A few years ago, I had a basic bank account with Abbey (now Santander) which I wrongly assumed had been closed after I switched banks. However, after a bank charge on the account, it slipped into unauthorised overdraft and began to accrue a negative balance. Abbey didn't apply further charges, but applied interest on the balance. After the arrears had reached £100 Abbey passed the account to Moorcroft and registered a default on my credit file. From there I repaid the outstanding balance to Moorcroft at an agreed sum each month, not much as I was only working part-time. It was cleared in March this year, and having recently checked my credit report I saw that there was seemingly a £10 arrears still marked. I've queried this with Abbey and Moorcroft who both confirm the account is clear and Abbey will mark the default as satisfied. But I would like to know if I could have it remove, and not simply marked 'satisfied'? In the response I received, Abbey said they wouldn't remove it as it was in their interests and those of other lenders that it remained for the requisite period. The account in question wasn't a credit-bearing account; ie, there was no overdraft attached to the account, no cheque guarantee or any other facility - simply a basic account with a debit card to use at ATMs and shops. Nothing else. As such I don't see how such an account can come under jurisdiction of a credit agreement and so a default under the CCA and such affect my credit report. Plus, i can't recall ever having received a default notice from Abbey regarding the account - that's not to say I didn't get one though. The default wasn't for a huge amount of money - £130. But it was registered in June 2009, so won't drop off my report until 2015. Is there anything I can do to try and have Abbey remove the default, or am I stuck with it until it drops off on its own? What effect will a satisfied default have on my getting credit in the future? Thanks.

Ok, I now have the 'evidence' from the creditor. They claim I worked 60 hrs a week... the payslip they provided shows that I did, but it is dated during the summer term break. So it is showing some overtime. This seemingly counts against me. So too does a financial check they made, which they claim was faxed to my manager and shows me as full-time. I know for a fact (as I was there at the time), the financial check was done via phone call. The name of my line manager on the form is wrong, and mis-spelt, and there is no signature of his on the forn. This 'job check' has been fabricated by the creditor at the time of the check! They also say the date of the agreement (2003) predates the FSA requirements on PPI and so I cannot refer it to the FOS. I had thought it was the FOS who had thrown it out, but it hasn't even got that far. This poliy WAS mis-sold to me - but it seems there is nothing I can do. Livid ain't the word now.

I have just received notification from my claims handler that my claim for PPI has been rejected after the seller produced evidence contrary to my claim. I was mis-sold PPI on a HP agreement to buy a car, arranged through a finance broker back in September 2003. At the time I was a full-time student, working less than 16 hours a week and claiming benefits. The broker told me that his lender would take benefits into account as income and I was successful in obtaining finance. When I went into his office to sign the paperwork, I noticed that the agreement amount was different to that which he had told me on the phone. When queried, he told me that it was PPI and it was a condition of the finance agreement - no PPI, no finance. No attempt was made to tell me that it could be had elsewhere or indeed was optional. Reluctantly I signed up. I filed a claim last year with a claims handler - due to time constraint, I couldn't take the claim on myself - and the outcome has been that the lender has produced evidence which claims I worked 60hrs, not 16! And me studying full-time at the same time.... never mind it was blatantly mis-sold to begin with, with strong-arm tactics of no PPI=no loan. Regardless, as a result, the FOS has thrown my case out. I'm livind and have asked to see documentary of this proof as I don't believe it to be accurate. I've been racking my brains back to the time I arranged the loand and I am convinced my case is sound. But in the meantime, have I any rights to appeal, or to take this further? Obviously, I can't do much without seeing this evidence they have produced but I'd be interested in anyone's opinions on this.

