HSBC Credit File Entries Cost Me A Job - Advice Needed

[The Debt Star]

well done, quick thinking. I had a horrible vision of you not having evidence of what was on your credit files before the data owner did the dirty and removed it to cover their shady practices. I have to say I just thought it was Barclays that twisted and turned to cover the truth like this, not HSBC. But I guess they're all the same. IMO you had a lucky escape not joining the industry. But, if you ever do get (back?) into it, then I'm sure you will be wary of them and sympathetic to customers.

[gil_jnr]

well done, quick thinking. I had a horrible vision of you not having evidence of what was on your credit files before the data owner did the dirty and removed it to cover their shady practices.

 

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!

Edited February 9, 2011 by gil_jnr

[gil_jnr]

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!

Edited February 28, 2011 by gil_jnr

[gil_jnr]

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

 

Robert Kernaghan

Head of Service Recovery

HSBC Bank Plc

Level 33

8 Canada Square

London

E14 5HQ

 

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Letter Before Action

 

 

Dear Mr Kernaghan,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 21 December 2010. I do not accept that this matter is closed, nor your response ‘Final’.

 

I would like to draw your attention to the enclosed documentary evidence in the form of Credit Reference Reports, as provided by Equifax, Experian, and Callcredit, along with correspondence from First Direct regarding the reason for this complaint arising in the first place.

 

To reiterate the facts. I applied for a position with First Direct in September 2010, passed the initial telephone-based interviews, and was invited to an assessment session at their Leeds office. During this session, candidates were informed that a credit check via Experian would be required before progression to the final stage of recruitment. I was later informed that due solely to the results returned from the Experian check, that I would not be able to open a standard staff current account to receive salary payments, and therefore, the recruitment process terminated.

 

Upon obtaining credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and Callcredit, I was made aware that HSBC had entered incorrect and damaging information about me on these reports with regard to late payments where no payment had been due.

 

Admittedly in my initial letter dated 13 December 2010 and sent both by recorded delivery and email, I made an error in the exact months that the late payment markers had occurred (August 2009, January 2010, and March 2010) I can now confirm that the markers relate to June 2009, November 2009, and January 2010, and have indicated these in the enclosed copies of CRA reports

 

Nonetheless, the matter still stands that HSBC Bank did report my accounts to the Credit Reference Agencies as being ‘late in payment’, and that as a direct result, the data regarding my financial standing as returned by the Experian search conducted by First Direct was incorrect, and can be reasonably demonstrated to be the factor influencing the decision to terminate the recruitment process, irrespective of formal employment offer or not

 

Moving on to your comments regarding the information HSBC provides to the CRAs.

 

You stated that “We correctly reported that your HSBC account was overdrawn and dormant”. As you may see from the CRA documents enclosed, the account was reported as being overdrawn and within the agreed overdraft limit in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Graduate account, and no ‘Dormant’ status was ever recorded, as this would require a period of 6 months with no account activity to have elapsed (as per published T&Cs revision 01 December 2010)

 

You also stated that; despite HSBCs letter dated 06 December 2010 that confirmed that “corrective action is required to rectify incorrect reporting of payment history on your accounts”, my accounts had indeed been reported correctly and that failure to establish that matter was due to staff error in communication of that fact to myself

 

If the matter is as you so assert, then please explain why HSBC altered the information in my CRA reports by removing all late payment markers with Experian on 02 January 2011, with Equifax on 19 January 2011, and with Callcredit on 31 December 2010.

 

As mentioned, I have enclosed copies of my CRA files from all three agencies, both from October 2010 which showed the late payments in question, and the most recent files from February 2011, after the markers had been removed. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the relevant information in these documents for your clarity.

 

You also state that: “While I understand your concern at the way this information has subsequently presented by 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”.

 

As HSBC are the originators of the information provided to the CRAs, It is therefore HSBCs sole responsibility to ensure that all such data provided to these agencies is accurate, not the CRAs.

