T Mobile default removal Help needed

[paulandnat]

Hey all,

 

I have recently wrote to T-mobile as a result of finding the default notice on my credit report as below. I wrote to them basically looking to follow the process that I am undertaking with my other default notice's invoving the templates on this site. I have now recieved a letter from T mobile informing me that they are exempt of the CCA 1974. I have tried to follow a couple of threads of a similair vein but I have been left with a spinning head. Is there any action I can take as this is now all been paid for some time and is having a serious impact on my credit score. I appriciate any advice that you guys can offer.

 

 

Company name:T-MOBILEAccount type:CommunicationsStarted:13/11/2003Default Balance:£228Current Balance:SatisfiedDefaulted On:10/11/2004File updated for period to:16/09/2007Status History:

(brackets indicate most recent status)[]

[freakyleaky]

I am not sure if it will help but have a look at the default removal thread in my signature. Just shout if you have no luck and I will see if i can find some more info for you.

[too strong]

Hey all,

 

I have recently wrote to T-mobile as a result of finding the default notice on my credit report as below. I wrote to them basically looking to follow the process that I am undertaking with my other default notice's invoving the templates on this site. I have now recieved a letter from T mobile informing me that they are exempt of the CCA 1974. I have tried to follow a couple of threads of a similair vein but I have been left with a spinning head. Is there any action I can take as this is now all been paid for some time and is having a serious impact on my credit score. I appriciate any advice that you guys can offer.

 

 

Company name:T-MOBILEAccount type:CommunicationsStarted:13/11/2003Default Balance:£228Current Balance:SatisfiedDefaulted On:10/11/2004File updated for period to:16/09/2007Status History:

(brackets indicate most recent status)[]

 

They are correct when they say they are not regulated by the CCA 1974 but this also means that they cannot issue defaults as defaults are regulated by the CCA 1974.

 

Please read thread below:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/118762-virgin-ntl.html?highlight=virgin

[buzby]

The haven't issued Defaults, there is simply a 'default' on the account - this term, so beloved by the credit reference agencies to make their private database appear a formal public record of a consumer's financial affairs.

 

The only real Default is one issued by a Court, next is the CCA Default Notice,which is simply an advisory to get the account in order before formal action is taken.

[too strong]

The haven't issued Defaults, there is simply a 'default' on the account - this term, so beloved by the credit reference agencies to make their private database appear a formal public record of a consumer's financial affairs.

 

The only real Default is one issued by a Court, next is the CCA Default Notice,which is simply an advisory to get the account in order before formal action is taken.

 

You say the only real defaults are issued by the courts, somebody needs to inform the credit industry as these defaults that appear on our files are real enough and are costing me a lot more for a mortgage.

 

The link I placed earlier is excellent as it spells out in simple terms why Virgin cannot place a default on an account. Whether we like it or not they are going to continue doing this unless we continue to fight against them.

[buzby]

Sorry - I read that all last year and didn't believe a CRA would be stupid enough not to realise the default was simply a 'trading position' with the cable company. You would have gave permission for this data to be supplied to their CRA as part of your contract of service. There is no confusion, you can be in default without being anywhere near a CCA regulated agreement. Only if no such permission was NOT agreed to, could you challenge the default and all information about your account status..

[jonni2bad]

If the OP does not act to get this removed, they will experience severe difficulties in obtaining any further credit for the next few years.

 

However, what is not clear is if the default was either issued correctly because the user's account with T-Mobile was in tatters, or if they issued the notice correctly. There is some mention of the CCA but again this is a little garbled, so, to the OP;

What happened with the account?

Why did they default you?

Did they issue you with a notice of default that gave time/remedy etc?

[buzby]

Just how do you imagine adverse credit data (defaults) is an issue for formal removal? Blithely saying 'get it removed' gives the impression that this is even an option. The only way that will work is if there has been an error, if not it stays in place for six years. Surely you are aware of this?

 

Secondly there is no 'Notice' to be issued correctly or otherwise, as you must be well aware, mobile phone contracts are not regulated under CCA therefore no requirement for a formal notice OR time/remedy information. There's little point is asking the OP to confirm or deny the existance of a Notice that is not required to be issued by a mobile network for a non-regulated account.

 

[258]

[jonni2bad]

I wasn't aware that you were an expert on defaults, removal or otherwise.

 

Thanks for confirming you aren't though.

[buzby]

My goodness - what erudition! Since it appears you haven't a clue about them or how the CRA's deal with them, I'll not shatter your bubble.