This is also posted at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/263344-bank-charges-claim-financialclaims.html - it does say to also post in here. The above thread has received no replys yet so posting here in the hope of a response... Because of my job, I was often away from home and so to try to reclaim my bank charges I used a reclaims firm - FinancialClaims UK - to do this on my behalf. Their fee was 10% and I began my claim against HBOS in May 2007. Almost 2 years later, the claim was filed as a hardship case after I was made redundant. FinClaims sent me the forms, which I filled in and handed them to my bank. FinClaims also challenged HBoS under a breach of the Banking Code. All seemed well, until the Supreme Court ruling came through and HBoS denied my claim. I enquired this with the claims firm who told me that they had filed my case under UTCCR but in light of the SC ruling they would now pursue under Hardship and the British Banking code - something they were already supposed to have done. That was in January this year. Since then I have seen or heard nothing - no letter, no email, no phone call. I've tried sending them emails, phoning them, writing to them at their office address in Feltham. Nothing in response. I suspect the company has done a runner in the wake of the SC verdict. Their original website is still active, but if you browse to the homepage it redirects to another website under the company name. Using Google's cache I was able to browse the original site, but when you click on the homepage link, the original site displays a message "the financial claims service and this website are no longer running." I've no idea now what has happened with my claim; whether it is dead following HBoS throwing it out after the ruling, or if FinClaims have filed it in court and its sitting in some court 'Intray'. Further investigation suggests FinClaims were a subsidiary of the solicitor Robert Brand & Co, London and seemingly a [problem] to harvest bank account details if some online reports are accurate. FinClaims are/were registered in the British Virgin Islands but have MoJ licence and Data Protection licence, both of which I checked out before signing up. Thankfully, I never paid FinClaims any money up front but its annoying to think I've wasted 3 years with this firm. Even if i restarted my claim - either on my own, or through a claims firm - I'll have lost 3 years worth of charges reclaiming. I've complained about FinClaims to the Ministry of Justice and Trading Standards in Hounslow, and asked for more information about Robert Brand from the Law Society/Legal Complaints Service but I'm not expecting anything to come from it. I'm also considering informing the police as to the perceived [problem]. But, i suppose, after all the above, this post comes down to asking the question: Can I begin the reclaims process again, and if so how do I go about it?

Hi all, Needing some advice about a bank charges claim I have/had. Because of my job, I was often away from home and so to try to reclaim my bank charges I used a reclaims firm - FinancialClaims UK - to do this on my behalf. Their fee was 10% and I began my claim against HBoS in May 2007. Almost 2 years later, the claim was filed as a hardship case after I was made redundant. FinClaims sent me the forms, which I filled in and handed them to my bank. FinClaims also challenged HBoS under a breach of the Banking Code. All seemed well, until the Supreme Court ruling came through and HBoS denied my claim. I enquired this with the claims firm who told me that they had filed my case under UTCCR but in light of the SC ruling they would now pursue under Hardship and the British Banking code - something they were already supposed to have done. That was in January this year. Since then I have seen or heard nothing - no letter, no email, no phone call. I've tried sending them emails, phoning them, writing to them at their office address in Feltham. Nothing in response. I suspect the company has done a runner in the wake of the SC verdict. Their original website is still active, but if you browse to the homepage it redirects to another website under the company name. Using Google's cache I was able to browse the original site, but when you click on the homepage link, the original site displays a message "the financial claims service and this website are no longer running." I've no idea now what has happened with my claim; whether it is dead following HBoS throwing it out after the ruling, or if FinClaims have filed it in court and its sitting in some court 'Intray'. Further investigation suggests FinClaims were a subsidiary of the solicitor Robert Brand & Co, London and seemingly a [problem] to harvest bank account details if some online reports are accurate. FinClaims are/were registered in the British Virgin Islands but have MoJ licence and Data Protection licence, both of which I checked out before signing up. Thankfully, I never paid FinClaims any money up front but its annoying to think I've wasted 3 years with this firm. Even if i restarted my claim - either on my own, or through a claims firm - I'll have lost 3 years worth of charges reclaiming. I've complained about FinClaims to the Ministry of Justice and Trading Standards in Hounslow, and asked for more information about Robert Brand from the Law Society/Legal Complaints Service but I'm not expecting anything to come from it. I'm also considering informing the police as to the perceived [problem]. But, i suppose, after all the above, this post comes down to asking the question: Can I begin the reclaims process again?

Hi, Firstly, apologies for resurrecting an old thread. I used this company to pursue my bank charges claim as I didn't have the time to devote to chasing down HBoS. Since the Supreme Court verdict, however, I have heard nothing from the company regarding the status of my claim. I've emailed my claims handler several times and tried to phone them on the telephone number given on their website but this just rings out and eventually goes to a voicemail box. Does anyone know if this firm is still active? And if so, how to contact them as the methods they give on their website don't work. Thanks.

