Here's my experience.. I've recently endured several weeks of a similar experience through a New Deal training contractor in West Yorkshire. I found my own 'work placement' after a successful speculative letter&CV mailshot, however, the training provider refused to undertake the required Heath&Safety assesment putting the placement in jeopardy, and instead demanded it was a 'Work Trial' therefore under the jurisdiction of the Jobcentre. The JC's own stance on the definition of work placement/work trial and who is responsible for the arrangements and liabilities of such was stated that.. "A work trial is where there is a specific vacancy for which teh employer uis actively trying to fill , and can last for up to 4 weeks and is entirely voluntary. A work placement is an opportunity to gain workplace skills and experience and does not relate to a specific job vacancy, and is arranged by the training provider.." I complained straightaway in a strongly worded letter to the JC manager, MP, director of the training company (found through a search of companies house) and Darra Singh, Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus and New Deal schemes for the DWP, detailing the non-existant training provision, dire standard of resources offered by the provider, the refusal to assist in arranging the placement etc. As a result I was ejected from the New Deal scheme by the provider with no notice to either myself or the jobcentre, and as a result, left in severe financial hardship and had to terminate the placement I'd arranged as had to take too much time off to untangle the mess. The upshot is, is that as everything was done by letter, including the fabrication of lies recieved as explanation in the training provider's written response to my complaints for which I have both evidence, and the Jobcentre manager's own testament in support of the facts, I now have the buggers on the run and am urging both the Chief Exec of the Jobcentre and my MP to investigate the training company for fraud, as they have claimed for and have been paid public money for training services that they never provided. I had a meeting recently with the JC manager who was rather helpful and shocked at my experience, and when she asked "And what are you looking for as an end result" I stated that I wanted an unreserved written apology from the training provider, plus an immediate repayment of any and all costs made in my name to the provider by the DWP, but so they could be used toward funding independant skills training of my choosing If you need to make a complaint about a New Deal training provider, a good tip as have found is to go straight to the top Darra Singh - Chief Executive, Jobcentre Plus 4th Floor, Caxton House 6-12 Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA

I have a question on behalf of my housemate.. 6 Months ago, she had 2 flues reinstated and 2 new fireplaces for a total of £2000 and installed by a local sales company. She signed a 12month 0% interest finance agreement with them, with Barclays providing the finance through the fireplace company. Yesterday, the owner of the fireplace company contacted us to ask if my housemate would sign a new finance document as Barclays had lost all the original paperwork and were refusing to accept the carbon-copies of the original documents from them to obtain the outstanding £2000 in finance. In return, the fireplace company was to 'offer to reset the clock' on the interest free period. The questions I have are these.. 1) If she accepts and the original docs are found, does the new agreement override the original? 2) Does she have any right to refuse to sign, and what would be the possible implications? 3) If the original CCA documents are lost and Barclays stating to the fireplace company that the carbon-copies are not valid, does she have any right to renegotiate the terms of the new contract, such as extending the interest-free period? Thanks in advance

I've realised after regaining the will and motivation to read-up and carry on the fight, that what I posted above was a bit of a jumble of a train of thought regarding the CPR thing...That would be once a POC has been issued and the courts formally involved, am I right? I've had so many contradictions from the bank, along with their last reply, that I've had enough. One last letter is going out to the Data Controller demanding specific date information and details of the entries (and realised were asked for in the original SAR letter but not provided), and if they can't or won't provide them this tiem around, will be enough of an incentive to issue a claim. Am at the end of my long temper and want my day in court to put this case and all the evidence I have in a face-to-face showdown. I'm not bothered about a prospect of losing or costs, I've neither a pot to p**s in, nor window to throw it out of anyway.

Could this be of any practical use to get the information I'm after? Or too much of a sledgehammer to crack a nut? (Originally posted by rdm2006 here)

It's been awhile since the last update, but here's where I'm at.. The reply to the last letter, including all enclosed documentary evidence to plainly illustrate my complaint, arrived on 2nd April and reads as follows.. They completely ignored my direct request for the specific dates on which the CRA entries were made against my accounts. They also ignored the before/after paper copies of my CRA files with disputed entries highlighted, and legends describing what each numbered/lettered marker means on the monthly reported files. And finally, another contradiction of their actions in data-reporting. They state that they initially assumed the markers were inaccurate and removed them, but now confirmed that the data was in fact correct, yet they have not been re-entered on my CRA files if that is the case. I'm at my wits end with these jokers who think they can alter sensitive data held on a person with no regard for the knock-on affects or data rights legislation. Is there anything in the bag I could use to prise every last scrap of information from their archives to give the case a bit more clout? Thanks.

Update.. The re-drafted letter putting them to 'Strict Proof' to provide all details (amounts, dates originally due, 28 day CRA notifications etc) of the alleged payments landed 7am yesterday morning at Canary Wharf, according to Royal Mail's tracking service, so the clock has 12 days left to go. Roll on April 6th (14 days, and allowing +1day for 1st class postage to demonstrate reasonable-ness should it reach court)

Thankyou Car, I think I may have followed my heart instead of head and gotten ahead of myself again...I s'pose it's easy to do when the case at hand is personal, rather than as a solicitor on behalf of a client, say. I've now re-drafted the letter omitting legal precedents, mention of damages and the like, and instead to read as a 'polite but final opportunity to seek resolution'. If nothing is forthcoming in 14 days time, then I will follow SillyGirl1's suggestion on drafting the LBA and keep to a single page. It's all a learning-curve so far, thanks for the advice

How's this for a harder hitting version? I'll hold off sending this until I can get some feedback on whether this is up to standard, as I've already made a bit a of a boo-boo with the CRA dates in a previous letter, and don't want to scupper any chances by making another error. TIA

Thanks for the tips SG Fortunately, I didn't wake up in time to make the first post, and caught your comments here before it went off This is the bit I've been having a bit of struggle to define...would the Kpohraror v Woolwich case be sufficient to cite here? As for the compensation amount, I've read on other related CAG threads that £1000 per incorrect entry is the 'standard', so should £3000 be an adequate amount to claim for plus costs (and keep it within the small-claims limt)?

Update.. It's taken a little while to gather my thoughts, confidence, and assorted information, but finally the Letter Before Action will be on it's way in the first post Will be interesting to see what their response will be, particularly with regard to the quiet editing of my CRA files, now that I've highlighted the misinformation and contradictions in their previous communications and offered to provide them, along with SAR data, to the regulators and courts for scrutiny Thanks are due to CAG for providing a wealth of knowledge and posts of support...I was feeling rather daunted at the prospect of taking the big boys on, but am feeling more confident that I now can

Further developments.. Equifax have replied to my queries to the status updates and confirmed that all the late payment data was amended on 19th January. Also, as a way of anecdotal evidence to add weight to the dispute, after finding out about the CRA data changes made and the resulting return to a clean record, I recently made another round of job applications including one in the financial sector with...well, lets just say that the company is engaged in the same line of business as HSBC. As the potential employer is FSA regulated, had to undergo the same credit-vetting process as I had originally with First Direct last September, and this time I passed without any problem. The only difference between the credit-reports that were used for the vetting process that was originally rejected by First Direct in Sept, and the one that I passed just recently, is that the late payment markers have been removed. I think that should strengthen the arguement considerably...the question now is how to best proceed. After reading through this CAG thread.. Durkin -v- HFC Anyone Tried It? Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society was mentioned, besides the Durkin case, and after a little further reading am wondering if these would be applicable precedents to cite as a basis for claiming damages? Any assistance in how to best apply these, or other better suited precedents, would be very welcome!

What's the APR compared to an 'average' loan they offer for the same amount though?

I've just this afternoon signed-up for Equifax's 30 day trial to have a look...and sure enough, all the disputed markers have mysteriously disappeared and left me with a squeaky clean record again! I'm now in the process of raising queries as to exactly when they diasappeared. The last account update was filed on 19th Jan and from the statutory paper report obtained in October 2010 can gather that my accounts are reported to Equifax on the same date every month. Fingers crossed that they can find specific date evidence of the update-activity...things are looking brighter again!

From what I have gathered, if you miss a payment, HSBC's terms and conditions state that they can only report to the credit ref agencies as being late in payment after 28days has elapsed from the due date. After that, it's passed to the collections dept who start the formal process to get a payment from you and will continue to report you to the CRAs. It's only after 150 days from your account-file first being passed to collections that they can then issue a formal default notice which then appears on your credit file and stays for 6yrs

I've got letterheaded and dated paper hard copies (and scanned jpegs) of all 3 statutory credit reports showing the 'before' info

Thanks for your input Car Its been a slow process in getting hold of further information. The bank replied to my 'missing SAR info' letter stating that it wasn't a loan, but on-demand credit in the form of an O/D and then the usual few paragraphs of bluff as to why nothing was sent to that effect. No reply from Lowells yet either, but that was expected. There have been a couple of other developments.. I've been in contact with the ICO who have sent out a document pack, and as was on the phone explaining the outline of the complaint to them, they seemed quite surprised. I also explained that this wasn't an isolated complaint, as have previously been given several GOGW payments amounting to £300. The upshot was, that they asked me to obtain as much documentary information as possible and to include all the details of the previous complaints as 'context'. The folk at the FOS were much the same I also sent letters to Equifax, Callcredit, and Experian querying the status of the details of my account as reported to, and held by them and to add a Notice of Correction, reading: “HSBC Current Account status indicators are currently in dispute. Please take this into consideration if this information is to be used to assess the outcome of any search on my records, as this may present an inaccurate reflection of my financial standing with the lender” Both Experian and Callcredit have responded with curious replies (and expect Equifax to say the same) stating that: "..Your comments are noted but do not appear to bear relevance to the information held (or not held) by us. As per your correspondence, if you have disputed the entry directly with the lender it may be that they have amended their records accordingly. If this has been done, we will recieve the updated information automatically directly from the lender.." (Quoted from Callcredit letter) I spoke with someone from Experian who said that it may have been that HSBC have tried to amend the information and that the amendment date will show on my updated CRA file when a request for a report is generated. So to that effect, am about to post off for updated statutory reports from all 3. From what has been said, it seems like the sneaky bankers have changed my CRA information to erase the markers without informing me after denying any responsibility or ability to change the information as per their last letter...if that turns out to be the case, i'll be able to nail the date when they did and compare it to the dates of correspondence with HSBC and start proceedings with both ICO and FOS As you mention, this could be a dangerous court-route to take as its likely to go to other tracks rather than small-claims and exposure to costs, but am more than willing to push this as far to the brink as possible. grrrrr

Hi bh, According to their updated T&Cs (Dec 2010) it states on page 28.. And on page 24 of the Banking Code (2008 )..

Thanks for the clarification on that The reason why I'm wanting to investigate the unrecorded entry by Lowell is to try and see if the bank has botched 'due process' so adding fuel to the fire. I've also started chasing the account opening Credit Agreement that's missing from the SAR records with a polite letter to the Data Compliance office this morning too...again, to add more evidence to the lack of due process angle. I've already endured 12 months of 'maladministration' of my accounts, if they don't or can't produce the CCA that will be icing on the cake.

The following letter is going to be sent to Lowell Financial this morning.. Now I'm hoping that they will reply with something along the lines of "HSBC provided the details and asked us to perform a search of your records" as there is NOTHING in any of the SAR data of my details having being passed to Lowells. This, despite the following paragraph in my subject access letter to HSBC making a very clear request for any and all information relating to 3rd parties.. Something else that has also only just come to my attention whilst enjoying a little light reading through all the documents again this evening to confirm the Lowells situation.. There's no copy of the original signed credit agreement from when I opened the account either! Again, as precisely requested in my application letter.. All there is, is one page of computer-style text detailing a few basic account opening details, and on another sheet is two copies of my signature that look like they were scanned from the original agreement document...bl**dy hell...how far down does this rabbit hole go? Time to draft another letter...is it wrong to be enjoying this?

A Termination Notice is issued to formally cancel an overdraft facility on a current account, as it is a form of 'on demand credit' with a fixed upper limit but without any prescribed schedule of payments over a given time. This is opposed to 'fixed term credit' as in a loan where the contract will explicitly state those payment amounts to be made on a stated date of the month over the duration of the agreement Here's what an overly helpful member of HSBC's Collections Dept staff informed me of their internal workings during a telephone call to them... Once that termination notice is issued, the collections department then must allow a period of 150 calendar-days for the amount to be repaid in full or a formal agreement to repay under terms before a Default Notice is issued. It's only once that DN comes into action that the creditor has the ability to assign the debt along with any other associated details to a DCA.

Whilst compiling the information I have to send a 'letter before letter before action' as I wish to appear to be a most reasonable character to the judge should this matter reach the courts, I noticed something that had previously slipped my attention. The Experian report lists an 'unrecorded enquiry' search entry by Lowell Financial Ltd that was conducted on 19th July 2010, this was 23 days prior to HSBC's letter on the 12th August 2010 effectively serving a Termination Notice of my overdraft facility and starting the 150-day collections department countdown to service of formal Default Notice (note: the O/D was repaid in full, including all debit-interest accrued, on the 103rd day) Does HSBC have any legal, contractual, proceedural, or any other right to ask a Debt Collection Agency to perform a search of my CRA records prior to issue of a termination notice? Any advice on this new item would be most welcome

Thanks for the POC offer Sillygirl, much appreciated I guess in the current economic climate, employers will use any means to sift and reject the piles of job applications they are recieving for even the most basic admin position. Discrimination on the basis of personal finances should be seen as just as offensive as if it were gender, ethnic, or other

