Grattan wipes debt!!! Help still needed re Credit ref agencies.

[miss money worry]

WOW, 2 written off in a week! Thanks for all the templates. However, as with JDW, Grattan have sent me the following letter, saying they will not pursue the debt but WILL register with credit reference agencies..How do i get them to clear my credit file??

this is what they sent to me:

 

Dear Mrs X

Re Account XXXXXX

Your most recent letter has been passed for my attention with regard to the above numbered account.

After reviewing the account we have decided not to pursue this debt and no further collections activity will be taken. We must however advise you that details of the account will De registered with a credit reference agency. Lenders consult these agencies when deciding whether to grant credit.

We trust that you will pass this information to your client. I trust that this clarifies the position.

Yours sincerely

Anyon eknow how I can get them to remove the credit reference stuff please??

thanks again!!!!!!!

[Guest HeftyHippo]

why did they write them off? is it because they didn't have a credit agreement?

[Revenant]

Hi mmw

This reads almost the same way as the letter in your other thread . .

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/243176-jd-williams-write-off.html

 

As I understand it the debts are not being written off collection activity is being stopped, eg they're giving up but as the debt still exists they can enter a default on your credit file

I don't think there's much you can do about it I'm afraid

[miss money worry]

Yeah I guess they couldnt provide it. I sent the 1st request on the 11th Jan and they wrote back on the 14th saying they wont pursue me anymore!! JD willaims did too but they both say they wont remove any defaults they have put with credit reference agencies, I dont think they can do this so i need confirmation from someone on here and pointed to the correct letter!

[miss money worry]

well, if they just aren't pursuing it , yet haven't provided the agreement, what do I do next!! thanks

[B3rty]

The choice's are

 

1/Write to the CRA's and register the fact that you feel their entry is wrong.

2/Try to litigate your self using s140 unfair relationships

3/Pay a lawyer or CMC to do this on your behalf

4/Sit and wait 6 years for it to drop of your credit file

 

1 & 4 seem the easy choice

[Guest HeftyHippo]

if they can't prove you owe money, they can't default you for not paying it!

[miss money worry]

B3rty, thanks. Is there a template on here to write to the credit reference agencies saying i think the entries are wrong?? ?? I will look but if you have a link brill! I think i went into default 20 months ago so only have 3 and a half years to wait for the drop off! but if the debt still isnt paid after 6 years, can the ompanies re register you as being in default??

[B3rty]

Letter 10 to the OC to tell them to stop processing the data

 

The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors

 

Then send a notice of dispute letter including a copy of the above letter to the CRAs they will liaise with the OC and make a decision

 

Here's a good link that may help

 

Repairing your credit file

[miss money worry]

Hi B3rty, i dont understand, letter 10 on that link i information only..isnt it??

[B3rty]

oops should be letter 7 to Gratton and send a copy with your notice of dispute to the credit reference agancies

Edited January 20, 2010 by B3rty
typo

[fergal71]

ask the credit reference agencies when you gave them permission to own share and sell your data..... As more and more people win cases against creditors more defaults will be registered . It is the CRA's that need to be challenged .... By which law are they allowed to even exist and why do we have to pay 3 of them to get our own data from them..... By which misguided piece of legislation where they conceived.... this should be front page CAG as I believe this is even bigger than BANK Charges... why dont we come up with some kind of mass class action against CRA's funded by CAG donations to set some precedents.... if the best we get is a reduction from 6 to 3 years then I think it is a battle worth fighting even 3 years is too much though as I believe this should be a centralised database with very strict criteria for entering information.... not paying a twenty pound mobile bill stopping you get a life changing mortgage of say 3.75% is totallu unacceptable ....... what do you think caggers?????

[fergal71]

also why when challenging any entry do you need a recent file copy ref::::: more £2 thats all............. this [problem] is amazing I wish I had thought of it.... I promise I would charge just a pound..... who decides what headers go on the front of CAG??????????????

[hillards]

Hmmm, as someone points out, similar situation/question to the other thread started by this poster at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/243176-jd-williams-write-off.html#post2714485

 

if they can't prove you owe money, they can't default you for not paying it!