 

Again, I refer you to my previous question as to why did HSBC alter my credit files to remove the ‘late payment’ markers if, as you state, the information you reported was entirely accurate?

 

I should point out that this current complaint is not an isolated incident, but one of a catalogue of failings by HSBC over the last 12+ months that have required multiple complaints and involvement with the FOS.

 

Should the matter require it, I will ensure to submit full details of all previous complaints and copies of all correspondence and relevant data obtained by Subject Access Request of HSBCs conduct in the mishandling of my customer accounts and the inability to resolve complaints, alongside this current dispute as contextual evidence to the FOS, the ICO, and the Courts.

 

You have 14 days from receipt of this letter sent by Royal Mail recorded delivery to provide a full explanation for your actions.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

gil_jnr

 

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

 

 

[sillygirl1]

My feelings (and only my opinion) is that it is a good letter but a bit wordy, you need to hit them hard. I am a great believer in leaving NO room for 'interpretation' in this type of letter and leave them with a clear timeline of any further action.

 

You should really bullet point the facts to make it clear to them what has happened ie

 

 

• On xxx date I was refused employment by xxx company, reason being the adverse markers on my credit report
  
• Copy of reports enclosed with errors highlighted
  
• Letter of explanation from xxx company is incorrect as it assumes entries were valid when they were not
  
• Corrected entries are not sufficient for the propsective employer to carry on employment
  
• LBA issued for potential loss from this incident and compensation sought for inaccurate errors as per xxx case
  

They haven't been 'nice' to you so you use their own formats and wording to get your points across.

[gil_jnr]

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

 

LBA issued for potential loss from this incident and compensation sought for inaccurate errors as per xxx case.

 

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)?

[sillygirl1]

Yes, that would be the case to cite, and the £1000 per incorrect entry (don't forget to times it by 3 for all 3 agencies if it appears on each!) is also correct.

[gil_jnr]

My feelings (and only my opinion) is that it is a good letter but a bit wordy, you need to hit them hard. I am a great believer in leaving NO room for 'interpretation' in this type of letter and leave them with a clear timeline of any further action.

 

You should really bullet point the facts to make it clear to them what has happened ie

 

 

 

• On xxx date I was refused employment by xxx company, reason being the adverse markers on my credit report
  
• Copy of reports enclosed with errors highlighted
  
• Letter of explanation from xxx company is incorrect as it assumes entries were valid when they were not
  
• Corrected entries are not sufficient for the propsective employer to carry on employment
  
• LBA issued for potential loss from this incident and compensation sought for inaccurate errors as per xxx case
  

 

They haven't been 'nice' to you so you use their own formats and wording to get your points across.

 

How's this for a harder hitting version?

 

Letter Before Action

 

Dear Mr Kernaghan,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 21 December 2010. I do not accept that this matter is closed, nor your response ‘final’.

 

Please find enclosed, the following documentary evidence:

 

• Credit Reference Agency reports obtained from Equifax, Experian, and Callcredit showing the late payment markers, and after their removal.
  

 

• Letters from the above agencies confirming their removal by HSBC.
  

 

• Letter stating reason for withdrawal of employment offer from First Direct.
  

To reiterate the facts:

 

I applied for a position with First Direct in September 2010, passed the initial telephone-based interviews, and was invited to an assessment session at their Leeds office. During this session, candidates were informed that a credit check via Experian would be required before progression to the final stage of recruitment.

 

I was later informed that due solely to the results returned from the Experian check, as stated in the enclosed copy of the letter from First Direct, that I would not be able to open a standard staff current account to receive salary payments, and therefore, the recruitment process prematurely terminated.

 

Upon obtaining credit reports from Experian, Equifax, and Callcredit, I was made aware that HSBC had entered incorrect and damaging information about me on these reports with regard to late payments where no payment had been due.

