Urgent Help needed rebt and their confusing double account info with equifax for same debt. / SCOTLAND

[robd4567]

Hi all,

 

I need your help I find myself in a weird situation where

 

I recently checked my credit file to find that BT had registered two bits of information all relating to the same account number with Equifax

but the weird bit is they Show confliction

 

one entry shows an account with a different 4 digits ending and

the other shows another account with a different four digit ending

both relating to the exact same debt hope I haven't confused yous yet.

 

I recently contacted bt and they told me this was as a result of a bill incurred when I left bt for bt vision bt broadband and phone.

When I discussed this with bt I disputed the legitimacy of the sale of bt vision to me at the time as

 

I asked them if I needed to have freeview to be able to watch pause and record live tv

they said at the time of sale no

but to my shock and horror I did need it but

 

we could not get freeview at the time so I felt I should not be held responsible for this contract as bt had miss sold me a product

I would not have other wise bought

after all why by something you cannot use?

 

Bt said they did not accept this and when I told them at the time they had refused to take this back

they stated they could not find any proof of this and that there evidence at best was sketchy

 

I told them this was having an adverse affect on my mental health and causing a great deal of distress to me due to this issue

and quoted them chapter and verse of Scottish contract law and miss representation which may lead to a consumer entering in to a contract

they would not other wise do so and the consequences and what Scots law said from the stair memorial encyclopedia

 

after some debate they agreed to write off this debt but failed to agree to remove two account entries from my debt

stating it had nothing to do with miss selling and was instead on grounds of my mental health.

 

When I first contacted bt I gave them the account number for the account which had been defaulted

and they told me they could not find such an account and

 

when I gave them the account number for the one which showed as settled

they told me this was in fact the correct account

 

they then stated that the account had been passed on to the debt collection agency and that as far as they where concerned was settled

but that bt had registered a default on the 17/03/2010 but

 

despite the fact that there own customer service agent states say for example account 1234 was the correct account

the only default I can find is registered on a different account number say 4321.

 

Now bt have refused to remove the two accounts

 

what I would like to know is

 

did bt breach the data protection act by Giving this debt two separate conflicting entries under two separate account numbers

when in fact it relates to one account in this case say 1234 and by their own admission

they where unable to find any such account ending 4321

is this a breach of the DPA?

 

The reason I ask is there are two separate accounts with conflicting information on my credit file pulling down my credit rating

and it seems like to me bt deliberately is attempting to miss lead people by giving these accounts two separate account numbers

when in fact they all relate to the same account

which according to their agent is supposed to be account 1234.

 

I feel like they may have broken the rules possibly even the law

 

but legally where do I stand

 

can i insist this is sorted in to one account number instead of two

or that this is removed as it is in violation of the DPA or what?

 

I must say I find it highly suspicious as to why they would give it two separate account numbers for the same debt

and also strange why they would have the two separate account numbers show conflicting evidence

 

can someone help me here

 

please I am confused as to how to approach this one a

nd why bt feels the need to give the one debt two different account numbers?

 

I hope yous can see why I am seeking your help on this one

as I find it really strange in relation to posting two separate entries on my credit file with equifax stating conflicting info for the same debt.

 

Robert

[citizenB]

Can I confirm that you live in Scotland ? I ask because I believe there is a different approach required

[robd4567]

Can I confirm that you live in Scotland ? I ask because I believe there is a different approach required

 

In reply to your post yes I live in Bonnie Scotland.

[citizenB]

Great thank you.. I will send an S.O.S on your behalf and add Scotland to your thread title.

[robd4567]

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.

[dx100uk]

quite often BT automatically sold BT vision

and gave that a diff account number

 

my neighbour had this.

 

dx

[robd4567]

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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You will need to address a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the Data Controller at BTs Head office, the display of conflicting data on CRA files in this way is wrong.

 

The age old problem of customer complaints/customer (dis) service departments working within carefully delineated rules of a company script (BT has from inception had this problem) prevents complaints reaching the overpaid desk jockeys on the 6th floor who should ultimately take responsibility instead of huge bonus payments.

[robd4567]

You will need to address a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the Data Controller at BTs Head office, the display of conflicting data on CRA files in this way is wrong.

 

The age old problem of customer complaints/customer (dis) service departments working within carefully delineated rules of a company script (BT has from inception had this problem) prevents complaints reaching the overpaid desk jockeys on the 6th floor who should ultimately take responsibility instead of huge bonus payments.

 

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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

robd unfortunately you are dealing with departments far removed from anyone who can make a reasoned decision on your problem.

You must escalate the complaint as high as Bts CEO to get a result.

[robd4567]

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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The usual procedure is for a creditor to default an account before sale, the ICOs Technical Guidance on defaults says that defaults 'SHOULD NORMALLY BE PLACED WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION (note the should and normally). but there are exceptions.

 

I think perhaps you should send a SAR to BT now.

[robd4567]

The usual procedure is for a creditor to default an account before sale, the ICOs Technical Guidance on defaults says that defaults 'SHOULD NORMALLY BE PLACED WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION (note the should and normally). but there are exceptions.

 

I think perhaps you should send a SAR to BT now.

 

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

Edited July 25, 2013 by robd4567

[robd4567]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A formal complaint to the DATA CONTROLLER AT BT, and a notice of dispute on both CRA entries, you need to check all 3 main CRAs too.

[robd4567]

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

[dx100uk]

tell them what you have now found out

 

ans state they have 28 days before you go to oftel or whomever

 

and sue for compensation by a wrongful default

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Robert,

Lets look at this point by point.

 

1.BT told Equifax that account No.4321 was active in 2008 and defaulted 2009.

 

2. This means 4321 was defaulted before it existed.

 

3. BT admit the above.

 

4.BT confirm that account 1234 IS your account and a debt is still owed, this account is disputed.

 

5.BT state that account 4681 is written off due to 'financial difficulties'.

 

6. You inform BT that 4681 is NOT your account.

 

7. BT refuse to remove the default from 4681, even though the account is not yours and BT has written it off.

 

Is this a correct summary Robert if so send the list above with this following FORMAL COMPLAINT. use RM recorded/signed for post NOT e-mail and check date they receive it.

 

The CEO BT

 

 

Date:....................

 

Ref: Use Theirs.

 

Sir/Madam,

 

 

I refer to a long running dispute with BT which the company has totally failed to address properly from the very beginning.

 

I am most concerned about the total inability of BT staff to answer the point I have raised, it becomes quite clear that BT staff are not competent to deal with this matter.

 

For clarity and the avoidance of further misunderstanding I have attached an itemised list of the salient points of my complaint together with copies of all correspondence relating to this long running dispute.

 

I am aware that BT has 56 days to answer a formal complaint but considering the length of time elapsed so far I would ask that this matter is resolved promptly avoiding the necessity for me to make complaints to the appropriate regulators.

[robd4567]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Ok Robert, please let us know the outcome, have a good weekend.!!

 

Brig.

[robd4567]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Well some progress at least, don't let it rest!!

[robd4567]

Well some progress at least, don't let it rest!!

 

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Will look forward to the response Robert!

[robd4567]

Will look forward to the response 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