Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Welcome > Welcome
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-09-2007, 09:58 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

They most certainly did, that's why the ruling was made, and Experian were well aware of it.

sparkie
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:09 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

They certainly did and Experian are aware of the ruling as I have said.

Heres a copy of where I got originally got it from, unfortunately I've lost the other 2 Pages

sparkie


Guardian Unlimited Money | Credit and debt | When they libel our rating Page 2 of 3

disgraceful.
Equally worrying is the willingness of Experian and its main competitor, Equifax, to publish adverse information about credit histories where there is a disputed debt.
Last month Jobs & Money featured the way mobile phone operators insist customers pay for calls after phones are ******. Credit reference agencies were a recurring theme in readers' responses. Rather than justify their claims to a court, the operators were able to intimidate many into paying specious debts by threatening to report them to such agencies.


Such a report would be libellous both when made to the agency and

when passed on by the agency to any other prospective creditor. In 1908 the judges of the Privy Council ruled, in a decision that still seems to be the law today, the fact that the agency passing on the information believes it to be true is not a defence. Ms Viner spent "hours and hours" dealing with low-level
employees. A better tactic might have been to insist on
talking to chief executive, John Saunders, or even John \
Peace the chief executive of GUS, which owns Experian.
Once she had made clear that the time of such "important"
people was going to be spent sorting things out, matters
would inevitably have been dealt with more efficiently.
These episodes show how unfortunate it is that last month an attempt by a Wakefield man, Brian Robertson, to have the sale of electoral registers to credit reference agencies ruled unlawful, failed in the High Court.
In 2001 the court decided that selling the register to direct marketing organisations was an interference with an individual's privacy and hence his human rights. This resulted in Regulations enabling people to have their names removed from the version of the register which was sold to junk mailers.
However, a full version can still be bought by credit reference agencies. Mr Robertson claimed that the Regulations were inconsistent with the previous decision and still breached his human rights.
Unfortunately, he did not turn up for the hearing in July. Perhaps not surprisingly, lawyers representing Experian and Equifax as well as the government, all of whom had an interest in the sales continuing, found it easy to persuade Mr Justice Kay that the public interest in preventing fraud and bad debt outweighed the invasion of privacy.
The judge's conclusion seemed to be based on the agencies doing no more than providing accurate, factual information which may be no more than a minimal interference with anybody's rights.
9
Had his attention been drawn to the agency's attitude to identity ***** cases, and the way they can be used to bludgeon people into paying disputed debts, the outcome might have been different.
http://money.guardian.co.uk/creditan...031890,00.html

Mores the pity this link does not work now, why I don't know

Last edited by sparkie1723 : 03-09-2007 at 10:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-09-2007, 10:56 AM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

I have contacted the Guardian to se if they can help
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-09-2007, 02:14 PM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

Thank you for your message.

The correct link is:

http://money.guardian.co.uk/creditanddebt/debt/story/0,1456,1031890,00.html

Kind regards

User Help
Guardian Unlimited
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER

www.guardian.co.uk
__________________
Please remember we will edit posts that contain derogatory remarks, to protect the Site and the poster from retaliatory action by the banks et al.

Proud member of CFC
The more I learn about terrorism, the more I understand Banks, Credit Card Companies and DCA's
Advice & opinions of Dragonlady and the Consumer Credit Support Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. I can only speak from MY experience and how I have handled my claims. If you have any doubts please seek the opinion of a qualified solicitor

My posts are not to be published anywhere else without my express permission

If we have helped you reclaim your charges please consider a 5% donation to the site. All donations, large or small will help us to continue to help others.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-09-2007, 11:03 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Some more snippetts about defamation and lbel, worth a bit of reading.

to read more go to http://www.westminsterjournalism.co.uk/law/003defamation.htm


sparkie

More generally, if you say something about a person which may diminish their reputation "in the eyes of right thinking people" then you have “defamed” them - you have taken their “fame” (good reputation) away. This act can be the cause of a civil complaint for compensation, because reputation has a value (like property). Defamation is a sort of non-******** ***** (or destruction) of reputation.

If you defame the person in a non-permanent form (in a conversation) then you may have SLANDERED them (put it must be said to a third person) - there is no compensation for things said in a private argument between two people.

