Upto you nigel, but beware that the court MAY consider that to be a reasonable offer and you were unreasonable not to accept it... Having said that charges are charges and if they are not stumping up the whole amount then it is them who are not being reasonable... Your move really...Good luck

Ok, I have sent a complaint letter to Equifax regarding the above, but I have also asked them to explain what they have done to check the accuracy of data they receive and if they check that the company supplying the information actually has the correct permissions. Many defaults on my file have no dates or are post my IVA date, which defeats the whole purpose of accurate data. I also asked for clarification that defaults drop off 6 years from the default date and not satisfaction date as stated in that document that Bankfodder linked to this thread. I gave them 7 days to reply and let me know what they are doing and told them I had already checked with several lenders who confirmed that they did not have the default notices and some who did not have the agreements anymore. I want an explainantion of how they can just accept the info on "blind faith"? I'll keep you all posted.

Brilliant Thanks, I will put a letter together for Equifax (as I have the credit watch service right now) and see what they come up with. That notice from the ICO definitely says they should question the data if requested and seek evidence to substantiate it, so it will be interesting to see what comes of it. I must admit I merely thought of going straight to Court to get the source of the information to remove it and pay some element of damages.

No offence taken and I am happy to be one of the few that go to court action as I feel agreived that my IVA will come off my file before any of these defaults, which is a joke really. The whole meathod of reporting is wrong and does not give a true picture of situations to anyone...It does not take into account irresponsible lending or how people's situations change. Many will argue that rather than irresponsible lending it is a case of irresponsible borrowing, however, IMHO it is a double edged sword. Did you see their response in post 6 above? That is all they would say and kept referring me back to that letter when I asked what legislation they are basing this on... They have already had a LBA from me and they did not respond. With regards the ICO and CRA, is there any benefit in doing this am I not better attacking the source since the CRA's hide behind their "we cannot alder or delete the data without the creditors instructions"? It's all rubbish and I know this debate has been going on a long time, but you're right it is time to stop this now...

Thanks for that Bankfodder! Glad to know I have wasted a year... Is there a thread where I can pick up the things I need to include in my POC's? Thanks for your interest on this one by the way! Penfold

This is the one page response to the S10/ 12 request to cease processing and sharing data: http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/S1012response.gif I love the "is obliged, as part of its arrangements with the credit issuers to make reports to the credit reference agencies." Penfold

They didn't even say they would get the agreements or anything...even if the creditors had them and gave them to them they would still have to justify the continued processing and sharing, which LEGALLY they can't IMHO. I agree with the general census on here that end of contract = end of processing and sharing rights. The ICO report is not legally binding and merely a suggestion after all if ever suggestion was followed where would we all be... Legally there is nothing within the DPA that they can say is a reason to continue processing and ignoring my S10/12 request. By the way I said they had a default against me...note that in the SAR reply there is no default notice of anysort and it would have been sold to them post default (if there was ever one) anyway... Penfold

LOL Thanks BF, I know, but it is really a reminder to others out there not to be too over zealous in their comments as some of mine came back to bite me big style! As for this one, they basically gave the usual ICO reply and I have already threatned county court action. What I want to know really is how they expect to get away with it as I just cannot see what their defence will be? The tennis letters have been going backwards and forwards for about a year now so I feel I have given ample time to resolve this, but they flatly refuse. Just wondering if they know something I don't... Just can't see it myself, Penfold

Could anyone please explain why the Surelybonds letters are not working against a DCA who is processing my data without any agreements at all? To expland a little they took over several debts and have registered a default and deliquent balance against my name on the CRA's. I sent them a SAR and their response was ok, but included a letter stating they did not hold the original agreements. So how can they say they will not remove the data? On what basis can they be pursued for this and the potentional damage due to inaccurate data (for example default notice not sent etc) Thanks, Penfold

Chirs, Can you clear your pm box please? Prabs

Then as I said before, should not change...Wait and see what they send you in the post.

Post 4, already agreed with you that it should and cannot change. Did anything get added post offer to the loan that was not there before? Arrangement fee a charge anything like that?

Thanks BAE, The case is the one Zoot had mentioned earlier in the thread, but the Judge was not interested in it and said it had no relevance in this claim. That aside, we only wanted them to cease processing our personal data and sharing with third parties and they are not. Hence us narrowing the issues and now agreeing to drop that part of the claim, although I have not heard back from them about this as yet, but they wanted it dropped from the beginning so I trust they will write back soon to confirm this is agreed or else I will need to ammend my POC's and incur further costs. Anyway we'll see, AQ's had to be in on Monday so I dropped off to the Court so await EITHER a letter from Optima Legal OR Court Orders to proceed to bundles. I am in the process of putting those together now and can't believe how much photocoping costs these days! Penfold

And don't use an Estate Agents one! It is hard and with the market changing more brokers are charging...Worst case find one who will do it for the least amount...They should be declaring on their initial disclosure documents what they will charge so they should not be hiding anything.