The silly season is over, and barring the kickabout in no-man's land on xmas day, its now back to business. I recieved two speedy replies from HSBC in the last post before xmas. The first was a 'final response' reply to my formal letter (see post #26) and is a complete volte-face from the first letter acknowledging the incorrect reporting and offer of immediate removal of the late payment markers. With regard to the First Direct employment process: "In view of your comments regarding the "withdrawal" of an offer of employment from First Direct, I have taken the opportunity to liase with [recruitment management staff]. They have confirmed that at the time you were informed your application for a position with First Direct would not be progressed any further. You had been invited to the final stage of the interview process but this had not yet taken place. Consequently, no offer of employment had been made at that point. However, as you are aware, at the stage you had reached in the recruitment process, we made standard financial checks to confirm a First Direct account could be opened in the event that an offer of employment was to be made. These checks are not confined to referrals to Credit Reference Agencies, but also include checks on the electoral register and existing current account conduct. These form an overall assessment against our account opening criteria and I can confirm it would be incorrect to conclude that it was solely the information registered with CRAs which meant you did not meet the criteria to open a first direct account, leading to the mandatory termination of the recruitment process" Well, they can conclude all they like, but the incorrect reporting on my credit file still stands, and I reckon that it could be used as evidence of 'probable cause'. Also, regardless of whether a written formal offer of employment had been made, the recruitment process was prematurely terminated on that probable basis of flawed CRA data and was subsequently denied the opportunity of a fair crack at the whip so to speak. With regard to the incorrect CRA reporting: "Turning to the matter of information provided to the CRAs, I can confirm that in the months referred to, we correctly reported that your HSBC account was overdrawn and dormant. We did not report that any late payments had been made. I acknowledge that in our letter of 6th December we have referred to "incorrect reporting of payment history on your account" and arranged for the relevant markers to be removed. As I have explained, your account operation has been correctly reported, and so I apologise that we failed to establish this initially. You may rest assured that feedback will be provided to the individual concerned. Whilst I understand your concern at the way this information has been presented to the CRAs, I'm afraid that is something you will need to direct to the organisations concerned, as the information we have reported has been entirely accurate and in accordance with industry standard practice" Not only are they saying they reported my accounts as 'overdrawn and dormant' when they didn't do any such thing as all 3 reports show a string of 0's (all's in order) with the exception of the disputed late-payment marks and was within the agreed overdraft limit on those date periods according to the 3 CRA files I have on paper, but also that all 3 reports say the same thing on the same dates, a '1' indicator stating that I was allegedly 1-3 months late with a repayment. They also have the gall to state that it's not their problem, and is solely down to the CRAs who incorrectly stated the information they gave...all 3 of them...on the same dates?! The second letter was the response to my DPA s.10 notice. "Firstly, we regret that we are unable to comply with your request under Section 10 of the DPA as the information presents a true and accurate record of the manner in which your account was conducted. The processing of these details is in compliance with the Act. You also mention CRAs and a response to your complaint about CRA records was sent on 21st December. The bank is a subscriber to the Credit Bureaux and is legally obliged to share data with them. HSBC bank would be in breach of its obligations if it failed to do so. If a default is registered our obligation extends to ensuring that this information is kept accurate and up to date. It is also a requirement of the DPA to ensure thath information is both accurate and upto date therefore any changes to default recording, such as payments etc. must be updated with the CRAs. I am sorry we cannot acceded to your request and I know this will be a disappointment to you. However I hope this letter provides some clarity for you and explains the reasons for our decision" So, I now have 2 formal letters from HSBC, one from the Head of Service Recovery and one from Data Privacy Compliance Team; both stating that they reported my accounts to the CRAs accurately and that no mistakes were made. I have a box of SAR data that has been combed through again and no indication of any letters or other communications sent stating that my accounts were directly in payment arrears (was a £1000 0% student overdraft facility, not a loan or other CCA-covered finance with scheduled payment amounts/dates.) They did send me a bunch of letters saying could I please make suggested payments of £400 a month into the account as it had been dormant with no deposits, but nothing else in their content that could be construed in any way as a default notice, late payment notice, or anything vaguely threatening. I also have 3 CRA statutory reports showing 3x late-payment entries, no 'dormant' markers or any other indicator apart from 0's Would it be wise move to now send of a Letter Before Action and include copies of my document-evidence? Or are there other options I should take first? Any suggestions for a next angle of attack would be most appreciated!

Another salvo fired yesterday with a 'cease and desist' Statutory Notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act sent by special delivery post to the data compliance officer, and a copy-attachment by email to Mr Thurston again. As the first letter mentions this same instruction, but as a 'formal request' and sent on the 13th Dec, 7 days ago, I though I'd follow it up with this to leave them in no doubt of my intentions.

Please forgive any thread derail, but I have a question that relates, in a way, to this.. I'm currently engaged in a legal slog-out with my bank and looking to pursue litigation through the small clains courts. As am on JSA at the moment and should I (fingers crossed) win an award (£5k max claim), would I be liable to have to repay any of that to the DWP??