We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Credit file error!!
Comments
-
Name just one, humour me. I will gladly look it up on Westlaw and post the details here.powerful_Rogue wrote: »Search online, there are plenty of different scenerios.0 -
Name just one, humour me. I will gladly look it up on Westlaw and post the details here.
Will do.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/117/117-credit.html#cs140 -
That's not a court case for DPA breach at all. Have your read what you've linked?powerful_Rogue wrote: »
What linked complaint is about someone's identity being mistaken by the CRA, CRA offering, on their own good will, 1.5k GBP compensation (after he contacted them), and then the MR J complaining to FOB for money which was refused. Nothing to do with courts, ICO, or even DPA. It was a volunteered offer. Not even a case of a CCJ, but complete identity mistake.0 -
That's not a court case for DPA breach at all. Have your read what you've linked?
What linked complaint is about someone's identity being mistaken by the CRA, CRA offering, on their own good will, 1.5k GBP compensation (after he contacted them), and then the MR J complaining to FOB for money which was refused. Nothing to do with courts, ICO, or even DPA. It was a volunteered offer. Not even a case of a CCJ, but complete identity mistake.
Talk about moving goalposts.
Its the principle of incorrect information being recorded on someones credit file.
Did you read the result? The case was not upheld because the offer made was adequate. Had it not been, then it would have been a different result.
I'm just pointing the OP in directions where he can take the matter further. As I said, if the OP suffers a financial loss due to this error, he can seek to reclaim that amount. Whether that be from the FOS or SCC. He can refer the matter to the ICO, however as previously stated, then don't award compensation.
OP - Here's another one for your info.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=1130800 -
This is all financial ombudsman staff, whole different criteria and rules than going through actual civil court, to begin with, and with a lot of other important differences to follow. And there is a reason why you can't find a court case that relates to OP issues - because it doesn't exist. And that is the route OP would have to go through, spending a lot on a lawyer and then likely not getting joy anyway. So stop leading him that pointless path based on articles that are unrelated, to say the least.powerful_Rogue wrote: »Talk about moving goalposts.
Its the principle of incorrect information being recorded on someones credit file.
Did you read the result? The case was not upheld because the offer made was adequate. Had it not been, then it would have been a different result.
I'm just pointing the OP in directions where he can take the matter further. As I said, if the OP suffers a financial loss due to this error, he can seek to reclaim that amount. Whether that be from the FOS or SCC. He can refer the matter to the ICO, however as previously stated, then don't award compensation.
OP - Here's another one for your info.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=113080
Because to sue for it in court you will need more than just the letter from ICO, you will need to point out what they did wrong, how, how exactly you are damaged and that this, and only this was a direct cause and that you did everything you could to mitigate the damages. That is how a civil court works, and proving a lot of those points is dubious, to say the least, and you will need a lawyer to do it.
update: oh, and if you lose, you may very well be on the hook for their legal fees. Isn't that American-style of sue-everyone fun? And here proving that there even is an actual loss is going to be a problem.0 -
This is all financial ombudsman staff, whole different criteria and rules than going through actual civil court, to begin with, and with a lot of other important differences to follow. And there is a reason why you can't find a court case that relates to OP issues - because it doesn't exist. And that is the route OP would have to go through, spending a lot on a lawyer and then likely not getting joy anyway. So stop leading him that pointless path based on articles that are unrelated, to say the least.
Because to sue for it in court you will need more than just the letter from ICO, you will need to point out what they did wrong, how, how exactly you are damaged and that this, and only this was a direct cause and that you did everything you could to mitigate the damages. That is how a civil court works, and proving a lot of those points is dubious, to say the least, and you will need a lawyer to do it.
update: oh, and if you lose, you may very well be on the hook for their legal fees. Isn't that American-style of sue-everyone fun? And here proving that there even is an actual loss is going to be a problem.
Nonsense. You say im leading him in the wrong direction, but your take on the situation is completely incorrect.
Small Claims Court results aren't recorded online, so that's why none can be found. OP would not need a lawyer, that's the whole point of the SCC - it's meant for the lay person
I'll point out again what I said in a previous post about the SCC, as your knowledge appears to be lacking.
Then you go onto say how the OP can't prove an actual loss! It's pretty simple. As long as the credit file is in good standing apart from the CCJ, then it would be the CCJ that has caused the OP to fail the credit check. Thats £270 the OP has lost, due to the negligence of another company. OP might even be able to get in writing from the EA that the credit check was failed due to the CCJ.In a civil court, the court has to decide on a balance of probabilities, that is to say that is it more likely than not that the incorrect CCJ has affected your credit score and denied you the opportunity to obtain the rental. You only need to tip the scales 51% in your favour and it is not like criminal cases where you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt - just enough to show that it did would be sufficient.
That threshold is not so high because all three credit reference agencies accept and acknowledge that a persons credit score is likely to be affected by a CCJ against those who don't have one. Yes, all lenders have their own scoring criteria but as part of that criteria, having any CCJs is more likely than not going to affect you negatively.