If you read the threads you'll find that the poster does not dispute that they had a credit agreement, and if they were to dispute having the goods in the first place then it becomes a fraud investigation, where someone has used their details etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of reference to HeftyHippo...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What they have done is to use the template letters to ask for the CCA's, and where these have not been produced the companies have agreed to stop collections. This is the best result that could be hoped for in the circumstances. The fact that the debt still remains DOES allow the companies to register a default and show it on a credit reference.

 

This site is NOT about getting out of paying debt and clearing all trace. It's about dealing with the debt collection companies and not being forced into a corner by them. There are big differences between debt collection agencies, who prey on people for old debts, and catalogue companies like these, who seem to have dealt with their own accounts and have used in-house debt recovery.

 

I do worry about how CAG is being used sometimes. A lot of people get into trouble because they do not understand what they are doing. It's not as easy as sending off a load of template letters and getting your debt written off. You need to understand the legal implications, and know what the companies can and cannot do.

 

miss money worry has managed to get several companies to stop collection but thinks they've been written off - wrong. Because they often have problems finding the paperwork they have no choice but to stop collections. The debt still remains, fact. If anyone wants to say otherwise then you have to prove that, show that someone else used your name to obtain the goods. Dangerous ground to tread. They could find the paperwork later, and resume collection activity. A court may decide that they don't need the paperwork. The customer has not disagreed that they had an account or said they've not had goods, so why does the debt not exist? Their word against yours in effect, and they can often show delivery signatures etc.

 

At one time we could come on to this site and get good advice every time as people were keen to follow the 'rules' of dealing with debt. Now there are so many people who have been on here 5 minutes and think they are experts, which is misleading, and often giving incorrect information about what people should do next.

 

If you are advising people to stand up and fight, be prepared to do it yourself, and show that you have. No point suggesting that a letter is sent to the CRA if the debt itself is not being disputed. They have a right to process data and supply that to companies who are still prepared to offer credit, otherwise nobody ever will in future.

 

To those offering 'advice: If you consider yourself a CAG expert then make sure you really know what you're on about, please. By giving bad/wrong advice you could be making matters worse.

Edited January 20, 2010 by hillards

[miss money worry]

HILLARDS, thnaks for your comments. I hope you arent implying that I have been on here 5 mins and consider myself an expert! I have been looking into this for over a year now!! If i have picked you up wrong i apologise. I think everyone on here has been helpful and the templates are great. I see now that the debt is not being pursued but not written off. This is still satisfactory to me. I am not trying to get out of debt without a bloody good reason!! I have been corresponding with these companies for over a year now, most went passed in house collections, some even to a solicitors, so will see what happens with the others. I paid an agency to deal with credit cards, using similar methods but after 15 months they arent even at litigation stage, i was told 9 months.

I appreciate ALL comments on here so i hope i havent picked you up as implying i dont know what i am doing. i appreciate the warning of being careful. i am not a lawyer either!

[B3rty]

Hillards has a fair point in many of the aspects he/she states but you still have the right to challenge and use the law to your advantage just as DCAs will try to do

[hillards]

I hope you arent implying that I have been on here 5 mins and consider myself an expert!

No, I refer to people who offered advice to you that is incorrect - such as advising you to obtain the documents under CPR, knowing full well you are not going to take court action. No need for that course of action unless you are in a court case. Things like sending 'prove it' letters when you are not disputing the debt existed. Too many people trying to offer advice when they've not really got the knowledge.

 

You didn't appear to grasp the situation, and were asking about removing your credit reference information. If you've followed other similar threads then that should have been clear about the debt still existing so they could keep that on file. You now understand that the debt remains, you just don't have to pay it, which is what I was trying to explain.

 

Quite often I'll add something to a thread to help others following it, rather than direct to the original poster. It could well be that someone else will follow your thread in weeks to come and would appreciate the pointers. If you look at my post, it refers to you, and what others have said, to try and clarify where you are at.

 

Hope that clear it up.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

hilliards, there are no blacks and whites in life, but lots of shades in between. One could also argue that the same is true of many things. Hence, judges interpret facts in different ways. same facts, same legislation, different outcomes.

 

Above, I gave my opinion. It may be right according to one judge, wrong according to another. The law is subject to interpretation, and as such may be interpreted differently.

 

My opinion is that if there is no agreement to repay the money, or the terms of any repayment were not agreed, or the agreements cannot be found, how can it be said that the person has defaulted?

