Lowell/EE "debt" issues following EE failure to terminate contract as instructed and confirmed by them.

[kagaminemeh]

My hangup is the company stated the contract was cancelled, therefore implying there was nothing further to do on my end - The reason for the cancellation was discussed during the call, the possibility of imprisonment and such. Surely that is a training issue if the staff are giving the wrong advice and making erroneous indications?

 

The same circumstances had been discussed in the call immediately prior, to their broadband team, and was subsequently actioned without incident. EE 'can't tell' if the PAC was requested online or over the phone, and I have a witness stating that a phonecall was made. I merely stated I wanted to keep my number in case the result wasn't imprisonment.

 

In retrospect, their advice should have been to assign the number to a PAYG sim and terminate the contract, rather than issue a PAC imo.

 

Lowell had been contacted back in January, in order to enquire as to what they wanted from me - They had sent me an SMS, asking if I had seen the letter they sent me. I had not seen the letter, Informed them of such, and lodged a complaint regarding the retention and use of my phone number.

 

I had informed them a year prior that they could only hold my number if they were willing to remove the adverse markers in their entirety, for a hypothetical '30 day notice' period, typical of many contract cancellation. They stated they were unwilling to remove markers, and so they were instructed to delete my number. I may still have the call recording somewhere, but it was a while ago, so no guarantees.

 

In terms of preventing credit applications, the issue is that I am aiming to cultivate my credit score, ahead of longer term ambitions.

 

As it stands, my credit limit is somewhat low. With a better credit score. i can achieve a higher credit limit, and it will in turn be evidenced that I am stable with said credit limit/facility. I accept that adverse entries will 'drop off' at the 6 year mark (Statute barred), however all entries more recent than that, limits of which are influenced by the current bad marker, will remain after that date.

 

In my mind's eye, i'm seeing a gradual 'ramping up' effect, post 6 year mark, rather than some instantaneous AAA credit score.

[dx100uk]

im not sure if you are actually understanding things correctly here.

 

but i need to be sure what your credit file states.

 

in the debt summary is there an actual defaulted date which will say so in the summary line ....defaulted date xxxxx

 

anything in the calendar section 1, 2 - 6 D is not seen by anyone bar you are the original credit and does not hit your score.

 

statute barring plays not part here.

but what does play a part is the A/C is removed totally upon the DN's 6th B'day, never to return.

 

i'd  also not ever be falling for this 'cultivating my score ' BS.

 

taking out 'credit' and regularly paying it, is an very old wives tale and does NOTHING to improve your score ever.

its a scam by these credit ref agencies simply to sell credit cards they get a cut on via commission.

 

dx

 

 

[kagaminemeh]

Understood. In that case, the only adverse markers would be relating to that EE/Lowell account, with the default date of 05 Dec 2020.

 

Is there no way to force this to a resolution?

 

I want this gone. I do not like looming threats, regardless of there being low prospect of them actually taking it to court.

 

I had at one point considered self-employment, and credit would be useful to ease the kinds of cashflow issues that kill off most new ventures.

 

I am no stranger to the concept of stoozing either, particularly now as interest rates have ballooned, and are expected to rise further. 

 

As it stands, I regularly float on my low-limit credit card, and pay it off in full every month.

 

I appreciate that to others, one low value default may not seem of much consequence.

 

However, to me, and the way I see the options available to me, it means a great deal.

 

Maybe it stems from pride, or maybe knowledge of obscure edge cases wherein to having a higher credit rating would be advantageous.

 

Irrespective, it is a source of stress, and would prefer to force a situation wherein it could be purged.

 

Thanks again for your time Dx, I do appreciate it.

 

Sorry for my attempts to draw attention to this, but doesn't the wording of the DPA (and GDPR by extension) state that data held should not be misleading or inaccurate?

 

Arguably, the data held is inaccurate. The money is not owed, the contract was cancelled.

 

Their training issues are not my problem. Their agent confirmed cancellation, and I have a witness to that fact.

 

As you have rightly indicated Dx, inferences can be drawn from what remains of the log, that a mistake had happened (whether they formally admit this or not, as inferred by the GOGW), and from the fact that the broadband cancellation happened without incident.

 

Is there any way they can be beaten over the head with data protection regs, to the point they see sense and rescind the whole thing?

 

My friend/witness is also up for a fight on this, as she is disgusted by their conduct, and the later comments by the ombudsman that I should have assigned someone to manage my finances for me , when the steps taken would have negated the need for anyone to 'manage' my finances.

 

Thanks again.

[dx100uk]

On 16/02/2023 at 01:14, dx100uk said:

its now +2yrs since you contacted anyone

there is no-where nor no-one you can now goto.

 

i doubt the ICO nor the Financial Ombudsman Service would touch a dispute of this trivial nature even if it were within their 6mts time limit ... which it is not.

 

sorry