Thanks London, that’s definitely reassuring. This whole process is stressful enough, I don’t want to fall at the last hurdle!

Thanks London, hope you’re right.

When I was in my early 20’s, I ran up a Halifax credit card bill as a student that I couldn’t afford to repay. They eventually solid it to Capquest as far as I recall and I made some repayments then stopped. it was maybe £1K-£2K. Capquest stopped chasing me and six years later it dropped off my credit file. This dropping off happened 8 years ago so it’s been a while. I’m applying for a mortgage and the best deal from my broker has been from Halifax. They’ve done an affordability check but the official application hasn’t been made. Will they hold my young and irresponsible past self against me after all this time? Since everything’s computerised there is no reason for it to not come up. Will it matter? Thanks all. Sorry if this is a regular question, I struggled with the right terms to search for.

Would they consult the relevant filing system on a loan application? Perhaps a mortgage application rather than a small loan/credit card?

Thanks, this makes sense, I was under the impression they would need to remove your data after a while as they no longer have a business need to retain it but maybe if you still *technically* owe money, they would have a reason to keep your name on file. I guess there is only one way to find out but I'd rather avoid the embarrassment!

I got myself into trouble with a Halifax student overdraft many many years ago and the fees racked up so much I couldn't afford to pay it back before the debt was sold off. I moved away and sort of lost track of it. The debt became statue barred and fell off my credit file around 2011. Am I as good as dead to Halifax for any future business or will I be long forgotten by now, or in the near future? I'm looking for a mortgage and Halifax look promising but it seems like a bad idea to approach them or any of their group companies. What happens to people who do this with a few lenders? If you mess about with a few you could wipe out the majority of the high street lenders because they all seem to be owned by each other to various degrees.

When payments are stopped due to returned mail, an indicator is set on your child benefit record to say that the back office is dealing with your claim and no updates are to be made by the contact centre. The system is very very very old, so this helps prevent two people doing something with your account at the same time and you potentially having an overpayment. The contact centre will send a request to the back office telling them what your call was about and will leave it to the back office to update your records and get your payments restarted. It may well be different now but back in my day, the contact centre for Child Benefit could update your Tax Credits records (they have access to the Tax Credits system) on the call but it didn't work the other way round. Even if it did, the indicator would prevent the Tax Credits advisor from updating anything, let alone restart payments. Usually the contact centre will tell you the timescale for the back office to deal with the update, it changes all the time but with the recent Child Benefit changes and increased calls with kids going back to school etc, there may well be a longer than usual delay, maybe from 4-12 weeks. As long as there are no other problems, you will get your money backdated, it's just a matter of how long it will take. Give them a call again in a couple of weeks to see if there has been any update. It's not good customer service to have been abrupt with you but when the back office is dealing with things, it can be very difficult (or impossible) to see whats happening, so the advisor may have very little to share with you, no matter how much you press them for information.

Hello, I'm hoping you can help! My brother was in a joint tenancy where the fixed part ended and it became a monthly rolling tenancy (I believe this is called a periodic tenancy). Due to difficulties with the other two tenants, he advised the landlord he wanted to leave and gave a months notice. The landlord accepted this but told him he would have to find a replacement tenant before he could leave. He tried to but was unable to do so. During this time the other tenants decided to leave and gave their notice which ended a month later. The landlord had my brother pay for what would have been his share of this extra month because he had not found a replacement tenant for the final month. As far as I understand it, the tenancy was terminated for everyone at the end of the notice my brother had given and finding a replacement tenant was not a requirement. If the other two tenants wanted to stay on that is between them and the landlord. My brother only paid the extra months rent because he believed the landlord, though I feel he was misled. Can anyone shed any light on this, as I'm not sure if I'm correct in thinking my brother was misled and should not have paid for the extra months rent, or if the landlord is correct? Sorry if I haven't explained myself well, I can provide further information if required.

Thanks Brig, this was the Ombudsman Services rather than FOS but I'll ask if something similar is available. Would the letter from o2 stating they'd clear the credit file stand up in court if it came to that? There is no dispute that the debt was owed (and is now paid) but it just seems unfair for a simple misunderstanding.

Anyone have any ideas? Any legislation or guidelines the Ombudsman would need to follow in decided this case?

Yes, both o2 and the Ombudsman have had sight of and hold copies of this letter, though o2 said he shouldn't have been told this, essentially they made a mistake and the Ombudsman doesn't think it is of any importance. To be honest I got the impression the Ombudsman had decided in favour of o2 before they had even read the complaint fully.

So a complaint was brought to the Ombudsman, who got back to him last week. They are siding with o2 because o2 produced evidence that letters were sent out, even though none were received. Does anyone know what I can do next? It seems in a he said/she said situation, the Ombudsman gives the company the benefit of the doubt not the customer. Is there anything I can be quoting or referring them to? I can't think of any more evidence to provide plus it was so long ago, I doubt any exists. Any help appreciated.