 

Admittedly, in my initial letter dated 13 December 2010, I made an error in the exact months that the late payment markers had occurred (August 2009, January 2010, and March 2010) I can now confirm that the markers relate to June 2009, November 2009, and January 2010.

 

Nonetheless, the matter still stands that HSBC Bank did report my accounts to the Credit Reference Agencies as being ‘late in payment’ where no payment was due.

 

As a direct result, the data regarding my financial standing as returned by the Experian search conducted by First Direct was incorrect, and can be reasonably demonstrated, as per the included letter, to be the majority factor influencing the decision to terminate the recruitment process, irrespective of formal employment offer or not

 

Moving on to your comments regarding the information HSBC provides to the CRAs.

You stated that; “We correctly reported that your HSBC account was overdrawn and dormant”.

 

No ‘Dormant’ status was ever recorded by HSBC, as this would require a period of 6 months with no account activity to have elapsed (as per clause 43, HSBC General Terms & Conditions, 01 December 2010), nor was any other negative status indicator reported, save for the ‘late payment’ markers in question

 

You also stated that; despite HSBCs letter dated 06 December 2010 that confirmed that “corrective action is required to rectify incorrect reporting of payment history on your accounts”, my accounts had indeed been reported correctly and that failure to establish that matter was due to HSBC staff error in communication of that fact to myself

 

If the matter is as you so assert, then please explain why HSBC altered the information in my CRA reports by removing all late payment markers with Experian on 02 January 2011, with Equifax on 19 January 2011, and with Callcredit on 31 December 2010.

 

You also state that: “While I understand your concern at the way this information has subsequently presented by 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”.

 

As HSBC are the originators of the information provided to the CRAs, It is therefore HSBCs sole responsibility to ensure that all such data provided to these agencies is accurate and in accordance with the principles outlined in the Data Protection Act (1998 )

 

Again, I refer you to my previous question as to why did HSBC alter my credit files to remove the ‘late payment’ markers if, as you state, the information you reported was entirely accurate?

I therefore put HSBC to strict proof to provide evidence of the following:

 

• The specific amounts that the alleged payments were for
  

 

• The specific dates on which the alleged payments were originally due
  

 

• Copies of the notifications sent to myself stating that the alleged payments were late (As per clause 13.7, The Banking Code, 2008 )
  
  

 

• The specific dates on which the CRAs were notified by HSBC of the above
  

I should point out that this current dispute is not an isolated incident, but one of a catalogue of failings by HSBC over the last 12+ months that have required multiple complaints and involvement with the FOS.

 

Should the matter require it, I will ensure to submit full details of all previous complaints along with copies of all correspondence and relevant data obtained by Subject Access Request from HSBC regarding the previous mishandling of my customer accounts, alongside this current dispute, as contextual evidence to the FOS, the ICO, and the Courts.

 

To this effect, I demand that HSBC remove all aforementioned negative indicators from the Credit Reference Agency databases, including any relevant adverse data contained in an ‘in-depth’ search beyond the remit of a statutory report, and to notify myself in writing that this has been done.

 

Furthermore, I will be seeking damages of £3,500, comprising of the following:

 

• 3 x £1,000 per wrongful Credit Reference Agency entry, arising from HSBCs negligence of duty in the administration of my customer accounts, and the ensuing damages to my personal credit reputation and employment prospects; As defined in Kpohraror -v- Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 case-law precedent.
  
  

 

• £500 of costs in time, effort, and travel arising from the interview process with First Direct, along with administration and charges, time, and effort in investigating this matter.
  

Should you be unwilling to provide any of the following:

 

• proof of the alleged late payments
  
• A full explanation of your actions
  
• Written proof of removal of all adverse data in question, including anything held in ‘in-depth’ searches with the CRAs
  
• A reasonable offer of compensation
  

Then legal proceedings WILL be commenced against you.

 

You have 14 days from receipt of this letter, sent by Royal Mail recorded delivery, in which to respond.