The mainstream product will allow 1 satisfied default upto £250...BM Solutions Near prime ignores all defaults. I understand they are not really doing much adverse (non-conforming) so really I suggest you find a local broker to discuss your position with and ensure they fully explain to you who they choose and why... Penfold

Hi Jake, That is the way with LIBOR rates, they can change depending on the LIBOR rate, nothing untowards there, but your mortgage broker should have explained this to you... As for old defaults, they are usually ignored by most non-conforming lenders, which means "generally" High street lenders won't lend to people with adverse credit, although Abbey will sometimes depending on how much, how long ago and if it was satisfied...The others as I said above will usually ignore defaults unless they are very recent and huge...Missed mortgage payments, bankrupcies and CCJ's do the most damage. Don't know if that helps or not, Penfold

They CANNOT change the payments...Ring and speak to someone else and ask why a fixed rate has been changed post completion of the offer, which clearly states £911.49... Hope that helps, Penfold

It really depends what your offer said. Dig it out and read the Section on payments. It usually says 24 payments of ....then XXX months at £.... Sometimes depending on lender it will say 1 payment of then 23 payments of then XXX months at.... Does that make any sense? Have a read it is your best document. If the figure is the £911 as you think fixed for two years then "no" they can't change this if they feel like it... If you could type up what it says there I (and others no doubt) will try to help, Penfold

Do you still have all the original paperwork and club details? In 2006 the FSA were regulating mortgages and so any broker had to be authorised or an appointed representative of an authorised firm... Yes you should have read the mortgage offers etc, but it is the duty of the broker to explain and ensure you understand the terms of the offer and what you were taking... Have a read of everything you got and see if that helps...The FSA will be interested in any broker arranging several mortgages for you fully knowing you were not going to be living in the properties...maybe he/ she could get away with 2, but not 8! Good luck, Penfold

Well here is an update for all subscribers… Received two letters from Optima Legal – Their AQ, standard filled and small claims track as their application for setting aside the judgment said. No notes or anything at all entered in the additional information A letter stating basically that they are watching my thread and I have no way to prove damages and reiterating the Johnson case Well, we are replying with our AQ (not that we were ordered to do so) and a letter agreeing to withdraw the damages part, if they agree to a more realistic settlement promptly. Their offer was way short and was basically what we asked them to pay prior to Court action back in January. Since then we have had Court costs including the AQ and I had to take a day off work for their application hearing due to their "mailroom" not receiving the Court Claim and then not receiving the Judgment. We stated clearly in our POC’s we would be claiming litigant in person rate for hours spent researching and preparing the claim. We have been damaged by all this since July last year and there are precedence cases to show that damages do not need to be proved, however, in order to be fair (given our previous comments) and get a quick settlement we will over look those to move on with our lives. I know many of you will be very interested in this information as I never realised that our opinions and discussions could be infiltrated and used against us. This is the equivalent to spying or down right underhand tactics IMHO…. Still we never wanted this matter to go to Court and only wanted this settled fairly without the need for legal action in the first place, so if they wish to show posts in Court then we will be producing all our 1100 posts to give the Court a true understanding that we are not "vexatious litigants" as the Defence Counsel are trying to say, but more contributing to a growing site that is for the benefit of its members in the form of support and encouragement where large fiancial firms and their bucks solicitors behind them try to fob us all off with "convenient truths"… After all if mortgage charges were true preestimates why do none of them want to actually show this in Court? So basically the letter we were sent pre-Court action was a lie! I know it is, after all how can we be charged for a bounced DD when it was mutually agreed in conversations with the Lender? The DD was never bounced as it was cancelled by us and the lender knew this as we called them and discussed this with them. That is just one example and we can recount for each charge and they did nothing whatsoever extra! We asked for the recorded telephone calls to be produced and have they? Nope, why? Because in them I specifically said "we are not going to be charged as long as we call you each month to make payments and discuss right?" We called them every month and made payments as agreed...so where does the arrears charges come in? They were getting interest on the missing payments, what extra work was involved? They also say how can we claim interest...So being "enriched" by our payments on their "penalty charges" for over a year now does not warrant this? I will leave that to a Judge for sure, because I am pretty sure I know what their view would be on that... It makes me laugh that more and more solicitors and barristers are turning here to get “inside information” when they should simply know whether their clients have a defence or not…. In our opinion all lenders who blatantly "cover up" their costs and pretent they are pre-estimate should be held to account! The FSA really is a "toothless tiger" in all this and should have put a stop to this extortion practice long ago...Who is going to suffer in the long run with the "credit crunch"? The consumer of course...what is the knock on effect? The country is going to get into big trouble financially, will the lenders be affected? Probably not...they make their "extra pound of flesh" by eating the heart away form those in trouble or facing financial hardship... Penfold

The barrister at my hearing, representing NW, was from that building... Penfold

That's the problem and I was struck out in court for having no basis in law on my claim... It was a lot more complicated than yours from what I can understand, but just be wary. Have you got another thread with the rest of this story on as you have gone a long way before writing in court on tuesday.... Penfold

Read: under Part VI of the Act Section 76 clearly states “Duty to give notice before taking certain action”. Did they do any of that? It might help your cause. Also Overdrafts are exempt from Part V of the Act. An overdraft is a "running account credit" as determined under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but the agreement is different for overdrafts than for other credit agreements. Section 74 of the Act allows for certain types of agreement to be excluded from part V (form and content) where the OFT has so determined. However the determination (the Determination) regarding overdrafts under section 74 was made on 21 December 1989 and this stated that these sorts of accounts were subject to Section 82 of the Act as well as the three conditions below: (a) That the creditor shall have informed in writing the OFT of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply; (b) that the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded - of the credit limit, if any; - of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended; - of the procedure for terminating the agreement and this information shall be confirmed in writing. © that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing no later than 7 days after that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable. So as I (IMHO) understand the Act and the Determination by the OFT as it reads, if the Bank modified any agreements (whether by changing account numbers or amalgamating them) then the Bank was required to inform the debtor in writing including the requirements of (b) from the determination. This is a matter that has already been upheld in the case of Coutts & Co v Gabriel Oscar Alan Sebestyen 2005. I have a copy (PM me if you want it) it upheld the fact that the Court of Appeal agreed that Section 82 does in fact have a significant relevance involving overdrafts and that debtors should be informed within 7 days of being 3 months over their overdraft limit. Hope that helps a bit? Penfold

That's great news for you, did the Court letter state under what CPR it was struck out by any chance? Penfold

Hi buffy, What ever happened to you chasing GMAC then? Penfold