Good luck, my friend is trying to get o2 to remove one for £30 odd, was their error and had been a customer for 8 years. Even after promising in writing to remove it when the outstanding payment was made, they've changed their mind and refuse to remove it. Complaint was sent to the ombudsman but I'm not holding my breath.

If the CBO found out about her claiming any benefits in her own right, they would have up until 5pm Thursday 28th to update your circumstances on the system to cause the underpayment, so if she moved out on the Tuesday, it is possible. If you give the helpline a call they should be able to tell you why the payment was less than usual.

Will do, thanks

Quick note, is there any guidance on this issue I could be quoting? Is it to do with the DPA, or is it something the ICO has provided guidance on?

Thanks Brig, I think he followed the o2 Complaints procedure thinking that was the right way to go but I'll advise him to do this instead. Thanks dx100uk, I will ask him to do so. I hope his memory is correct as it is such a shame to have a default for such a small amount.

I am writing this on behalf of a friend who I am trying to help out, sorry it's a bit wordy. They had a pay monthly phone with o2 (online) and took out a new contract with o2 (store), around May 2010. After a month or two, they called up o2 to cancel the online account. They recall being advised no further payments would be due and proceeded to cancel their direct debit. Since then, they have heard nothing. Fast forward to Christmas 2012, they decide to check their credit reference file and a default had been placed in November 2010 for £36. It seems the advice given by o2 was incorrect and he shouldn't have cancelled the DD. He wrote to o2 to query this as he believed it to be an error. o2 confirmed he did owe the £36. He wrote to them again and stated that he doesn't believe the default was justified and it was unfair as they hadn't informed him it would be placed, nor that he owed them money. They stated in writing, that they would clear his credit reference file upon payment. So he called them up, made the payment but was told on the phone while making said payment, they wouldn't be removing the default after all. He wondered if he should make the payment but decided it was the right thing to do and wrote to them again, this time to the Complaints review team. They have since written back and stated they won't remove it as they are legally required to give a true reflection of his payment history. He had been a customer since 2003 and had no payment issues. He was not warned that any money was owed by phone, email or letter. Nor of their intention to place a default or that they had gone ahead and done so. He only became aware of the outstanding amount because he checked his file of his own accord. He has been given duff advice by o2 twice, first that no payments were due and second that they would be happy to clear the credit file after payment. I have checked ICO guidance and it seems this behaviour could be considered unfair. For such a small amount it doesn't seem justifiable, especially as it was incurred at the exact time the contract and DD was cancelled and he was not given any opportunity to rectify the problem. Where do I take it from here? Thanks so much.

Six years from default.

I know your question relates specifically to the legality of this charge but I felt for others reading it may be worth remembering that DHL also made a customs declaration to clear your goods into the UK. You can pay anything up to £30 to get a company to make one on your behalf.

I am by no means an expert on this, so you may wish to wait for further advice from others here but the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy, which is presumably what they were following when they charged back for your "electronic services" doesn't actually cover services (Section 13.3 PayPal User Agreement). Someone tried this when I sold them a webpage template I had designed and then decided they weren't going to use it (because they found another, not because of problems with it) when I wouldn't refund them. PayPal refunded them and caused a negative balance on my account but I was able to get them to reverse this by pointing out that buyer protection doesn't cover services.

I've had the same from them and a flurry of other DCA's for a Capquest "debt" and I'm fairly sure it's because my "debt" is statue barred in a couple of weeks. I'm just ignoring them as I CCA'd Capquest 3 years ago and they admitted they couldn't provide me with any copy of the agreement but I am obligated to pay the "debt" anyway.

Thanks very much BRIGADIER2JCS, am I relying on them doing this out of kindness (no chance) or do I have any legal rights in this regard? It seems so shady, I don't know how they get away with it!

Hi all, I ordered a pair of jeans for my then boyfriend from Premier Man in 2009. I paid for the jeans using my debit card. I recently carried out a review of my credit history and noticed that they had actually opened a credit account and I'm quite furious. I bought the goods, they delivered them, that was that, I had no intention of ordering from them ever again and certainly did not request a credit account. Although it shows as settled and obviously no defaults, I've been advised by my mortgage broker that it may be looked upon negatively and as I didn't know it had happened, I should look into getting it removed. Is this possible? There is absolutely no mention of signing a credit agreement or being provided with a credit limit anywhere during the order process, except for a bit hidden in the Data Protection notice: "We may also use your information, including shopping habits, to open and run your credit account including payment recovery, fraud prevention and debtor tracing and for our marketing." but it never asks me if I want this or not. I think it's really shady and want to get it removed but I'm not sure I have a leg to stand on. As an aside, I will never order anything from any of their group of companies ever again. I've never known any online retailer to operate in this way.

Thanks BRIGADIER2JCS, I really don't trust them. I just want to find out my status but I don't want it to trigger alarm bells!