Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

[Rico]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

The CRA's have to rely on the data supplied by their subscribers it would be an impossible task to check every single piece of data they receive.

An impossible task to check that they're not annihilating an individuals creditworthiness? If they can't do it, they shouldn't just assume that the creditor is telling the truth. Creditors can be untrustworthy and so far, impossible to jail. The debt might not even exist!

Perhaps it would be better not to publish data that isn't checked first?

Of course in the OP's case it seems an order to remove credit annihilating data was missed for quite a few years although they were seemingly quick to add it!

The system needs to change in favour of the person being reported on.

[Rico]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

civil law is not about punishment, only remuneration for loss.

Interesting.

As we can see though, without some kind of punishment, the bad guys will just keep on being bad, regardless of the law.

Many losses cannot be compensated in numeric terms. To try and say £100 will do though is clearly, an insult.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Interesting.

As we can see though, without some kind of punishment, the bad guys will just keep on being bad, regardless of the law.

Many losses cannot be compensated in numeric terms. To try and say £100 will do though is clearly, an insult.

Hi
NOt so much interesting Rico, as law 101

[nemesis45]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Interesting.

As we can see though, without some kind of punishment, the bad guys will just keep on being bad, regardless of the law.

Many losses cannot be compensated in numeric terms. To try and say £100 will do though is clearly, an insult.

If one feels wronged, defamed or has provable losses then there is the choice available to let a court decide.

[wales01man]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

What money figure would anyone expect without proof of losses ?

What would a Judge in court assess it as ?

[nemesis45]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

That is what as far as I can see is what is not clear, many have used " gestures of good will without admission of any liability some sums awarded have been significant , a starting point perhaps?

[Rico]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

What money figure would anyone expect without proof of losses ?

What would a Judge in court assess it as ?

At least 3 cases now, including mine, where a judge has assessed general damages to creditworthiness (without proof of loss or reference to the DPA) at "around £8k" in 2008 and possibly closer to £10K today.

£100 offer then is a massive fail in customer service and a clear acknowledgement that they've not understood the consequences of their action/inaction.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

At least 3 cases now, including mine, where a judge has assessed general damages to creditworthiness (without proof of loss or reference to the DPA) at "around £8k" in 2008 and possibly closer to £10K today.

£100 offer then is a massive fail in customer service and a clear acknowledgement that they've not understood the consequences of their action/inaction.

Be interested to see the links. Only ones I have seen have failed out of hand.
As for yours ,as we know this was uncontested and in a Scottish court in any case.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

It should be made clear that the 100isnot an award of the court of course,this is a sujjested figure for inconvenience recommended by the for, the creditor is quite within his rights to refuse even this

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Para 44 of our Appeal Court Ruling
“The outcome of this analysis is that this part of the appeal succeeds. To the
limited extent that Mr Grace is not statute barred, the breach of the DPA
constituted by the default registration did cause the alleged loss, because no
other registration of him as a defaulter under his hire purchase agreement
could then have been made, there having then been no facility for the
simultaneous registration of the non-enforceability of his debt.”


EVERYONE take special note I claimed no pecuniary loss what so ever only damage to my credit status that prevented me from obtaining a bank account credit cards installation of an extra telephone line, could not obtain a mobile phone account had to use a pay as you go, had to pay all my bills at the post office which cost more than writing a cheque or by a direct debit if I had had a bank account….NO ACTUAL loss just damage and absolute inconvenience.


Our ruling confirms Richard Durkins loss/damage award which also was not pecuniary….That loss is not confined to actual monetary loss…it is damage to actual credit status.


I’ll say no more…except damages are under discussion

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Para 44 of our Appeal Court Ruling
“The outcome of this analysis is that this part of the appeal succeeds. To the
limited extent that Mr Grace is not statute barred, the breach of the DPA
constituted by the default registration did cause the alleged loss, because no
other registration of him as a defaulter under his hire purchase agreement
could then have been made, there having then been no facility for the
simultaneous registration of the non-enforceability of his debt.”


EVERYONE take special note I claimed no pecuniary loss what so ever only damage to my credit status that prevented me from obtaining a bank account credit cards installation of an extra telephone line, could not obtain a mobile phone account had to use a pay as you go, had to pay all my bills at the post office which cost more than writing a cheque or by a direct debit if I had had a bank account….NO ACTUAL loss just damage and absolute inconvenience.


Our ruling confirms Richard Durkins loss/damage award which also was not pecuniary….That loss is not confined to actual monetary loss…it is damage to actual credit status.


I’ll say no more…except damages are under discussion

Sparkie

hI Sparkie, if you read the bit you have highlighted in red, you will see that it says that you suffered a loss, this is not a general loss, in fact it is a real loss, hence the phrase "did cause the alledged loss".

This has absolutely nothing to do with Ricos case, and thank goodness it does not.

In any case you will have to quantify losses at some point even so, unless you have already received 8K, of course in which case I stand corrected.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

hI Sparkie, if you read the bit you have highlighted in red, you will see that it says that you suffered a loss, this is not a general loss, in fact it is a real loss, hence the phrase "did cause the alledged loss".

This has absolutely nothing to do with Ricos case, and thank goodness it does not.

In any case you will have to quantify losses at some point even so, unless you have already received 8K, of course in which case I stand corrected.

I'm actually claiming £11,000 for damages in our original county court hearing Judge Halbert confirmed the damage was loss and even agreed that Kophraror ( not sure that spelling is correct) confirmed damge to credit status and he actually supplied me with the copy that Judges are supplied with which believe it or not is much more explanatory that what we down load from Bailli...the loss in my case was not of any actual monetary value......Richard Durkin also used Kophraror and Wilson v First Counties.the Supreme Court also referred to that in Richards hearing and ruling.

The £11,000 was the figure Judge Halbert had worked out would be the figure we could be awarded....BUT that was before B/H slammed the Limitation late pleading at us.....however this entitles us to all our costs in the County Court.
I say again I suffered no monetary loss and never claimed any.
the loss is classed as damages.
In Kophraror he was awarded £1000 for damage to his credit status he MAY have suffered in Nigeria.
I amquite aware that Scottish rulings are not binding in general but as in our case Judges use them as guides to making decisions.
The guidance given by the ICO on "Damage" states that it includes financial loss ....meaning that it is not specifically considered financial loss ONLY
Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

Hi Sparkie, we have been through all this before, Kophraror ,was discussed in detail in Smeaton vs Equifax, in this case although the sum was not able to be calculated, there was nevertheless actual losses. the award was not made just for placing an incorrect default marker, this is the whole difference.
If you get an award it will be because the placing of the marker had an effect on your subsequent dealings to your detriment, not just because the marker was there.
In Ricos case, the award was uncontested, no matters of law were examined because the other side were willing to pay 8k. this was not upheld in any other court , certainly not the supreme court because they could not "interfere" with an award given by the earlier court.

So what we are looking at is the difference between a provable loss and one which is not, you are depending on having the former richard is talking about the latter.

[Guest]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

In any case no one has ever had an award given merely for an incorrectly placed marker, in this country, many on here have tried, and even more OTR mostly being egged on by the usual suspects all have failed. There is good reason for this, the law is simple and clear, there must be appreciable losses in civil law in order to claim damages,

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Incorrect Data Entry by CRA

We'll have to wait and see Andy...you are again at complete odds with Senior Judge Halbert and with Pt and Counsel on this .....I've said it before "you are on the outside looking in"...and again according to your views it appears that I will be setting another precedent.
At this moment B/H are not very keen to go back to Court .....make your own reasons up as to why.

Kophraror did not prove any loss as far as I know

Sparkie