 

maybe the agreement was that the customer would pay it back in 3 years time, but the creditor wants the money back after 1 year. Is that a default by the customer?

 

My opinion may not stand up in court. Or it may, because the statement I ask is a logical one.

 

However, I don't like the impression given by you linking my quote with your opinion of the quality of advice and motivation of many members here. Your opinion of those matters is just that, until you link my post to it in a way that suggests I'm guilty of giving poor or incorrect advice or having dubious motivations for being here, in which case it becomes rude and potentially libellous. Consequently, I ask you to remove my post from yours or to otherwise make it clear that you are not questioning my motivations. You can say what you like about my opinions. I don't care and will treat your opinions with the respect and credibility I think they deserve.

 

when it comes to web behaviour, I have seen many instances on many fora where someone who has been around for a bit looks down on newcomers, and generally acts in a way that suggests they believe themselves to be superior in some way and infallible simply because they have more posts.

 

I think on my first day here, I ended up making two complaints about someone with many more posts than you. That person also acted as though he could do and say what he wanted just because he had more posts than me.

 

Today I saw someone with more posts than you, say something factually incorrect. Last week I pointed out to someone again, with more posts than you that I thought he was factually wrong. Being wrong isn't the preserve of members with less posts than you. One of my first threads was about Default Notices and the lack of a genuine known accurate copy. On this site there are 2 versions being quoted. Obviously, at least one was incorrect. Did the people making assertions about the content of DNs want to know about the contradiction? What do you think? I'll keep my assessment of whether he is right or not to my self though.

 

The law evolves and changes. I daresay, a few years ago, the very thought that someone would attempt to claim back bank charges would seem unscrupulous and dishonest or at least less than honourable. To break the conditions of the bank account when you knew the penalty for doing so, and then demand the charges back? The very thought!

 

But many did, and many did it via this site. Maybe you were one of them? Those that did didn't think that agreeing to the terms of the account meant you had to be bound by them it seemed.

 

Fast forward a few years. People have debts quashed because it cannot be established what the terms of that debt were or are. Is that any different from claiming bank charges? Yes, because in the latter the charges were documented and freely available and by not closing the account, it could be argued that you agreed with them. In the former, there is no agreement.

 

At the end of the day, all lenders resort to the law when it suits them. Not one creditor says "sorry Mr Debtor to hear you've lost your job because we screwed up the economy, don't worry about the debt, pay us back when you can." No, they all started using the law, and in many cases, misusing it to get what they wanted, with lies, and threats and intimidation tactics thrown in. I see no moral dilemma in a debtor using the same law against the lenders, and I see no reason to criticise anyone who does. I note you won several cases. What did you do - use the law to your benefit, or beg and plead with them to let you off?

 

In the same way, how would you feel if you disputed a contract or it's fairness, terms etc, only to be told to accept what the other party said. Oh I forgot, you didn't like it so you made Halifax and Cap1 pay up.

 

I have no dispute with you hilliard, except the above link and suggestion that you disapprove of my motives and that I think I am an expert.

 

you don't know my motivations, although I'm sure there is a big overlap between my motivations and everyone else on this site including you, and not once have I ever said anything on this site that comes close to suggesting that I am, or think I am, an expert on these matters. I am expert in some things, and I rightly say some where appropriate, but these things are not included.

 

I think the general tone of what you posted and the quoting of my post requires that you apologise to me.

 

To the original poster, I am sorry your thread is disturbed and that others may be deterred from giving or asking for advice because of his attitide, but there is one thing I don't like and that's some people saying it's ok for them to ask for advice because they're doing it for the right reasons.

[hillards]

Hillards has a fair point in many of the aspects he/she states but you still have the right to challenge and use the law to your advantage just as DCAs will try to do

 

I'm a he by the way. But, I have to ask why you suggest approaching the CRA's to remove data, when the person with the debt here has not disputed having had the account? They have had a good result in that the OC/DCA's are not going to collect on the account, the fact remains that the debt still exists and is correctly recorded on the credit reference files. It's wasting time and effort to go down that route, hence my comments.

 

However, I don't like the impression given by you linking my quote with your opinion of the quality of advice and motivation of many members here. Your opinion of those matters is just that, until you link my post to it in a way that suggests I'm guilty of giving poor or incorrect advice or having dubious motivations for being here, in which case it becomes rude and potentially libellous. Consequently, I ask you to remove my post from yours or to otherwise make it clear that you are not questioning my motivations. You can say what you like about my opinions. I don't care and will treat your opinions with the respect and credibility I think they deserve.