It's got nothing to do with the "American style", its down to the OP being out of pocket due to a situation that is not of his making. As long as the claim isn't a petty one and the OP has tried to resolve the case before going straight to court, the chances of being billed for the other parties legal fees is extremely minimal.
OP, my advice would be to contact Experian and get them to remove the incorrect CCJ asap.
In the meantime if the credit check by the EA comes back as declined, if the rest of your file is fine I would then try to establish whether the CCJ error was caused by the original company that submitted the data or Experian. I would contact whoever made the mistake and ask for the £270 to be refunded due to their negligence.
If you reach a deadlock position, raise the claim with the FOS. I would also submit a complaint to the ICO. If all that fails, thats when to consider the SCC, as a last resort.
As you can see by the couple of cases I posted, the FOS take this seriously, so that would likely resolve the situation.0 -
None of the courts are recorded online in the UK because that isn't how our legal system works. Instead, the important cases are published either in law journals as entire transcripts or summary of important legal points. And those are then also available online through, for example, Westlaw and some free resources.powerful_Rogue wrote: »Nonsense. You say im leading him in the wrong direction, but your take on the situation is completely incorrect.
Small Claims Court results aren't recorded online, so that's why none can be found.
That is how all law students and lawyers look up important cases and carry out legal research of actual cases that took place.
It's easier for a lay person, not meaning that you won't benefit from a lawyer. And as this claim is actually more complex than "X owes me money", you will have much higher chance with legal help. Because right now you can't even prove that there is damage if they get refused; as just getting refused is not enough - you will need confirmation, in writing, that this was the only reason for it. No one will give them that.powerful_Rogue wrote: »OP would not need a lawyer, that's the whole point of the SCC - it's meant for the lay person
Only if they will put in writing that this is the ONLY reason they didn't get flat. No one will give them that for free, as no one wants the liability that it may bring onto them. Instead, you will get a generic "you have not selected" response in writing. And for the court to accept it as evidence you would probably need to get it notarized to be taken at face value by the court as anyone can print a piece of paper like that.powerful_Rogue wrote: »I'll point out again what I said in a previous post about the SCC, as your knowledge appears to be lacking.
Then you go onto say how the OP can't prove an actual loss! It's pretty simple. As long as the credit file is in good standing apart from the CCJ, then it would be the CCJ that has caused the OP to fail the credit check. Thats £270 the OP has lost, due to the negligence of another company. OP might even be able to get in writing from the EA that the credit check was failed due to the CCJ.
Now go and actually sue someone like this and let us know how it goes before you recommend it to someone. Or actually do some legal research, with for example justcite. Where you can perfectly find small-claims cases too, you know, the ones you claim you can't find because they go unreported.
UPDATE: LOL now you are recommending OP to take it to FOS? Guess the financial service of online banking could be called into question as that was used to pay the 270...0 -
None of the courts are recorded online in the UK because that isn't how our legal system works. Instead, the important cases are published either in law journals as entire transcripts or summary of important legal points. And those are then also available online through, for example, Westlaw and some free resources.
Exactly, important cases are published. This isn't an important case, in fact the majoirty that go through the SCC are not "important" cases. (They are of course important to the person raising the claim)It's easier for a lay person, not meaning that you won't benefit from a lawyer. And as this claim is actually more complex than "X owes me money", you will have much higher chance with legal help. Because right now you can't even prove that there is damage if they get refused; as just getting refused is not enough - you will need confirmation, in writing, that this was the only reason for it. No one will give them that.
The SCC is designed for the lay person and the majority of cases go through the system without a lawyer.
If the OP is declined the credit check, then he has a basis for damages. What the OP will need is to convince the court on the balance of probabilities that the reason he failed the credit check was due to this incorrect CCJ.Only if they will put in writing that this is the ONLY reason they didn't get flat. No one will give them that for free, as no one wants the liability that it may bring onto them. Instead, you will get a generic "you have not selected" response in writing. And for the court to accept it as evidence you would probably need to get it notarized to be taken at face value by the court as anyone can print a piece of paper like that.
Again, the OP isn't proving "beyond reasonable doubt" he is proving "on the balance of probabilities".Now go and actually sue someone like this and let us know how it goes before you recommend it to someone. Or actually do some legal research, with for example justcite. Where you can perfectly find small-claims cases too, you know, the ones you claim you can't find because they go unreported.
If you had read my post, you would have seen what I recommend to the OP. I said the SCC would be the last resort as there are plenty of other avenues to explore first, and this is what a court would expect someone to do.
So are all small claims court cases listed on Justcite?UPDATE: LOL now you are recommending OP to take it to FOS? Guess the financial service of online banking could be called into question as that was used to pay the 270...
Glad you find it amusing, however not sure why. Experian and the company that issued the CCJ will be governed by the FOS. Have a look back over the last two FOS cases I posted, especially this one:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=1130800
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards