Yes but the problem is why should you have to pay more in interest for paying them by debit card. As for Direct Debit even if you cancel them it gives them the right to go back in and set them up so for example if you were disputing an amount you owed them and you cancelled the Direct debit all they need to do is resend instructions to the bank and they can get their money. My point is that you should not have to pay more in interest for paying by debit card than you do via direct debit after all most payment systems for paying by card are actually automated now anyway. Personally as a former CAB advisor I think this is a pathetic excuse to cash in on people that prefer to control what they pay and when they pay it and by how they pay it. I have always paid by debit card and prefer this as it gives me full control of how much I want to pay and I always pay them on time so again is it fair to treat loyal good paying customers in this unequal way baring in mind it creates and unequal relationship as those that want to pay by debit card will have to pay an extra 3.58% per annum some people who only have basic bank account can't even get direct debits so because their bank is not providing a direct debit facility for their account they will have to pay more. As a former CAB Advisor I would be in favour of capping interest rates anyway as they are way to high but to increase the rates just because a customer wants to pay by debit card is bizarre they seem to be the only creditor I know who is doing that? If it is about a processing fee for making a payment why don't they just do what shops do and charge a small transaction fee of 50P or something.

Hey all, Got an urgent warning for JD Williams and Jacamo customers. it seems the company in a crafty attempt to get customers to agree to set up a Direct Debit and give them total control of when and where and how much they take out of your account have decided that as of the 7th of February 2014 customers who pay by debit or credit card will have to pay 37.68% interest where as customers who pay by direct debit will be able to continue to enjoy interest rates at 34.1%. This change means that if you want to be in control of where when and how much you want to pay you will now have to pay 3.58% more than those paying by direct debit. Surely this should be in breach of the Unfair terms and conditions in consumer contract regulations but what a way to treat loyal customers to me this is a kin to bullying either you give them control of where when and how much they take from your bank account or you pay them more for choosing where when and how much to pay. What a way to treat loyal customers JD and Jacamo just trample all over them. I say we should all write to them and protest about this tactic. Not very amused with them at all. Robert

What I find interesting Brigadeer is the fact they openly admitted they cant make since out of their own information and found their reporting to equifax and internal records confusing clearly bt did not learn their lesson about equifax banning them from reporting in the past either or that they must love confusing themselves lol! Robert

Well Brigadeer, You ready for the news? Drum role please. After talking to bt customer review service as you know they phoned me up well Lee has contacted me this morning and to milk the suspense ha ha ha he said that he was communicating with equifax and the data controller at bt as well as looking at the other issues I raised. Well his reply did not mention miss selling however in an email to me this morning after I missed his call he said that he was sorry for the confusion caused and that it was clear there was confusion over the amounts owing reported on both accounts and that this confusion was as a result of bt's reporting on the account statuses as well as confusion to the start date among other things. As a result of the proof I provided him he could see that the start dates on the accounts did not match with what bt had told equifax nor did the amount owing on each account. As a result of this he felt it would take a very long time to sort out and would need to be cleared up and that as this could take sometime he has decided that it would be in neither mine or bt's interest for to carry out a lengthy investigation as to try and get to the bottom of the confusion. As a result of the fact it would be in neither mine or bt's intereast to drag out a lengthy investigation to get to the bottom of the confusion he has agreed to "remove all the charges in relation to the accounts in question and that no further follow up of any historic balance will occur" and further to this he stated he would contact the credit refrence agency and ask them to remove all infrormation relating to these accounts. In other words what he is saying I think what he is saying but in a round about way is we will write off the debts owing and remove the account entries on your credit file as we have not complied with the data protection act and you where write to question us on that although he does not say that I think that is what he is trying to say. I note they dodge the miss selling bit but hey if they are going to write off the debts and remove the accounts from my credit file as far as I am concerned it is win win. I must say though why customer services could not see what I was trying to tell them and why corney could not see it when I showed him proof of this but Lee from the Complaint review service could see that the information being reported was confusing and in breach of DPA and subsequently agreed to remove it I do not know. As for the data controller well he will be eating his own words when he is ordered to remove the two accounts from my credit file completely just after trying to tell me they where right and I was wrong even when I showed him proof to back this up he will have to eat a large does of humble pie as will equifax who had previously refused to remove the defaulted entery and the other account on the grounds they did not have the power to and I was wrong although I will hand it to them after quoting them chapter and verse of ICO guidance and providing them with the ICO guidance book and reffering them to the specific paragraphs with the threat of legal action they did get back in touch with bt and after complaint review service gets in touch with them in realtion to the accounts they will have no other option barring to remove it and all before I get to see what ICO had to say about it though they will probably email me anyway to confirm what ICO thinks anyway. With a smile on my face I can say thanks to you guys and a 4 page letter from me along with a copy of ico guidance for bt and equifax it is a victory maybe a small one but hey a victory non the less and I have even asked bt to write a letter stating they have agreed to write of the debt and remove the account entries from my credit file and have wrote to equifax to confirm this and by remove I mean deleted and they have agreed to provide the letter so if something ever did happen I can confirm that the debt no longer exist and bt agreed to remove their default. So thats another defaulted entry of my credit file with equifax now if I could just get t mobile to remove theirs I would have a lovely spring cleaned credit file in a years time. Anyway that was a nice little belated birthday present bt delivered me in my inbox this morning and hey I started my complaint at the age of 27 and got it resolved at the age of 28 lol just too bad they had not delivered it to me on the 17th which would have been my birthday but hey its the though that counts lol. So Folks thanks for your help on this one. Robert

They have got back to me next week I get their final response however they got my letter and my complaint from equifax and I am sure the ico guidelines I sent equifax but the letter laid it out clear to them either the account started in 09 or the account 4321 started in 08 if it started in 09 then I could not be responsible for it as I was with talk talk or the account started in 08 in which case they billed me for the same services on the same line twice and breached the Data protection act I also stated my complaint about miss selling financial hardship and mental health problems still stand but in relation to 1234 as account 4321 could not be mine as during 09 I was with talk talk tied in to a years contract. but either way they have to write it off and remove the entry for account 4321 as I cannot be responsible for it. I also reminded them the serious nature of breaching the dpa and contract law as well as registering information which impacts heavily on my credit file which is not accurate. I reminded them that if they do not agree to write off account 1234 on grounds of financial difficulties it may force me into bankruptcy and make my mental health worse and also if they do not write off 4321 they will be sued for breach of the data protection act publishing in accurate information on me without permission and also breach of contract law. In the letter I laid it out to them quite clearly and they say they are taking everything into account concerns raised with equifax as well as the letter to bt which runs to 4 pages in length and the proof I provided and what I said to Mr Corney etc he said I can assure you we will take that into account when we make our final decission next week he must have seen his colleagues emails as in fact he knew the call was recording and was happy about that and agreed to all the terms I stated about sharing the call with selected third parties. So we will see if they come back with a different answer to corney although I do not hold out hope of this. Would be intereasting to see what you lot think. Robert

Hey all I have heard from bt Karen Fennel complaint review services but have missed her call so I sent her an email asking her to make all contact by emails but if she must phone I have set up an 070 number which I have given her which will put her through to me but all calls will be recorded and may be shared with Government agencies such as OFT, Department for trading Standards and Information Commissioner as well as to Ofcom for purposes of backing up complaints or for seeking advice on my rights. I also let them Know I may provide information to selected third parties such as CAB and other agencies or people for the purposes of proving what was said by whom and also seeking advice on my legal rights. I made it clear I would also share recordings with my solicitor for the purposes of legal advice and also taking legal action if necessary as well as to my carer to back up what I have said and what BT have said. I made it clear to her that calls will be charged at 50p a minute pending on her network provider and calls from other providers and mobiles will be considerably more and that information will be deleted when I am satisfied this compalint has been dealt with to my satisfaction. After raising a complaint and providing proof to equifax of the accounts actual start date I got a reply from Equifax that they heard back from bt and the data controller maintains the information is accurate and that they are unable as custodians to change this. I replied back stating that whilst I recognize that the ICO says Equifax may have defence against legal action I pointed out that ICO cannot gaurantee this and that recent cases has stated anyone who shares information weather or not provided by a third party or not for others to see is deemed as a publisher and that under uk law as a publisher they have a duty to make sure the information is accurate and that as they provide this information to other creditors in exchange for a subscription fee I consider them to be a publisher and therefore there claim they are only custodians as without foundation. I also went on to ask them if they could read as if they could they would see that the information provided contradicts the information they sent me in a letter which clearly states the start date of the account was supposedly 2009 not 2008 therefore the entry on my credit file is in breach of ICO rules. I rather cheekly provided them with a copy of the ICO guidelines and made it clear to them they should look at certain ones which state the information provided should be clear and the information should relate to the time the account was in operation I also pointed them to the fact that they should register a default within 6 months not 14 months of the last payment being recieved and reminded them bt policy was that they would not give a person a second account whilst they still owed bt and therefore it would have been imposible for me to get a second account as I still owed bt and also was in fact at that time a customer of talktalk. I provided them with a copy of ICO guidelines and told them that should they be having problems reading the letter or ico guidance to phone me and I would read it to them. After my rather cheeky response to them reminding them of ico rules and pointing them back to bt's letter I seem to have got somewhere I also reminded them they had stopped bt previously registering information in the past due to concerns about the quality of information. Equifax has now said that they are greatful to me for this information and will now contact bt to re exmaine their records again in light of the new evidence before they just kept saying contact bt so hopefully equifax will see since and remove the account 4321 as it does not take a genius to work out if an account supposedly started in 2009 by bt's own admission then it cannot possibly have started in 2008 with a late payment registered in december 2008 therefore hopefully they will finally agree to remove it but I did make it clear I would directly sue bt as well as equifax for breaching the data protection act if they do not agree to remove it and will not consider their claim to be valid that they are only a custodian of the records as they are benefiting monetarily from the publishing of this information and as a result will persue them as well. Anyway apologise for spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation and grammar but this is where we are at so far. Robert

Brigadeer You hit the nail on the head they admit account 1234 is actually mine and still has a debt owing it relates to 23/05/2008 and was transferred to debt collection agency on the 29/01/2009 the debt was shown as satisfied by bt in december 2010 no default that is account 1234 not 4321 but bt still insist that everything is correct and refuse to remove their default I have forwarded a copy of this to ICO scotland to see what they say if they agree with me that this is a breach of the DPA I will forward a copy of that email to bt CEO team to see what they do though I am still waiting on them to reply however if you listen to bt 2009 is way in the past and 2008 in the most recent entry lol do bt have any brain cells in their staff or are they all as thick as two short planks. I have no doubt this breaches the DPA and will be fighting like hell against them they say the written of the debt for 4321 as in fact it was due to hardship and not miss selling bt vision yet the account I really meant the complaint for they wont write off and wont remove their default how annoying do they need to be. Brig I shall send a copy of the complaint with a section 10 notice and do it by registered post. One good thing is Mr corney did agree to send it to the compalint resolution service though he has tried to tell me they will agree with him which I have no doubt they probably will crooks always do stick together. Robert

Hey all Update Finally got the full bt account numbers but also got some useful info from mr corney in the letter the defaulted account which if you have read past posts is 4321 Was active from 13/05/2009 to 19/06/09 which I find amusing as bt have told equifax account 4321 was active from 2008 and defaulted 14 months afterwards which means it would have defaulted before the account even started but further to this they confirm 1234 is my account and it has a debt still owing for it but this was the debt I disputed but what amuses me is they written off the debt for 4681 stating I owed them it but due to financial difficulties they would write it off yet I told them this was not my account but they are still refusing to remove the default they registered against my credit file for this account even though I know I was only a bt customer until 2008 with the account officially being passed to debt collection in january 09 I never was with bt in on the 13/05/2009 to the 19/06/2009 as in fact I was with another provider by then and tied in to a years contract further to this bt do not usually give you another account unless you pay of your existing debt with bt first so I find it amazing they claim that the entry on my credit file for account 4321 is valid when in fact thire own letter states it is impossible as the account would have been defaulted before it was even a valid account. Bt really are taking the biscuit with this one. I must admit I have had a good laugh at them for this one as it really is taking the biscuit defaulting an account before it even became an account that has to be a new one on me. What do you all think I should do I did send an email to the ceo but the bt chief executive team have hijacked it and I am still waiting on one of them getting back to me on this. Robert

Update for yous after the dis service from the mokeys I have sent the BT ceo proof of the two account entries and explained the circumstances two him including the fact that bt had miss sold bt vision to me back in 2008 and that if I wanted I could legally take bt to court over this but have decided not to in the hope that he will agree to remove the defaulted account entry that was registered against my credit file for account 4321 which I pointed out to him is not my valid account number and that account 1234 according to their customer services dept is the only account number I have with bt I also pointed out to him that when asked to provide details for both accounts through equifax they both relate to the same debt and are for the same amount with the same start date but conflicting information I also pointed out to him that it is against ico rules to register conflicting information on a credit file for the same debt and Pointed to him that bt did not register a default which ico states should be done within 6 months of last reciving a payment but did this 14 months afterwards which I stated I found suspicious and that his hired goons did not use that word of course to him but thats what they are tried to tell me these two accounts where valid and correct even though they both relate to the same debt and that they tried to tell me that the accounts related to two different periods when I was a bt customer in spite of the fact i only ever was with bt once and had one account number and both accounts have the same start date and I provided him with proof of this so he cannot deny it I then asked him for the sake of bts reputation to consider removing these defaults I also told him what affect this had on my mental health and provided him with proof and stated if he does not remove it I will make a complain to ICO and will persue legal action if necessary stating that i hoped he would see since when looking at the information provided and this letter and instruct the goons below him to remove the defaulted entry so I guess we shall see what he says the letter is 2200 and odd pages as I gave him a lesson on miss selling products and breaking scottish contract law as well as breaching DPA sent it off a few minutes ago so it should be in his inbox in time for the morning. One things for sure if he starts spouting the same rubish as the goons below then I will never go back to bt again and in fact I shall complain to ico and even if necessary get my lawyer on the case but there is no way they are getting away with this one. I am still submitting a sar request though I want all the info they have in relation to the two accounts so that I can examine it with a fine tooth comb as I know I only had one account even the guy from their customer services said it.

