"6" and "D" markers - wrong dates

[ncf355]

Hi all,

so, I have commenced court action under DPA 1998 (data to be accurate) against a financial oranisation that has placed 3 years worth of "5" and "6" markers followed by a "D" dated 3 years ago

I am fighting this, stating that the "D" should have been placed a month after the first "6"

Does anyone know of cases that may support this?

I feel I have a pretty strong argument in the innacuracy of the data being contrary to the DPA 1998, but would like to put "meat on the bones"?

Thanks

[gaz2006]

Re: "6" and "D" markers - wrong dates

i really think your clutching at straws with that even if they change it one month if its correct still wont alter the fact your 6 months in arrears and the default is there . I do
not think your case has any merit sorry regards Gary

[Nibbler]

Re: "6" and "D" markers - wrong dates

Read: http://www.ico.gov.uk/%7E/media/docu..._V3%20DOC.ashx

Several parts of that may help, such as:

A record showing a series of payments as six months in arrears when this does not reflect the real payment history should not be used as an equivalent of a default.

Did you exhaust complaint procedures and refer to the FOS and ICO before you launched court action? Did you take advice on this 'legal' route?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: "6" and "D" markers - wrong dates

I would suggest having a word with Celestine about this, she's got some experience with wrongful default cases. :thumb:

[ncf355]

Re: "6" and "D" markers - wrong dates

i really think your clutching at straws with that even if they change it one month if its correct still wont alter the fact your 6 months in arrears and the default is there . I do
not think your case has any merit sorry regards Gary

Hi Gaz,

dont quite see your logic there?

Nothing has been paid since January 2007

Therefore, placing a "6" marker past July 2007 is factually inaccurate

In addition, the ICO guidance on default states if a default marker is to be placed it should be placed within 3-6 months of the breakdown in relationship (non payment being one of the examples of this)

Whilst I appreciate the word "guidance" is a key factor here, ther ICO remains the foremost authority on the implementation of the DPA and I would therefore expect their statements to carry weight in court

The key factor here is "accuracy" (as per DPA 1998, Schedule 1, Part 1, 4.) and there is no way a lender can claim their records are "accurate" when they are reporting an account that has received no payments in 3 years (as at 2010) with a "6"

Were this not the case, what's to stop them placing that default in July 2013 and keeping negative data live for the account for a total of 12 years instead of 6? or any time for that matter?

The lenders have claimed many times to members of this site (and those "across the road") that 6 years is the "reasonable" time limit for defaults etc, yet now one of them doesn't seem happy with even that

It's made somewhat worse by 2 other key things:

1) Another account that defaulted at the same time is being reported correctly by them with a "D" from July 2007 and w2ill therefore drop off my file by this month (sub section to this is that whilst they report it as "D" in July 2007 with one CRA, with another CRA it doesnt reach "D" until October 2007!!)

2) Up until I contacted them about the data innacuracy, they had recorded the data as "6"all the way from May 2010 until the current month - once I contacted them, they said "sorry our mistake its "D" from July 2010"

So, they appear to not know their ar*e from their elbow and in the meantime they are royally screwing my credit file - this is wholly unacceptable.