 

Yours Sincerely,

gil_jnr

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

[car2403]

Might be a silly question, but here goes anyway...

 

Have you wrote to them with all these facts to complain and ask that they reply, first? It seems like a very lengthy LBA, if you ask me, so I'm wondering if you've missed the 'complaint' letter before the 'pre-action' letter?

 

What you don't want to do is send a LBA out of the blue without having tried to resolve the issue, informally, first.

 

It seems to me that you need to reply to their latest letter, using the same information, providing reasons why you reject their final decision. Give them some time to reply, then send a LBA once that has expired.

 

Remember, the game here is to appear to have exhausted all other avenues before pushing ahead with Court action when they've left you with no alternative.

 

Just a thought...

[sillygirl1]

I think you should go along the lines of

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

On xxx date I applied for a post with xxx company, I was selected for further interviews but refused employment due to adverse credit. I attach copies of my credit report highlighting the incorrect entries and the letter from xxx stating the reason for refusing employment.

 

I now wish to claim compensation for these incorrect entries based on the arguments in Kpohraror v Woolwich and feel that £3,500 is a justifiable amount to claim.

 

This has caused me considerable time and expense and potential loss of earnings. As data controllers you are supposed to ensure that the data held and reported about me is accurate - clearly in this case it has not been accurate and I have suffered as a consequence.

 

You have 14 days from receipt of this letter (sent by recorded delivery) to compensate me, otherwise I have no option but to escalate this via the courts and relevant authorities.

 

Keep it to one page, they know the story so you don't need to report it again and that way they should know you mean business. If you put in a load of waffle you will possibly get misquoted legal waffle back and they will keep you on the back foot.

 

Hope this helps.

[gil_jnr]

It seems to me that you need to reply to their latest letter, using the same information, providing reasons why you reject their final decision. Give them some time to reply, then send a LBA once that has expired.

 

Remember, the game here is to appear to have exhausted all other avenues before pushing ahead with Court action when they've left you with no alternative.

 

Just a thought...

 

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

[gil_jnr]

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)

[gil_jnr]

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..

 

Dear gil_jnr,

 

Thankyou for your letter dated 21st March. Having reviewed the contents, there is no new or substantive information contained therein to alter the bank's position, as set out in our Final Response letter dated 21st December 2010.

 

Nevertheless, I will take this opportunity to clarify matter you raise again.

 

HSBC did not report your account as being 'late in payment'. We accurately reported that your account was overdrawn with no activity for the months in question.

 

As previously advised, it was incorrectly assumed that the markers in question were inaccurate in teh first instance, hence the removal of the data. However, we have now confirmed that the information reported was accurate.

 

You have indicated your intention to escalate this matter to the Financial Onbudsman Service, along with otehr bodies. As you have reached the end of the bank's internal complaints proceedure, it is appropriate that you now do so. You may be rest assured we will fully cooperate with teh FOS, and be bound by any decision they make

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.

[gil_jnr]

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)

 

Civil Procedure Rules (31.16)

 

(1)This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started1.

 

(2)The application must be supported by evidence.

 

(3)The court may make an order under this rule only where –

 

(a)the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;

 

(b)the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;

 

©if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and

 

(d)disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –

 

(i)dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;

 

(ii)assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or

 

(iii)save costs.

 

(4)An order under this rule must –

 

(a)specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

 

(b)require him, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –

 

(i)which are no longer in his control; or

 

(ii)in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.

 

(5)Such an order may –

 

(a)require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

 

(b)specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

[gil_jnr]

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.

[car2403]

yes, this often happens when dealing with personal issues - the emotion tends to overcome the factual view of things, but it's understandable.

 

Something to think of is taking a claim for non-compliance with your DSAR, if that is the case, in an attempt to get the info you need to prove things, one way or another. IMHO, it's a much more effective route, as there is no real defence to not disclosing and complying with obligations under s.7 DPA, rather than arguing the toss over what has / hasn't been provided in a claim on another subject. A s.7 non-disclosure claim wouldn't mean you can't bring another claim on another subject matter at a later stage. At least this way, you could do that being fully informed, rather than firing off half-cocked...

