*** Let's Start Fighting Back - With 1p Cheques ***

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

Okay, this is the replacement thread intended to be a lot clearer for all and to save new readers having to read the same questions being asked time & time again. PLEASE CLICK THE HYPERLINKS (blue underlined text for more info)

 

Hillesden securities (who also trade as Direct Legal & Collections) have an account for which they do not have a credit agreement.

 

Despite lots of letters between us, they refuse to remove the default or stop processing my data with the CRA.

 

They have not intention to resolve the dispute but are happy to continue to report to the CRA. And as per their letter, they will update the CRA with any payments made. Therefore they can't refuse the payment as this would mean that the CRA are being given incorrect info and I'd have a case against them with the ICO.

 

I have therefore decided that I will hit them where it hurts and ensure that it will cost them more to receive/process my payments that the actual payment itself.

 

I have used this process once before for a NON FINANCE/CREDIT related dispute. By the third batch of cheques for 1p, they buckled and closed the account with no further payments required. As it was not a credit account, I did not have to worry about the credit file issue as I do here. I think the straw that really broke the camel's back on that third batch was that I folded the cheques in half a few times, then staple it about 5 or 6 times. Takes up even more of there time to process them. Plus they won't be able to see which one is signed or dated until they've opened it up so they have to open them all up before they can process them in the correct order

 

I have set up a template in MS Word that prints the details (payee, amount in figures and also in words) onto the cheques (please note, I am not printing my own cheques, just printing ONTO them using the envelope feeder on the printer). It's a toner printer and it costs next to nothing to do this.

 

I have so far sent them two batches of cheques. I also send them by recorded delivery without paying a penny. This was done by getting recorded delivery stickers from the post office and placing them on the envelopes and just dropping them into the post box NOT handing them in at the post office. What this does it makes the royal mail offer the recipient the option to pay the postage plus their £1 fee.

 

So far, these two batches have been received & signed for see HERE & HERE for proof. However, longer term this may end up getting me into trouble or they may just refuse to pay at the other end. THEREFORE, I DO NOT RECOMEND YOU USE THIS METHOD.

 

The first batch of cheques were all dates the same date, the second batch were all dates one day apart so they can cash one each day for about three weeks.

 

From now on I'll be using their FREEPOST address which will cost them money from the outset and does not give them the option to pay the postage that I wasn't paying. Plus if I can add some junk mail/lead weights for good measure.

 

Are they stupid enough to cash these cheques even though their bank will charge them more per cheque to process than the actual value of the cheque ? YOU BET THEY WILL !

 

 

Okay, so the plan is simple. Send them payment in 1p cheques, maybe even 1p stamps.

 

 

To save us all some time I have some Q&A's below:-

 

Q. Why do you want to achieve with this ?

A. The primary goal is to have the account either settled for a very small amount (say 5%) and have it completely removed from my credit file, not marked as 'settled' or 'partially settled' as well as remove the default. The second goal is to cost them time & money each month until I achieve my first goal !

 

Q. Why not wait 6 years for it to become statute barred ?

A. For exactly that reason, SIX YEARS !!! I plan to have this done in a few months.

 

Q. Why waste your time ?

A. See above, waiting SIX YEARS is a bigger waste of my time.

 

Q. Is it legal to send 1p cheques ?

A. Of course, why wouldn't it be ?

 

Q. Why print them ?

A. It's quick and easy to do with a template set up. Just need to sign them.

 

 

Some articles to note below too:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Paying bills by cheque can be expensive

 

"At the time it came to the conclusion that the cost to a bank of processing a cheque was 44p"

 

 

Teach greedy banks a 1p lesson - Business News, Business - The Independent

 

"As it costs 45p to process a cheque"

 

 

Guy tries to pay bill using a picture of a spider

 

 

 

WORD OF WARNING:

THIS IS MY ATTEMPT TO USE THIS PROCESS TO GET MY WAY (remove default and all other traces from credit file) I AM NOT RECOMENDING THIS AS ACTION YOU SHOULD TAKE. I AM MEARLY POINTING OUT MY STORY AND WILL UPDATE AS I GO ALONG.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson

[angry cat]

If you have a valid and genuine dispute, why havn't you logged a formal complaint with the ICO ?

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

Thanks for the link, will read through. Have you had any luck with the ICO ?

 

In my opinion the ICO, the FSA & the OFT are all as much use as a chocolate teapot. So at the moment, I'm happy to take on these b@$!@£*$ myself and cause them as much hassle as possible.

[angry cat]

Thanks for the link, will read through. Have you had any luck with the ICO ?.

 

Yes!

[angry cat]

You need to understand the, DPA as well as the CCA/Regs!

 

:

 

"Unresolved disputes

42 Lenders are faced with difficult decisions when considering recording defaults which are disputed by the customer. It is not our role to arbitrate in disputes between borrowers and lenders. However, when we consider complaints, we will conclude, where there is clear and sufficient evidence that a default has not occurred, that it is likely that the lender has not complied with the data protection principle which requires that personal data are accurate.