 

That's getting a bit heavy isn't it? I quoted a little bit of what you had said and pointed out that the poster was not disputing the debt. After that it is only your interpretation of my post, not that I have pointed the finger at you personally for the remainder. Nothing to do with looking down on anyone, or having made more posts, it was a reflection on how I saw this particular thread and the general state of CAG at times.

 

If you feel that strongly then I suggest you hit the red triangle and ask a moderator to adjudicate.

 

I don't see that I have a dispute with you, or anyone else. I am quite happy to state here and now that I was not implying that you were giving bad advice personally and it was more a general view on my part, as per the rest of that post. I did not agree with your comment, which is why I quoted it, and said so, but that was just a small part of the overall message.

 

Opinion and fact often differ. Your opinion that I am stood pointing a finger at you throughout my message, my fact that I had moved on from you after the comment I made.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

My post was being typed as you posted, and I didn't see your until after mine was posted, but post reported as you request.

[gezwee]

I think the OP would have difficulty cleaning CRA files as Grattan will imply that a simple creditor/debtor relationship endures.

 

Whether this is by virtue of the CCA is no longer disputed as they have effectively given up on this avenue.

 

If the CRA is pressed to remove data they will give the creditor 28 days to respond, if they can evidence that a relationship endures (regardless of enforcibility) by way of historical purchases/payments and even to the point of signed delivery notes for goods received this would be ample protection for the CRA to continue recording data.

 

Reading through a lot of other threads on here and other forums this appears to be the CRA's position and tbh its not in their interest to side with the debtor if they have any opportunity not to.

 

Personally I'd sit out the 6 years, the only thing you have to keep a close eye on is if the debt (it still exists) is sold on at say year 5 as the usual trick for DCA's is to register the default anew.

 

They said they won't pursue the debt........ didnt mention that they won't pass it to somebody else thats dumb enough to try

 

If you are ever in a position where it is financially damaging to show defaults - ie; mortgage application etc, it may (depending on the size of the debt) be beneficial to refer back to them offering an F&F in return for a clean credit rating.

 

Gez

[slick132]

Responding to Reported Post

 

I see no more than a healthy exchange of views, to which we are all entitled, as long as they comply with Site Rules.

 

Please continue to offer help and advice to the OP.

 

[B3rty]

'm a he by the way. But, I have to ask why you suggest approaching the CRA's to remove data, when the person with the debt here has not disputed having had the account? They have had a good result in that the OC/DCA's are not going to collect on the account, the fact remains that the debt still exists and is correctly recorded on the credit reference files. It's wasting time and effort to go down that route, hence my comments

 

I agree with what you say however sometimes the DCA or OC do remove data from credit files if disputed and as they can't produce the agreement they may well take this course of action ...I personally have had data removed by Largo in a similar situation...

 

My opinion is if you don't try you will never know (ain't that so true about life).

[miss money worry]

woah....this is MY thread!!! ha ha, come on guys, chill, we are all on here for the same reason. Please can you ALL help me with the title of this thread!! thanks

[fergal71]

also if a court can not enforce a debt then in my opinion how can they report to credit files?????

 

they need to prove to the credit reference agencies that their is a debt and the agreement has all prescribed terms and that it gave the creditor the ability to report to agencies.... it is your signature that gives them this authority and without an agreement how can they prove they have been given permission...... It is the Credit reference agencies that need to be challenged on mass. As for the argument above,,, lots of people take moral highground..... If it is morality that banks etc want to use to have credit repaid then that is their own fault... when we break their rules thay punish us beyond belief.... when thay breach the law and twist the regulations when it suits them.... we are expected to morally pay.... Is this the british way..... I become more dissilusioned by the minute... My suggestion is that each individual takes what ever stance they choose if they want to try and not pay a debt and try and have removed from file then that is fine.... I would recommend that each takes their own views and supports with the problem in hand.... It is up to the individual , to force morality on people is like forcing religion on people and as we can all see that is very dodgy ground to tread.... Please just try and help people with what ever they decide they are trying to do.... If it works or not for them then cest la vie!!!