[plato1]

What happened????????????????

Anybody?

Am in middle of ridiculous situation with FD and would LOVE to know outcome.

plato1

[gil_jnr]

What happened????????????????

Anybody?

Am in middle of ridiculous situation with FD and would LOVE to know outcome.

plato1

 

Sorry to hear of your situation with HSBC/First Direct.

 

After going through the files and papers from start to finish, and the pragmatic advice of a good friend, I've made a well-considered withdrawal from the battle.

 

Nothing hs been lost from the experience by any means though. I've aquired a whole load of research skills, knowledge, and assertiveness that has since come in very handy, have a restored and squeaky-clean credit-rating again, and have won some £300 in various goodwill-compensation payouts. Had it not been for CAG I'd have gotten a whole lot less.

 

Onwards and upwards!

[plato1]

oh please! It sounded like you had them cold and you were hot!

I want to hear stories of grizzly, grovelling, abject admissions of guilt etc.

 

I will keep the forum updated of my own progress - situation going since May - are presently being told they will investigate (it's not that complicated) but nothing appears to be happening.

 

Not going into detail for the moment.

Someone has to stop these people. I hope it will happen in my case.

Like I said, I will be updating the forum with any result or explaining what went wrong if the outcome is less than positive.

Never give up, that's the motto.

Tks for the prompt response -

[gil_jnr]

I'm back!

 

After almost 4 years since the original complaint was posted, a couple of things have since happened.

 

Following HSBC's removal of the disputed data from my credit files, I spent 2012/13 working for another high street bank. Firstly, as a call-centre customer service agent for a few months, then I landed a job as a Complaints Investigator (Most of that was down to what I had learned here at CAG) and made sure that wherever possible, I decided complaints in the customer's favour and awarded them as much compensation as I could justify in giving away...call it karma

 

Back to the complaint..

 

I'm thinking that this would amply illustrate that the incorrect recording of the adverse credit data was the significant factor in the termination of the recruitment process with First Direct. That, following it's removal, and with no material changes to my credit records or financial status in the intervening time, I was able to secure an FSA-regulated job in that field of employment.

 

I'm guessing that, as this is within the 6 year Statue of Limitations time period, I could have another swing at HSBC

[reallymadwoman]

I'm back!

 

After almost 4 years since the original complaint was posted, a couple of things have since happened.

 

I'm guessing that, as this is within the 6 year Statue of Limitations time period, I could have another swing at HSBC

 

You could, but are you sure it's wise?

1. Without reading the whole thread, I think HSBC maintained that the data were accurate and initially removed in error. You would still need to prove that the data was inaccurate and saying HSBC didn't put it back doesn't do that. Given the additional 4 years that have passed, this isn't going to be any easier now than it was then.

2. Even if you succeeded in proving the data was inaccurate and that the inaccurate data was the sole or main reason why you didn't get the job (and after 4 years, again this isn't going to be any easier especially as I doubt anyone keeps recruitment data that long for failed candidates) how much did you actually lose in the long term?

3. No case is ever 'watertight' or 100% guaranteed to go in your favour. Do you have the time/skill/stamina to pursue this possibly through several hearings where you may be up against a barrister? If you lose, can you afford a costs order against you (if small claims unlikely to happen, but still possible) and more importantly would your confidence be able to take the knock and bounce back?

4. Before even thinking about pursuing it, ask yourself what it is you want to achieve? To prove you were right? - I think you've already done that with the success you've made of your current job. To get back at HSBC? You could be awarded millions and not make the slightest dent in their smugness.

 

That said, if you do decide to have a go, you will of course have the full support and encouragement of everyone on the forum, just make sure you know why you're doing it before you start.