Hey brig heard back they are trying to say the default relates to a seperate account that just happens to have the same amount owing and the same start date I find this strange as in fact I have one phone line one broadband and one tv in my house so how can you have two accounts with the same services on it as a result I am sending sad for everything and they registered the default in 2010 but the last payment was made in 2008 which I found even stranger. This is turning out to be an interesting fight after all. This is really intereasting bt have showen a late payment during december 2008 some in 09 january through to april to be precise then they are showing then may as not updated then jun 2009 to January 2010 as queried even though I have never queried it they then have registered the default in february 2010 14 months of late payment before they default the account the sar I am sending them should turn up some intereasting stuff then but one thing it can tell me is why they left it so late to register a default agaimst the account I also asked equifax to ask them for full detail on the satisfied account of when last payment was made on it what did it include and a copy of all the letters between me and bt as well as a copy of all emails all telephone calls and all information shared with the credit reference agencies and debt collectors just to see if they will supply it for the satisfied account to prove to equifax this debt exists or if they will make me go through the SAR route just to be akward to them I am trying all routes to get info on when the accounts where in operation when last payment was made and so on. I thought it would be worth a try to see if I can trip them up over their own rope. I think it will be intereasting to see what they provide and what the sar turns up I think. Robert

Just to let you know the guy who agreed to write off the debt has stated he will look at this issue further he is from customer resolutions team after I pointed out to him it was an offence under the data protection act to have conflicting information registered on a credit file for the same debts under two different account numbers and that if this information was not sorted I would have it removed by court order and also that I would make a complaint to ico he has had the first day already today so i should hear back tomorrow if not I will email him just before the close of day to see what is happening and to keep up the heat. If they don't remove the defaulted entry which is registered under an account which is according to their customer services not valid I will register a complaint with ICO as well as there data controller and MD to turn up the heat even more. I certainly wont be letting them get away with this one. I will also request all information relating to these accounts especially previous communications with debt collection agency credit reference agencies and myself as I have a sneaking suspicion when they re registered the default they may have put it back on a later date as equifax prohibited bt from entering information for a long time till they could satisfy them all the customer accounts they where entering info on was correct if can find info on this I might be able to remove it by force then as in fact they have a whole year and a half of missed payments rather than having defaulted it then which makes me suspicious that they may have lied to equifax to get a later date added on to keep the file active for longer if I am right and can find proof then I might be able to use that against them if not I might make a complaint to ICO anyway to investigate why it taken them so long to default it but I also want to see when they assigned the debt to a debt collection agency as if they sold this debt to a debt collection agency and they did this before 2010 then I can also use this against them as they dont have the right to register a default after they actually sold it on. So I have a couple of areas to try if they dont agree to remove this info but wandered what you all think?

Brigadier I would agree with you there the funny thing is bt say it is correct however how can it be correct when it's so obviously conflicting with each other they should be able to see that but they can't see past the we are alway right rubbish they spout is it so hard to ask they get things right?

Bt stated that account number 4321 is not a valid account number and that account number 1234 is a valid account number but they have registered a default on account 4321 I was only ever billed for account number 1234 and it included all three services but the info conflicts as they both are for the full amount of debt one says settled the other says defaulted as far as I am aware there should only be one account number based on memory and what bt have said. I am sure you can understand why I would like to know legally where I stand as the two bits of info relate to the same debt for the full amount but with two different account numbers and two different conflictions as to the debts current status legally what can I do to get this sorted as bt aren't willing to sort it out and equifax try to hide behind the we cant change it the info does not belong to us we are therefore exempt as we are merely publishing what the creditor says. They of course stick to the creditors side after all they pay more for their services and they would not want to upset them now would they this is why I wanted to know legally what can I do about this?

Thanks for that. I just find it confusing as to why they would give it two account numbers with conflicting evidence on each even though they relate to the same debt.

It is in deed they even had the cheek to tell me it was a one sided conversation as I knew my rights and they could not argue with me otherwise at one point they also said I was rude just because I told them to shut up and listen when they tried to talk over me and give me a whole whist of false info. Just goes to show you should never give up when you know your in the right.