43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

44 These are difficult judgements to make. Although none of the following will necessarily be conclusive, we will take into account these factors.

Is the customer able to produce evidence that they disputed that a default occurred?

Did the customer dispute the default before the lender announced their intention to file a default or after?

What is the nature of the dispute? For instance, does the customer allege that the agreement has been breached, for example, because the goods supplied were faulty, or does the customer simply dispute the amount of the default?

What evidence has the customer produced to support their side of the dispute?

Has the lender simply ignored this evidence or have they produced evidence to support their version of events?

If the goods financed were supplied by a third party, has the lender taken reasonable steps to check the accuracy of the information supplied about the dispute?

Version 3 Defaults: A guidance note

02.08. 2007

16

Does the customer argue that payment is owed not by them but by a third party such as an insurance company, and, if so, is there any evidence?

Has the customer told the lender that they are exercising set- off rights?

Is the customer defending a court action by the lender to obtain a judgment, and what is the nature of their defence?

Has a court refused judgment to the lender and, if so, on what grounds?

If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared to test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer? If not, why not?

45 We will not necessarily ask a lender to remove default records while they are carrying out their initial investigation to establish whether a dispute is genuine, reasonable or unsolved. However, there should be no unnecessary delay in this investigation. In these circumstances, defaulted accounts under investigation should be marked as ‘under query’ on the credit reference agency file."

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

Thanks, but all of this still seems a bit 'soft'. Can you provide more details on your success using this, or a link ?

 

EDIT:

 

Also with reference to points 42-45 this only deals with defaults in dispute. I want to remove all information they have recorded on the credit file, missed payments & balance, not just mark the default 'under query'.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson

[PriorityOne]

Homer.... the last person who commented and supported your last thread had 4 posts to their name and you have only 96 yourself. I'm not surprised you asked for it to be closed to be honest.... as you appeared to be losing credibility very fast towards the end...

 

Never mind eh?

[Dotty50]

Subbing, again!

[angry cat]

 

EDIT:

 

Also with reference to points 42-45 this only deals with defaults in dispute. I want to remove all information they have recorded on the credit file, missed payments & balance, not just mark the default 'under query'.

 

You cannot have your cake and eat it!

 

Read the DPA technical guideance, in full:

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

 

Incidentally, the CRA's have to mark the account in question; 'under query', whilst the ICO investigates.

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

You cannot have your cake and eat it!

 

Well, that's where we differ then isn't it.

 

You have your way and I'm happy to try this way again and see where it gets me.

[angry cat]

Furthermore, your 1p payments will not make an iota of difference to any default that has been recorded on your credit file.

That Default will remain on your file for 6 years from the date of the first default. Unless, you an prove that the default was unwarranted, unjustified or, incorrect: "A Valid and Genuine Dispute".

 

The result of your token 1p payments (pointless exercise) will be that, you continually restart the clock; Limitation Act.

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

I DON'T CARE about the six year rule as I've stated time & time again.

 

We shall see what my 1p cheques do compared to the toothless ICO, FSA & OFT. All the 'guidelines' in the world won't stop these a$$holes ignoring all the rules they should play by and doing what the hell they want anyway.

 

However, if every time I rang them it cost them £50, they'd soon change their number. So every time I pay them, they'll soon want to work out a way for me to STOP PAYING THEM OR SETTLE THE ACCOUNT ON MY TERMS. As they have shown THEIR TERMS mean that they have to keep accepting my payments and reporting the correct outstanding balance.

 

I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I am trying to do or are just intentionally being difficult. Either way, we are not going to agree. You think you've got the way to do it and I asked you to elaborate or provide a link and you have not. My proof, well, as you can see they've cashed the cheques so far and given time I will post updates as to my success with this method.

 

Just to make it clear again, for all those that missed it the previous few times. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SIX YEAR RULE. I WILL TAKE ACTION TO RESOLVE THIS QUCIKER.

 

In a time of drought, would you lot just look up to the sky and hope for rain or dig a well and get on with it ?

[Nagasis]

I'm not passing judgment on whether this will or will not work for removal of defaults and time will tell however would you agree that it may have been prudent to create this thread if or when you had some default removal success to share?

 

My main concern is that as of yet there is no success story relating to removal of defaults in your plan and some new person desperate to get their own defaults removed may follow your currently unproven example.

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

No, I do not agree I should have to wait to post just because someone else 'might have a go'. However, I do take your point so will update the first post that this is 'my attempt' and not something I am recommending others try.

 

EDIT:

 

Warning now added to first post.

[PriorityOne]

I'm not passing judgment on whether this will or will not work for removal of defaults and time will tell however would you agree that it may have been prudent to create this thread if or when you had some default removal success to share?

 

My main concern is that as of yet there is no success story relating to removal of defaults in your plan and some new person desperate to get their own defaults removed may follow your currently unproven example.

 

 

Thank you...

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

Homer.... the last person who commented and supported your last thread had 4 posts to their name and you have only 96 yourself. I'm not surprised you asked for it to be closed to be honest.... as you appeared to be losing credibility very fast towards the end...

