Spiteful, and a bit...dense I think. She still thinks there is money locked away in the property and can't comprehend that negative equity means it's not worth anything (in terms of profit) to her. Essentially they just want to milk my brother dry. I've told him to go to Citizen's advice in the first instance and write a letter to Capstone afterwards.

No he's not in arrears and never has been which is good, I do believe their lender is Sub-prime, it's Capstone Mortgages, they couldn't get a mortgage due to her poor credit rating. The other side's family are now instructing her to demand a 5k pay out before she takes her name off the mortgage which I feel is extortion considering she doesn't even earn 5k a year!

Need some advice for my brother. He's in a mortgage with his now ex-girlfriend, he is the principle earner in the relationship and has a clause that if anyone was the leave the mortgage it would have to be her. Anyway, things have got rather sour, she will only leave the mortgage if he buys her out, i.e releases equity on the house. The house was bought for 150k at the beginning of 2008, it's a 50% shared ownership house, making it a 75k mortgage. The house is now valued at around 130k. Obviously if they were to sell up they would be in negative equity and would make a loss. My brother however is quite happy to take on the house himself and not sell up. The main spanner in the works is his ex has a kid from a previous relationship and wants to lose the house so her and the kid get rehoused by the DSS. Is there anything my brother can do here, since the inception of the mortgage he is the only one who has been paying anything towards it, but i'm guessing because both names are on the mortgage, that's all that matters.

Nothing back from the ICO yet unfortunately. I did mention default removal, but rather stupidly did not back it up with a statute. I merely said i wanted the unsubstantiated default removed.

All charges have been refunded on the account, so that matter is largely settled. My problem is the default only now. Is it worth entering into further litigation with Citi just to get this removed? I received default judgement against them last time, so didn't prove either way if charges were unlawful.

Still no response from the ICO on this one, how about you Enron? I'm thinking of stepping up my attack as this default is actually causing me financial hardship with mortgages/loans that sort of stuff.

Judging by some of the problems people are facing in this forum, my own problems may well be seen as tiny in comparison, but I'm willing to bet a lot of people are in a similar situation to me. Re-wind 5 years, I was working for the RBoS, unfortunately not with the kind of pension Mr Goodwin is on, far from it, I was earning 10k a year!Struggling to make ends meet I got involved with credit cards and loans, then the usual thing happened, bills piled up, debts grew larger, and I started ignoring them through shame. Things picked up a year or so later, new job, more money and set about paying off bills, pretty much an entire year of doing nothing in life but paying debts. Last year, thanks to this place I hit back at most of these companies, got all my money back and defaults removed. Except one. Citicards, who point blank refuse to remove the default but have refunded me all the money. I managed to get my first credit card in 5 years just after Christmas and have been using it to buy everything I normally buy, fuel, food, and other necessities. I pay it back in full every month, and plan to do so for a long time as it should help fix my credit history, or so I thought. I'm still ineligible for a small (£50) or so overdraft on my bank account which has a decent salary in every month, not to mention a savings account with a big sum of money in. Nor it seems can I get a mortgage because of this default, or even be able to lease a car. I have one default, almost completely comprised of unlawful charges, that represents me missing payments at a time that I was earning less than 2/3's of what I am now. Citicards as i say refuse to remove it, the ICO are likely to take 6 months to respond to a complaint i raised about it, and it makes me angry. I want to say 'b******s to credit history', but the reality is, without a clean history, especially in the recession we're in, your name is as good as dirt.

Bloody hell it just doesn't get any better for you does is mate! Just reading through your post i see you're thinking of having a closing down sale, or maybe retaining ownership and opening up at weekends only. My only comments on that subject would be, is it going to cost you more to sell up now, or to keep the shop open? If it's cheaper to close up, and you've got other employment options lined up, personally i'd go with that. You could have the potential to work overtime at the new place, and therefore gain guaranteed finances, rather than hoping you get takings at the shop. Just think though, the shop might not have been successful so far, and it might be painful to close up, but, once you've stabilised your finances, and your life is back on track, there's no reason why you can't try it again in the future. Andy

Unfortunately I do not think i can take the CCA route, my account is now closed, and was closed at the time of my initial litigation with Citi. I do have a question though, if judgement was awarded in my favour, all be it in default. Does that mean that because Citi have failed to defend, their charges must have been unlawful?

Hopefully something, i've got something which may come a cropper for Citi..!

Second complaint sent to the ICO.

