Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Rob,

Thanks for getting back to me. My Particulars are:

Vodafone Limited have incorrectly applied a Default to my Credit Score in relation to a fraudulent account. This was reported to them in July 2015, along with the Police (who provided a Crime Reference Number) and my bank who recovered all monies paid to Vodafone. I have since sent Vodafone a Letter Before Action asking them to have the Default removed from my Credit Score and pay £4170 byway of compensation, calculated at a rate of£5.00 per day up to and including the date of the letter, which I consider to be a reasonable sum that reflects the effects of the damage to my credit score and the length of time and resource I have spent in relation I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 13/10/2017 to 06/11/2017 on£4,170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.91.

As for the detailed particulars, I sent what was in the claim form only. I do not remember ticking a box on the MCOL site that says I'll provide further details of the claim and have checked on the form and can't see it. Hope I haven't screwed this up :-(

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

I have also received the Defence now, along with a counter claim for the monies Vodafone believe I owe:

The Defence

8. It is denied that the Claimant has any basis for a claim against the Defendant.

9. This account, as detailed above is known to the Defendant as part of a number of accounts that are known to be in connection with a bigger fraud ring against the Defendant. From the information the Defendant has, this fraud ring has been investigated by the Police and prosecutions have taken place and individuals sentenced.

10. It is denied in full that the Claimant did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into this contract. From the information available to the Defendant, the process of this organised fraud was initiated by the fraudsters whom themselves contacted individuals, mainly students and provided information on how they could make money. This fraudulent process worked by individuals taking out mobile phone contracts with a device such as a mobile phone and when the device arrived, the individual was informed to cancel the contract and direct debit. The individual was provided with a cash incentive and informed that any money was taken from their bank account would be reimbursed by another company connected to them. The device would then be kept instead of being returned.

11. If a device was not provided with the initial contract and a SIM only contract entered into, the SIM would be placed into a gateway which allowed hundreds of SMS text messages to be sent.

12. The individuals were given a comprehensive form to complete which included details needed to set up a mobile phone contract. A copy of this form is attached at Appendix 3 and contains the information which would have been provided to the individuals such as the Claimant.

13. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant maintains that the contract taken out on ****** 2014 was entered into by the Claimant through this third party company. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant was aware that she was entering into a contract with the Defendant and whether she believed it to be legal or illegal at the time, she agreed to the terms and is therefore liable for all charges for the entire contract period. To the Defendant's knowledge, this information was provided willingly by the individuals involved and including the Claimant, therefore there was intention on behalf of the claimant to enter into this contract.

14. This particular contract was a SIM only deal therefore the Defendant believed that the SIM card provided was inserted into a gateway which allowed hundreds of 945 text messages to be sent per month. Please see the **** 2014 invoice which shows an example of this attached at Appendix 4. The mobile numbers have been concealed. This pattern of SMS text messages sent is not common for individual consumer use.

15. Upon receiving the claim form and review of this account, the Defendant has conducted some investigations. They contacted the Claimant's bank by telephone as this is shared information and requested details of certain payments made to the Claimant. The bank are permitted to provide a yes or no response only. The Defendant asked if the Claimant had received payments into her account which matched the same value payments made to Vodafone and were made in or around the same time as the direct debit payment was due. The bank confirmed 'yes' in reply. The Claimant had been reimbursed for the first three monthly direct debits made.

16. The Defendant note that the Claimant has further received a refund of £*** from her bank.

17. The Defendant maintain this Claimant is a willing party to this contract and is therefore bound by the terms and conditions. The Defendant admits registering late payments from **** 2015 to **** 2016 and a default payment on the Claimant's credit file in **** 2016 in accordance with clause 14.a.of the terms and conditions. This provision states that the Defendant will release, to credit-reference agencies and fraud-prevention agencies, details of the Claimant's agreement with them including any change of address, payments the Claimant makes, account balances, missed payments, disputes and queries. Furthermore, if the Claimant does not pay in full and on time, the Defendant may inform credit-reference agencies who will record the debt.