There are relatively few actions for slander because it is hard to prove what was actually said if the statement was made in a truly non-permanent way. People often complain they have been slandered when they have not (eg, in what is basically an argument between two people) and even when they have been slandered to a third person then that is very hard to prove. A very big difference occurs when you ‘put it in writing’; it gets more serious if you distribute copies, and more serious still if you broadcast it to the world.

If you defame the person in a “permanent form” such as a newspaper or magazine (and including now in legal definitions radio and TV broadcasts and speeches in plays performed in public) and if the person is clearly identified, then you may have LIBELED them.

The internet is a developing area of libel law. Does publication on the net mean it is in permanent form? Yes it does. Worse than that it makes libel international, and everything a person downloads even a single copy, or even loads the page into their browser, that constitute publication in a permanent.

Be aware if you defame people on your blog - eg by calling somebody for example ‘eccentric’ then you may have defamed them (see below - definitions of who is defamed). NB - yachting news case - you as the blogger (or contributor to a char room) have complete liability in law. The ISP or URL or editor of the website mayu also be liable, but perhaps not (case law developing) if they can show they did not edit the remarks posted on a blog or in a chat room.

But chat-rooms are dangerous and many newspapers closed them down after they were held to be the publisher (see below ‘publication’ and who is the publisher. What you may hear referred to as ‘internet libels’ are all about establishing who the publisher. In all other respects libel is just the same on the net as on anything else.

An additional danger with the internet is that libel is international. This is not too bad for UK journalists, because we already have probably the most severe libel laws in the world. But if you are a journalist in India or China or the States where libel laws are not enforced so strongly, then the new danger for you is that you can be sued in the British courts (eg Lennox Lewis - Boxing News case). So basically the internet is having the effect of setting UK libel law as the world standard, because it is the most favourable to the litigant and gives little protection to the journalist/publisher (cf failure of Daily Mirror section 10 appeal against Naomi Campbell costs in a privacy case).

The person who has been libelled may sue the publisher/broadcaster, the author/writer/broadcaster, the distributor and anyone responsible for spreading the defamation.

As a journalist you are normally indemnified by the publisher in practice - so long as you obey absolutely the editor. The editor is defined in law as the person on whom the writ is served. The danger is being thrown to the wolves. Check when you are employed that you have libel indemnity, but it implied in the normal duty of care/ duty of trust relationship between master and servant. Newspaper publishers BBC etc all have insurance, so its bad but not too band if they have to pay up. Freelancers are less secure - solo blogger of course you have no protection at all. You could lose your indemnification if you have disobeyed the editor or acted recklessly. But generally not in interests of the publisher to ‘throw you to the wolves’ - it won’t stop the claimant coming after them as well…

Last edited by sparkie1723 : 05-09-2007 at 11:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-09-2007, 11:50 AM
Lefty Lefty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Here there & everywhere
Posts: 1,531
Lefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of lightLefty is a glorious beacon of light
Default

CRA's have in the past attempted to use the 'good faith' argument, which is always a valid argument - if acting in 'good faith'

However this much used/abused argument fails if at any time they are informed that the data may be or is incorrect.

4 years ago I issued defamation proceedings against 1 prominent lender & 1 prominent credit card company - & the CRA's. Unfortunately after that they didn't continue to argue & removed the incorrect data & even paid compensation well before a hearing
__________________
Regards
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-09-2007, 12:35 PM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

I agree 100% with you Lefty, if more consumers who have incorrect defaults etc on their credit files use the Defamation Act, they will no doubt have the entry that up till then they would not remove ..... struck off very speedily.

That's what happened to me with my entry by the RBS, Experian told RBS that if they did not do something I was going to sue Experian for defamation ,
10 days later they removed the default from Experian files.
But said it was done "as a gesture of goodwill"

Put your own interpretation on that statement

sparkie
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-09-2007, 02:43 PM
TANZARELLI's Avatar
TANZARELLI TANZARELLI is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: One step ahead of you......
Posts: 2,060
TANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Some useful posting here Sparkie, good work.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-09-2007, 02:51 PM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Every little helps on all forums I think, someone, sometime will find it usefull I hope

sparkie
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support