 

Never mind eh?

 

 

Funny as I clearly pointed out how you were NOT reading the thread correctly and making your own assumptions about what I had said.

 

And yes, I did spot he only had a few posts and knew people would think it was me. Quite frankly, I don't care and if a Mod/Admin is willing to look into duplicate acounts, please feel free as I have no need to 'back myself up' with fake ID's.

 

EDIT:

 

Just because you have a lot of post, doesn't mean you know better than anyone else BTW. If that was the case all new people posting would be clueless then ?

[PriorityOne]

Funny as I clearly pointed out how you were NOT reading the thread correctly and making your own assumptions about what I had said.

 

And yes, I did spot he only had a few posts and knew people would think it was me. Quite frankly, I don't care and if a Mod/Admin is willing to look into duplicate acounts, please feel free as I have no need to 'back myself up' with fake ID's.

 

I never said it was YOU who were posting under a false ID.... but implying that the person supporting you had limited experience....

 

I have read the thread correctly thank you and so far you have appeared to blow your own trumpet throughout by claiming this WILL work, when it clearly hasn't so far.... I have made my own assumptions on this basis.

 

Edited May 2, 2010 by PriorityOne
typo

[angry cat]

I'm not passing judgment on whether this will or will not work for removal of defaults and time will tell however would you agree that it may have been prudent to create this thread if or when you had some default removal success to share?

 

My main concern is that as of yet there is no success story relating to removal of defaults in your plan and some new person desperate to get their own defaults removed may follow your currently unproven example.

 

Thank You!

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

I have read the thread correctly thank you

 

So sure of yourself aren't you ? Maybe I should break it down for you here ? as all 5,000+ posts of your 'experience' have not helped you here have they ?

 

POST 31

 

I have used this process in the past with another company and they buckled after the 3rd batch of cheques. Closed the account and never heard form them again (It was not a credit account so didn't have any issues with the credit file), but they still closed the account and confirmed that there was nothing to be paid (they'd had enough of the penny cheques).

POST 79

 

you mentioned that one of these companies settled and removed the default? Which one was it?

 

I think the word you are looking for is Doh !

 

Now I know why you have so many posts, asking questions because you've not read threads properly. Then arguing to say you have. How silly..............

Edited May 2, 2010 by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson

[PriorityOne]

 

Just because you have a lot of post, doesn't mean you know better than anyone else BTW. If that was the case all new people posting would be clueless then ?

 

In most cases yes, as your own action have illustrated.... However, it normally becomes clear very quickly which new posters know what they're talking about and those who'd like to convince people they do when they clearly don't.

 

[PriorityOne]

So sure of yourself aren't you ? Maybe I should break it down for you here ? as all 5,000+ posts of your 'experience' have not helped you here have they ?

 

POST 31

 

POST 79

 

 

I think the word you are looking for is Doh !

 

 

I am sure of myself in relation the debt collection industry yes.... and my experience tells me that you don't know what you're doing, which you don't.

 

Doh is your word by the way.... courtesy of your username.

[angry cat]

Okay presumably this is to do with Citi, who have admitted that they do not have an enforceable agreement:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2143876.html

 

IMHO, you are going about this matter in totally the wrong way!

 

Hillesdon refer to Citi as their client but also state Formally Citi?

Have you actually asked them to provide documentary evidence providing proof that said debt was legally assigned?

Are they (Hillesdon) "The Creditor"?

 

Keep on paying them the 1p if you wish, that is your choice...rather you than me.

Edited May 2, 2010 by angry cat
addition

[Mr_Homer_J_Simpson]

I am sure of myself in relation the debt collection industry yes....

 

So you admit you didn't read the thread properly ? Or is this just your way of getting lots more posts ?

 

You are not contributing anything and just posting for the sake of it as you did on the previous thread. This thread was set up to be more clear for the likes of you & Fred who couldn't be bothered to read it properly and to avoid new readers having to read through all your & fred's rubbish. Yet here you are posting nothing helpful again and being proven not to have read the thread but side-stepping that. Really, how sad.

[Nagasis]

Who has registered the default on your CF? citi or Hillesdon?

 

Have you checked your credit file to find out?

[PriorityOne]

So you admit you didn't read the thread properly ? Or is this just your way of getting lots more posts ?

 

You are not contributing anything and just posting for the sake of it as you did on the previous thread. This thread was set up to be more clear for the likes of you & Fred who couldn't be bothered to read it properly and to avoid new readers having to read through all your & fred's rubbish. Yet here you are posting nothing helpful again and being proven not to have read the thread but side-stepping that. Really, how sad.

 

You're very funny Homer .... trying to deflect your own failings onto me and throwing insults.... instead of stating how you KNOW what you're doing works....

 

I have said time and again that I have indeed read the thread(s) properly and given my reasons for disagreeing with you.... but you don't like it. You have said yourself that you have no experience in doing this 1p nonsense with the DCA/credit industry yet KNOW it will work. The two comments just don't marry together....