big style. I am hoping Lee's delay is due to an investigation in to this.


there is a mistake, it needs rectifying.. I am wondering if Vodafone are playing the fraud card to their advantage or trying to?

I agree that Vodaphone need a kick in the pants to get in to gear -- sorry Lee ya know I think the world of you. The majority of Vodafone customers that came to us (yes Lee and I were rivals in work at one stage) were due to bad service/mistakes.

I would suggest waiting for Lee to come back to the OP with his findings, I know him well enough to know he is formulating some kinda plan in that head of his... Sadly he is tied to what he can do so please be kind if he can't do what you want!!

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Lee can't say but as I no longer work in this environment I can. It's ok Lee, mines a coffee, white 1 sugar ta very muchly.

If a case has been sent to the Fraud Squad, a mobile provider can be asked to hold fire on changing anything to do with said accounts until the end of the case. I freely admit I have no idea why but have heard of it before. Wether this is to show the affect this has had on individuals etc I have no clue, mine was not to reason why mine was just to pass the message on without giving too much away.

If this is the case than Lee's hands are well and truly tied. He is not being cloak and dagger to be awkward, this is his job and he has to adhere to strict guidelines and policies... especially where fraud is concerned.

I know that right now he is possibly banging his head against his desk in frustration at not being able to do more! I know I was wherever this situation came up..


As I said Lee, we good

I know Lee cannot say what he does or doesn't know, I also have a pretty good idea of how the fraud department works having worked for a period in there some years ago for a mobile provider. Abbie has a right under the DPA to ensure that her data is reported accurately and kept up to date, but if Vodafone's internal policy is to maintain the default on a person's credit file then that is their own prerogative but that does not prevent the individual from bringing a claim. In my view, an individual's right to pursue a claim to rectify their credit file and seek damages greatly outweighs the stay of proceedings of a criminal trial.

There is nothing stopping Vodafone from removing the default and whilst the issues are ongoing and then re-applying it at a later date if there is a change of circumstances or new evidence comes to light. Sometimes it takes people to issue a claim before companies such as Vodafone decide to get themselves into gear.

I am not in any way asking Lee to disclose what he knows, and I am sure he would have been told in no uncertain terms that he cannot disclose any information by higher authority whilst things are ongoing. But this is an issue of whether there is a breach of the DPA and whether Vodafone were right to continue reporting a default despite the evidence gather from Abbie to date - that should not impact or seriously prejudice the criminal trial.