18. Should the Claimant make a payment of the amount outstanding the credit file will be updated. The Defendant is obliged to keep accurate and up to date records. Moreover, they are required to do so by the Information Commissioner in order to utilise the credit reference agency databases. The Defendant asserts that the adverse information was recorded correctly and will remain on the Claimant's credit file for a Period of 6 years. The adverse entries will be marked as satisfied once the outstanding balance hat been paid. The Defendant is obliged to record the Claimant's payment history accurately.

19 The Defendant denies that it is liable to compensate the Claimant In respect of stress or inconvenience or any alleged stress Or inconvenience. The Defendant has conducted itself and acted wholly in accordance with the contract between the parties. Moreover, the Defendant is not liable for any loss that is not directly caused by it pursuant to clause 12 (a) of the contract. Nevertheless, damages for time spent is not an actionable remedy known to law.

20. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant whether as pleaded or at all.

21. Save as aforesaid, each item of the claim is denied.


I have highlighted the sections that I disagree with:

The individual was provided with a cash incentive and informed that any money was taken from their bank account would be reimbursed by another company connected to them. The device would then be kept instead of being returned - This was not the case.

To the Defendant's knowledge, this information was provided willingly by the individuals involved and including the Claimant, therefore there was intention on behalf of the claimant to enter into this contract - The information was not provided willingly for the sake of entering into a mobile phone contract.

This particular contract was a SIM only deal - This was not what Vodafone have previously led me to believe. All previous communications have stated that this was for an Iphone, including all the previous fraud investigations carried out by Vodafone.

The bank confirmed 'yes' in reply. The Claimant had been reimbursed for the first three monthly direct debits made - I am wholly unaware of this. I will be checking with my Bank today to see if this is correct. That may explain why this wasn't picked up straight away but also makes me feel sick to my stomach!

I'm really upset about this again, just as I thought I was making progress it has all come crashing down again :-(

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

My initial view (as the defence points out) is that you've issued a claim for stress and inconvenience and time spent. Damages for stress and inconvenience alone, is not a remedy and as Vodafone also say, neither is time spent. Your particulars of claim make no reference to any breach of DPA or negligence and because you didn't plead those in the claim form, it is highly likely that you won't be able to argue that in court unless you amend your claim.

That aside, there is clearly some conflicting information between what you say and what Vodafone says. You say there was no cash incentive, but how did they get your bank details in the first place?

The case is obviously going to rest on what exactly happened that day and what was said. There's a difference between giving your information for charitable purposes and handing over your details for someone specifically setting up a mobile phone account. So what I can gather from Vodafone's defence, they are saying you were fully aware that you would be providing your details to set up a mobile phone account in return for some kind of cash incentive - you are going to need to explain why this wasn't the case.

Essentially, if you had knowledge that a mobile phone account would be set up in your name (for whatever reason) then it can't be a fraudulent account because you knew about it. IF, however, your details were given for some other reason than a mobile account being set up, then that would count as a fraudulent account.

[AbbieA]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

Hi Rob, thanks for the quick reply. Do you know how exactly I can go about amending my claim? I can't see an option to do that on MCOL?

[R0b]

Re: Taking Court Action Against Vodafone - Remove Default Notice

It would cost you £255 and you would need to submit an application to the Court but I certainly would not throw any further money into the ring until you've fully considered their defence and whether you have a reasonable prospect of success.

You need to analyse Vodafone's defence and consider whether anything they have said is true, particularly where they are claiming that you were aware that a mobile account would be set up. If this is true and you knew then I think your claim is going to fall flat on the argument of the account being set up fraudulently. Irrespective of what handset/sim only deal was taken out or any incentive, you would have had the knowledge.

At this stage you may wish to consider withdrawing the claim and settling up if the above is true. We have limited information about your situation so I would suggest you take a step back and look at everything before deciding what you want to do.