I find it very hard to believe that the avenue presented to claimants by the SC would be closed at lesser levels by courts. I would imagine the SC would have looked long and hard at the other routes available to claimants and if there were any doubt about their success would surely not have even mentioned it in their verdict? At the very worst, if the courts lean towards the banks on this alternate approach then surely GLC, the myriad of claims firms, consumer groups and individuals can use the same tools afforded to the banks during the OFT case and appeal, appeal, appeal all the way to the SC again? I doubt it'll get quite as far as that though. I can see the banks getting squeaky bums over this latest development.

Excellent work and a real chink of light for all reclaimers! Just when the banks thought it was safe to go back in the water...

As per opening post, ShopDirect have already been CCA'd and failed to produce a proper signed copy. They've also failed to produce when requested through the current collection agency Iqor. By their own admission on the cover letter, they cannot locate a copy of an executed agreement bearing my signature. All they have managed to produce is a standard, unsigned credit agreement and filled in the blanks.

Thanks. Are there any template letters I can use to challenge ShopDirect about the default?

Hi all, I've just got a copy of my credit report and there is a default marked on it for Phoenix ShopDirect, issued November 2008. However, its not mine. I believe my now ex-partner took out a catalogue agreement in my name circa 2006 without telling me and soon after we split, she obviously stopped repaying the debt. That's providing she was repaying it in the first place ... I may be doing her a disservice, though as the only reason I have to suspect her is that around about this time some 'stuff' came into the home which ordinarily we couldn't have afforded without some form of credit. I've since disassociated myself from her financially, which is just as well as her credit rating was shot to pieces and to this day she maintains she didn't do it. I was working away from home in 2006/early-2007 and knew nothing about this until a ShopDirect letter appeared about the debt one day. As it wasn't mine, I CCA'd ShopDirect and heard nothing in return so considered the matter closed. All has been quiet for several months until more recently, I received a letter from Iqor about the same debt and CCA'd them also. This time I got a response from Shop Direct with a credit agreement which had no signature and only contained sketchy information about the debt. Can I get this default removed, and if so how do I go about it? Many thanks!

PGH747, you're probably right! lickthewallfatboy, I wondered how long it would be for someone to come out with that.. :D Thankfully nothing as I'm not generally attracted to tat from newspapers, although the plate i mentioned was quite nice! ;-) I might have to try it myself and find out what happens..

Apologies if this is in the wrong place but reading my morning paper I was intrigued to discover what would be the legal standing of the below scenario. I must point out that this is a purely hypothetical and that I or no-one I know is in this position. I'm just curious to find the answer. In the newspapers/colour glossies there are always adverts for limited edition 'things' - ornaments, jewellery etc and I found myself drawn to a collectors plate of my favourite football team. However, while the price of a piece of china put me off in most cases the offering company ( say 'Nice China Things' - made up name) offer purchasers the option of paying in a lump sum (say £100) or spreading the cost (say, 6 monthly payments of £16.67). My question is: what happens if someone arranges to pay over 6 months but then doesn't pay? From my understanding of the advert, the company is in effect offering credit to the purchaser but doesn't issue a proper CCA for the cost of the item. So if someone decides not to pay, what can the company legally do to reclaim their money? After all, there's no enforceable CCA in effect AFAIK and the only proof they have of a purchase is a wee coupon cut from a paper. Would they try to register a default, either themselves or via a DCA? I think it would be interesting to see what courses of action would be available to these companies? Anyone have thoughts on this?

Hi all, Looking for a bit of advice re: Abbey and Moorcroft DCA. My wife and I have/had a basic Abbey cash account a few years ago which we stopped using but never closed. As it was a basic account there was no overdraft facility and a bounced DD and subsequent charge put the account in arrears... I can't remember how long ago this was, but it was at least 4 years. Anyway, Abbey have continued to add interest to the overdraft which is now standing at a little over £100 and Abbey have closed the account and passed the debt to Moorcroft for recovery. While I admit we're at fault for not closing the account earlier and letting the charges accrue I was wondering if the debt and subsequent recovery could actually be classed as illegal/unfair under the current OFT case as it has been built entirely from charges that originally applied to an unpaid DD? Moorcroft have started the harassment calls - 9 times yesterday at up to 3 minutes a call ringing which my wife ignored and one already this morning. Any advice on stopping them phoning constantly would also be appreciated. Thanks, Vag

Letter received this morning - GM Law have dropped the claim

Letter has been sent. I'll let you know what they say ...