 

As for my expertise in Defaults, since you've already making the common suppositions that cause the networks so much hilarity, keep it up and as for even thinking a CCA may even apply, dear me.

 

From memory, your also not expert on disappearing Forum reputations either.

 

You may find this link useful; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/70464-mobile-phone-companies-consumer.html

 

[258]

[jonni2bad]

You appear dazed and confused, dear Buz.

 

If you will, just once (a tall order, granted) actually read my post, I make no assertion that CCA jurisdiction applies in this case. You are the clear master of misquoting once again.

 

My one and only mention of CCA appears in the following line: "...There is some mention of the CCA but again this is a little garbled..."

 

How you are able to construe that I somehow made an alternative comment is beyond me. The fact that this happens regularly would lead any sane person to believe that you only read what you want to see.

 

Your link, by the way, refers to your own thread about CCAs and charges on an account, not defaults nor the legislation that covers such, and this was closed by a moderator over a year ago, along with a note at the bottom. Still, if you feel the need, you can continue the argument against yourself over that one.

 

It is not what I have discussed, again, but as it is clear that you are simply intent on placing words in another person's mouth, I shall stick with discussing the OP's problem directly with the organ grinder, I think that will save us all some time.

[buzby]

As long as you know what you meant to say - that's allright then.

 

And perhaps if you cut down on the size of your sig, we can save additional bandwidth too?

 

[258]

[too strong]

Sorry - I read that all last year and didn't believe a CRA would be stupid enough not to realise the default was simply a 'trading position' with the cable company. You would have gave permission for this data to be supplied to their CRA as part of your contract of service. There is no confusion, you can be in default without being anywhere near a CCA regulated agreement. Only if no such permission was NOT agreed to, could you challenge the default and all information about your account status..

 

 

Would the company not have to supply the original agreement if that is the case with all terms and conditions?

[buzby]

It seems they've been able to dispense with this useful piece of data - they refer to their 'published terms and conditions' which usually means it is buried somewhere within their corporate website. The fact the user is paying for the service appears to be good enough to indicate that an 'agreement' exists, whether or not an actual (physical) contract was signed.

 

What makes this all the more annoying, is that these T& Cs are constantly evolving, so what were the ground rules when you signed up may have changed markedly, but since these previous specimen agreements are not archived or accessible online, the companies invariably say that they always advise customers of when there is a change, so that everyone is working to the same T& Cs, whether they 'signed up' in 1992 or 2002 or even 2008.

 

There are now so many short-cuts to allow commerce the ability to impose on the consumer (uncontrolled direct debits for one!)" the phone and web has ensured a signature is the last thing they need.

 

**When DDs started they were for fixed (agreed amounts) and fixed dates when the debit was taken. Now they all default to 'unspecified amounts' on 'unspecified dates', meaning a DD is wide open to abuse. As for the banks colluding with businesses, the DD mandate now no longer refers to the 'unspecified' element, you don't need to sign it, and the work of the merchant is taken as good enough to initiate removal of funds. The bank doesn't even get the paperwork anymore.

[paulandnat]

Hi Guys,

 

As the company are not governed under the CCA. If the company and the client have settled and finished the contract, can we request they stop processing or opt out of them sharing information with anyone including the credit guy?

 

Also, as they are processing the information under the DPA would still need some kind of information to allow them to do that?

 

Thanks

 

Paul

[buzby]

It is true that after you have completed your contract, after about a year no further processing of data can take place on your contract WITH THE NETWORK, this is because your contract has expired.

 

Unfortunately, a different set of rules applies to the agreement you made with the network, in this you agreed to your data being shared with CRA's and that the network could could check you out at the time of the contract's inception (and usually, any time inbetween). That said, the data then provided is held by the CRA, who will make it available for a further 6 years before it is no longer displayed to enquirers. The original network is no longer 'processing' you information - simply that the CRA is showing historical data; until the time bar kicks in.

 

The DPA allows them to do this, but the '6 years' was decided upon by the CRA's as an intepretation of the unspecified 'reasonable period' stated in the Act. This has never been challenged, and after so many years of being the standard, is unlikely to be changed now.

[too strong]

BINGO!

 

I have just logged into Experian to see how my query was going and I have been informed that the default has been removed.

[buzby]

Good to hear. Check that there are no other visible traces... like a deteriorating payment status that usually leads to a default... Never trust anyone!

[too strong]

I will be ordering my credit files shortly