Purpleperson, your story is really heart breaking and puts a lot of things in perspective, i'm sure not just for me, but for everyone reading this. You've already got a lot of good advice from people, I myself found myself in a situation where I had more money going out in debts than I did coming in, but thanks almost entirely to the good people on this site, I have claimed ALL of my charges back and almost entirely cleaned my credit history, so every cloud does have a silver lining, believe me. I would definitely start on the case of reclaiming as much of the charges as you can, it's a lengthy process admittedly, but you'll get a lot of capital back in the long run and more importantly, you may even be able to stop any further late payments and such being applied to your accounts, which may help. One question though, which may seem a bit bleak in all honesty. Your shop, obviously it means a lot to you, but could you not close it briefly, and find some other temporary work just to get some money in? Like everyone has said, look after number one first, if that means closing up for a little while to get yourself sorted, that could be the answer. If you're not bringing in enough income to cover your costs, you need to think logically. What kind of a shop is it by the way? If it's a sweet shop, i'll be right there!

What impact would there be if the account was now closed?

Good idea that. Citi literally have nothing to substantiate the default, no CCA, no proof a default notice was ever sent out (all manual intervention has been 'purged'). All of this coupled with the fact they had judgement against them for unlawful charges which make up the amount of the default make it hard for them to defend really.

Not much of an update, as i've been busy with work and Christmas, but the fun and games continue. S.10 Notice served to Citi around 2 months ago, no response obviously. Sent signed for though, so i have proof it was received. Contacted Experian to complain about the unsubstantiated default Citi are recording against my credit file, no response well after 28 days from Experian. What's the best course of action to take to speed up proceedings?

What's the best course of action for me? ICO for Data Protection Act breach, or another court claim?

Just in need of some clarification dudes. Section 10 has been served, recorded delivery and I have received confirmation that this has signed for by Citi. I'm pretty sure that Citi will do nothing, but anyway, I have contacted Experian informing them that I have withdrawn Citi's right to process my data. What will happen now? Will Experian just ask Citi their opinion which will then no doubt say they want to continue to record defamatory information against me, and leave it at that? If this is the case, what is next?

S10 Drafted! In the post tomorrow!

Well, the cheque has cleared, so now it's on to round 2!

Wednesday, I did reference the default in my POC, but put no statutes to back up why default removal should be a part of my claim, aka breach of the data protection act. Obviously i should have done, but at the time i didn't realise the intricacies of doing so, as i actually filed the claim a long time ago now. A word of warning though. If Citi follow the same process with you as they did with me, it will no doubt go along these lines: They may not receive the N1 form They then may not receive default judgement enforcement from the court You should probably send a copy by recorded delivery, at which point you may get a response from them, along the lines of "We will win in court, so cancel your claim or you will be liable for costs" You will then have to enter into reasonable settlement negotiation The key in this whole process though is what exactly the Court is enforcing in the default judgement. If it's only money, then Citi only have to give you money. For me, this isn't the end. I'm going to try to get this default removed as it's unsubstantiated, incorrect and, in my opinion, in breach of the data protection act. I already have a complaint open with the ICO, and they agree in principal that the default is incorrect. Time will tell.

Ok cool. I'll just cash the cheque when it turns up then. My only concern now though, if Citi are settling with no admission of liability. If i go down the Data Protection Act route is it a similar claim, i.e claiming their fees are not proportionate of their cost, but rather than claiming money (as i would have already claimed it) i would be asking for default removal due to inaccuracy?

Hi Martin - I've just messaged you apologies for the duplication. Having referred to my POC it simply states "Removal of the Default Notice applied to the claimants credit file." under the section 'the claimant claims'. There is no statutes referring to the default removal throughout the POC. Does this omission mean that a claim for default removal is largely going to be fruitless now?

I deliberately chose not to update this thread as i was going through settlement discussion with Eversheds. However, today i've recieved an unsatisfactory ultimatum, and i've been backed into a corner. Citicards have now drafted a cheque for the full amount of charges, and are still refusing to remove the default notice from my credit files, stating they still feel this is correctly applied. In pointing out their inaccuracies i recieved a response stating that they have completed their obligations from the courts, that is, to return the default fees, and that is true, the court enforcement merely tackled the financial side, not the default issue. In phoning the court they have informed me they only can enforce CCJ removal as they're the only markers they apply, and defaults have to be taken up with the company in question. Default removal was in every letter, in my particulars of claim but was omitted by the courts for the reasons above. So, now i'm really after advice as to whether it's still possible to get this damned default removed.

Unfortunately, mobile phone contracts are not regulated by CCA and are 'service agreements', you generally allow them process any data about you when you agree to their T&C's. The defaults are for breach of their contract usually if you miss a bill and don't pay within a month. In terms of the word 'default' appearing on your credit file, it shouldn't affect your credit worthiness but this is dependant on the lender, most will just see the word default and assume you're bad with moneyand penalize you accordingly. It's unfair but there isn't much you can do

I think we all know, money is never going to be the issue with Bank like Citi, it's the removal of defaults they cannot accept, even with the facts stacked in my favour they are still claiming it is correctly recorded. The deletion of manual intervention is making things even more difficult though.