Of course, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/132200-vagabond-gdr-gm-law.html

Read my thread on GDR and their shyster solicitors GM Law... I'm having a barney with them now over a credit card debt from ages ago.

*bump* Anyone have any feedback on the above letter? Anything I should add/remove before I send it off to GM Flaw? Cheers for all the advice so far!

Evenin'... Well, after a lot of trawilng about CAG and some other forums, here's the full letter I'll be sending to GM Law tomorrow, pending advice from forumites I apologise for it's length... Here goes! I refer to your letter dated 8th April 2008, which was delivered to me on 11th April 2008, the contents of which are noted. However, I must point out that as of the date of this letter, you have thus far failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account, and by continuing to demand payment, you are in breach of the Office of Fair Trading guidelines on debt collection. My request for a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account was issued to you on 1st March 2008 and was received and signed for by a member of your staff on 4th March 2008. Furthermore, I have obtained an electronic proof of delivery showing the name and signature of the recipient. In this request, I made a formal request for a copy of the signed, executed credit agreement for the above numbered xxx account under section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act. In addition a statement of my account was to be sent along with any other document mentioned in the credit agreement. This request was accompanied by Postal Order, serial number xxxxxxx. Again, you are reminded that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not under S189 of the CCA 1974. The time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation and if you fail to comply after a further 30 days you commit a summary criminal offence. For your reference, the original 12 day deadline expired on 19th March 2008, with the extended deadline due to expire on 18th April 2008. I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced. The limits for supplying a true, signed copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement relating to the alleged debt will expire on 18th April 2008, after which your client commits an offence and unless your client can produce a true, signed copy of the agreement, the alleged debt becomes unenforceable at law. As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) of the Consumer Credit Act states: If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1) (a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement. And (b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Whilst the account is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agencies (or any third party). To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the data subject to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this. Furthermore, this letter provides statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office. Should your client now persist with threats of legal action as stated in your letter, I will welcome the opportunity for a judge to look at several offences committed by XXX DCA XX under The Consumer Credit Act, 1974, as well as your client’s non-compliance with and total disregard for the law on this occasion. You now have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which should now be considered as a formal complaint, otherwise your conduct and that of your client will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Ombudsman and Trading Standards, alongside any other regulatory bodies as deemed appropriate. Any investigation undertaken by them may affect your ability to hold a consumer credit license in the future. To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the complete documentation I have requested. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, you must confirm this in writing to me. No further correspondence will be entered into until the required documentation has been produced to my satisfaction and is legally acceptable. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully

Thanks Spamheed (*tips scales*) .. some good info in there I can use. I'll be drawing up a full letter using this and other sources to send back to GM Flaw tonight. I'll post it on this thread before it goes away, hopefully someone can read over it and highlight any issues with it.

Anyone?

Update: Club24 debts seems to have gone quiet - haven't heard a cheep from GM Law about this since they were CCA'd apart from a few printed screendumps. They have, however, been shouting re: the FV1 account (Lloyds TSB). They've sent me a few printed screengrabs, claiming this qualifies as statement of account (does it?) but as yet, no CCA. Yesterday they sent a FINAL DEMAND letter that I get in touch (aye, right you are!) to repay. I want to write back and tell them to go spin, and was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of a 'nice' letter that can make my point that they'll be getting hee-haw from me.

Thanks for the reply Spamheed. Unfortunately, when I first made payments I did so through the company's online payment portal - a big error now! However, I did not offer anything in writing, instead I just plucked a figure out of the air I could afford and paid that. Unfortunately, it now means they have my card details and can plunder my account whenever they like... I've checked back through online bank statements and none of the entries for GDR show a reference number against the payment made, so I cannot correlate which payments belong to which account, so I may have to SAR them. I'm still hoping their non-production of the CCA thus far will be the rod to break their backs though!

Anyone?