Unwarranted Cat 6 Cifas Marker from Sky

ozzy49

Wow Fenchurch1, I think I say this on behalf of everyone on this thread when I say how honoured we are that you felt an urge to register on MSE just to post your dribble. I would reply to your comments but to be quite honest, you clearly have a lot of knowledge in these matters and I'd rather not insult your intelligence. It does however give me some pleasure knowing that you sacrificed your sleep to enlighten us with your thoughts at 2:30 in the morning, I hope I didn't keep you up the whole night.

A quick update to the rest of us on this thread who can actually read and comprehend plain english: I spoke to CIFAS again who advised they'll look into the issue and remove the marker if I send them my correspondence with Sky which I did on Wednesday. I'm hoping they see sense and remove it as soon as possible.

I've filed a complaint with the ICO, I know it'll take 3 months but regardless of the outcome here, the incorrect information reported by and held by Sky seems to be a Data Protection breach which I want investigating.

I sent everything I had to the Underwriters on the advice of my broker yesterday, they understood the issue but said their hands were tied and there was no way of getting finance whilst the marker showed on my record.

I had a look at the MCOL guidance but it doesn't look like I can go through them as it seems that the best case would be that they force Sky to pay for the losses I've incurred, they can't force Sky to remove the marker which is my immediate concern.

So, I've decided to take this to the County Court if needs be, I've sent a final letter before action to Sky today demanding the removal of the marker within 7 days so let's see what happens. I'll be taking it to Court otherwise, I know I'll have lost the house if it comes to that but I'd still need the marker removing.

P.S. Thanks to everyone who has helped with advice through this thread!

ozzy49

Thanks Candyapple, I'd just posted the above update as you'd replied.

I've done exactly what you'd suggested except I sent the letter before action myself as opposed to using a Solicitor. All my local firms thought it was too complex an issue for them to get involved in and a Google search for anyone specialising in this sort of thing wasn't very fruitful.

Either way, if this isn't resolved in 7 days, I'll be filing the case with the County Court and the amount I'll be claiming in damages will increase as time goes on as I've outlined to them in my final letter.

muhandis

Good luck and thanks for keeping the thread updated.

The letter from Sky is an exercise in obfuscation, they can't even bring themselves to clearly admit what they consider you to have done and why they put a Cat 6 marker on CIFAS as it clearly doesn't meet the CIFAS standard of proof that they should be adhering to.

To be honest, I don't think CIFAS will accept that letter as enough to go on to remove the marker, but there's no harm in trying.

ozzy49

Thanks muhandis, I didn't think CIFAS would accept the letter either but sent it anyway to get the ball rolling. If I get something more specific from Sky in the meantime, I can forward it on but I wanted them to start looking into the case to save some time. Just a waiting game now I guess

BTW I can post the letter up online if anyone wants to have a look

Ed-1

ozzy49 wrote: »

BTW I can post the letter up online if anyone wants to have a look

Go on then.

Dr_Crypto

Good luck with this. Your experience shows that most lawyers don’t really deal with data protection law. The ones that do seem to be hugely expensive corporate firms.
I wonder if your local district judge at the country court will be able to deal with it or if it’ll be reallocated to the high court? What law have you based your claim on?

boo_star

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

Good luck with this. Your experience shows that most lawyers don’t really deal with data protection law. The ones that do seem to be hugely expensive corporate firms.
I wonder if your local district judge at the country court will be able to deal with it or if it’ll be reallocated to the high court? What law have you based your claim on?

Why are you so pessimistic and why can't you see what law the complaint is based on?

Dr_Crypto

I know people who have tried to obtain orders under the DPA in the past. Most DJs won’t have heard a case involving it and may be reluctant to take it on and may want to transfer it out to a higher court. Or maybe as this is a fairly simple car they might accept jurisdiction.
I’m interested in how he will draft his particulars of claim. It’s not my car so what I can see doesn’t really matter but he’s got to convince a judge who may have had a family law or high street background which will involve signposting the law and the court’s jurisdiction to issue relief by specific performance rather than the far more common damages.

boo_star

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

I know people who have tried to obtain orders under the DPA in the past. Most DJs won’t have heard a case involving it and may be reluctant to take it on and may want to transfer it out to a higher court. Or maybe as this is a fairly simple car they might accept jurisdiction.
I’m interested in how he will draft his particulars of claim. It’s not my car so what I can see doesn’t really matter but he’s got to convince a judge who may have had a family law or high street background which will involve signposting the law and the court’s jurisdiction to issue relief by specific performance rather than the far more common damages.

The OP didn't commit fraud.

That's the end of it.

It's, at best, a misunderstanding.

Open and shut case IMO.

Dr_Crypto

Aye I hope so. Hopefully the OP will keep us up to date.