Settled.... O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

For what it's worth Richard - I think what you did is pretty awesome. You stood up for the little guy. Admittedly it cost you dearly. But at least people like me now have something to help us fight with. Once people stop worrying about this and just go for these companies, the world will start to be a fairer and better place.

100% Agree

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Makes no differnce Rico.

The case was after the decision in the Scottish court which you are saying set the precedent.

To be clear. No one is saying that damage claims are not possible on a misplaced default marker, just that there must be an identification of some kind of damage, this does not have to be particularized necessarily but it mus exist and be identifiable.

There is no use just stating that there was an incorrect marker therefore I have sustained damage(you may not have), because the judge will just say, what damage.

That might be right in law. But they admit it will cause damage at the bottom of every ad on the tv, and in the newspaper. The whole point of a default is to cause damage! It's not there to help people - but to seriously impact their credit worthiness.

On a side note - I've been looking and I can't find the law which states they have to record information to CRA's? Surely an Oxford Educated, personal injury, bottom feeding lawyer wouldn't lie?

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

No such damage in law unfortunately,

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

One persons injury after loss of credibility may be completely different to anothers so how can an individual damage assessment/award be made ?

Specific damages that nobody has ever been awarded for a negligent misrepresentation in the form of a default. (I did try!)

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

law which states they have to record information to CRA's?

I don't think there is a law. That doesn't stop them though!

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

Specific damages that nobody has ever been awarded for a negligent misrepresentation in the form of a default. (I did try!)

Supreme court didn't express an opinion, nor could they in your case(see above.) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/13

see here 13Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.

(1)

An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.



To repeat and for the sake of the OP you must state what the losses yuo would have expected to make are, if not in specific terms then in general terms, this is not the same as making a claim for general losses due to injury of credit.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

I don't think there is a law. That doesn't stop them though!

I agree - it's for when I write a response to that smart arse barrister. I'm going to put him to strict proof as to what law he is talking about... And then I'll say I'm reporting him to the bar counsel for lying about the law. Anything to spoil the smug little gits day.

(I'm sure he's a nice bloke really - but he's decided to write a letter calling me a lier, and telling obvious porkies so I've decided to hate him).

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

recording data is an industry accepted code of practice(for information)

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Supreme court didn't express an opinion, nor could they in your case(see above.) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/13

see here 13Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.

(1)

An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.



To repeat and for the sake of the OP you must state what the losses yuo would have expected to make are, if not in specific terms then in general terms, this is not the same as making a claim for general losses.

I feel my weakness was using the DPA here. As Rico has advised that wan't the best move.

However I think I can apply to change that.

Also if loss must be proved, then Parking Eye's recent case is interesting. Completely different to this - but the judge said that even though no loss had occurred he was going to award for them anyway.

What I mean is that Small claims court is a gamble - I might win and I might lose. It will depend on the judge and whether the like me.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

recording data is an industry accepteded code of practice(for information)

"The Defendant is bound by law to record credit defaults to the Claimants credit file" - Gareth Shires.

What law? If not he is falsely representing the law. And I plan on reporting him to his professional body for such a gross liberty.

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

t I won't be awarded costs as it will be small claim, and I have followed the CPR's

You should get costs back. You do in Scotland's small claim system.

Cheers,

Rico.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

You should get costs back. You do in Scotland's small claim system.

Cheers,

Rico.

Only if I win. And only if the amount awarded is more than any offer to settle.

I've worked out the worst, and can live with it. So if I lose I can stomach the loss.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

"The Defendant is bound by law to record credit defaults to the Claimants credit file" - Gareth Shires.

What law? If not he is falsely representing the law. And I plan on reporting him to his professional body for such a gross liberty.

Hmm not so simple really. I Suppose more accurately he is bound to record accurate data by the data protection act 1998. Recording no data could lead the future (prospective ) creditors to believe that there wa no adverse history on the individual so be therefore inaccurate(unlawful).

[bluebottle]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

If a legal professional misleads a court in any way and, on balance of probability, it is more than a genuine mistake or incompetence, then the matter should be brought to the attention of the court and the legal professional's regulating body -

Bar Standards Board (BSB) - Barristers
Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CiLEX) - Legal Executives
Institute of Paralegals (IoP) - Paralegals
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) - Solicitors

Best to telephone in the first instance.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Hmm not so simple really. I Suppose more accurately he is bound to record accurate data by the data protection act 1998. Recording no data could lead the future (prospective ) creditors to believe that there wa no adverse history on the individual so be therefore inaccurate(unlawful).

I know what you are saying - however we all know that Gareth Shires is trying to imply there is a law that means that they must record defaults. There is not. He has written a letter full of legal mumbo jumbo to try and scare me off. I don't think it's acceptable to falsely represent the law to do that.

There is no legal obligation to record defaults with CRA's. The only law applies if the defaults are wrong, as in my case. His assertion that there is a law is a misrepresentation.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

If a legal professional misleads a court in any way and, on balance of probability, it is more than a genuine mistake or incompetence, then the matter should be brought to the attention of the court and the legal professional's regulating body -

Bar Standards Board (BSB) - Barristers
Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CiLEX) - Legal Executives
Institute of Paralegals (IoP) - Paralegals
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) - Solicitors

Best to telephone in the first instance.

Thanks.

I accept that it's probably incompetence. However he has sent a legal document which is factually incorrect. I believe that he has attempted to mislead a member of the public, and therefore has brought the bar council into disrepute.