Sutton's default removal letters

jon_boy75

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Don't worry about the SAR - it means little in the grand scheme of things - read digitalphase above to see that just having proof doesn't mean they will act. The SAR won't achieve anything so trust me, just ignore that and when it comes have a laugh whilst you read it!

Agree with the Common Sense Act 2010 - think we could get 500 names to start a petition LOL :rotfl::rotfl:

The SAR is very much for you, to provide you with the information you may no longer have. It reminded me of many of the details of my account which had been closed for so many years.
When you're being kept in the dark, it's really useful to jog your memory. However, the absence of anything in that pack (like a default notice) means little to the banks.

They depend on this strict code of classifying customers (and ex customers) so much that they're willing to enforce it even when they know they're wrong. WHY? Because if they turn around and correct the info with the credit reference agencies every time someone contested it, the whole system would lose credibility and they would no longer have control. That's what I think anyway. It's easier for them to just hand out Defaults with no regard for the guidelines, simpy because they know most people will back down when they receive one official looking letter. After the bank charges case, this has to be next for the consumer to tackle.
Even in my normal dealings with the CRAs they make mistakes, along with the banks, almost 50% of the time. So much of the info on my credit files was wrong, it took me 3 months to clear up even the most simple stuff.
Incompetent simpletons, the lot of them. It's scary how much influence they have on our lives.

Rant over (sorry)!

never-in-doubt

jon_boy75 wrote: »

The SAR is very much for you, to provide you with the information you may no longer have. It reminded me of many of the details of my account which had been closed for so many years.
When you're being kept in the dark, it's really useful to jog your memory. However, the absence of anything in that pack (like a default notice) means little to the banks.

Fair point but in doing so (requesting SAR) it may just happen to have something they didn't know they had which could if you like, shoot you in the foot! Sometimes, when a lender says they cannot find something it is best to take their word for it..... as you say, the SAR is a reference to the specific individual but is by no means guaranteed to contain all the documents you require and so is classed as wasted £10 when really you have a right to have the initial error resolved (incorrect default) for free.

Make sense? lol

Anyway, I am not saying the SAR is a bad thing, but don't hold much hope on the content that's what I mean. If they don't send you a default notice within a legal threat they aint gonna send you it in a SAR now are they? :rotfl:

jon_boy75 wrote: »

They depend on this strict code of classifying customers (and ex customers) so much that they're willing to enforce it even when they know they're wrong. WHY? Because if they turn around and correct the info with the credit reference agencies every time someone contested it, the whole system would lose credibility and they would no longer have control. That's what I think anyway. It's easier for them to just hand out Defaults with no regard for the guidelines, simpy because they know most people will back down when they receive one official looking letter. After the bank charges case, this has to be next for the consumer to tackle.
Even in my normal dealings with the CRAs they make mistakes, along with the banks, almost 50% of the time. So much of the info on my credit files was wrong, it took me 3 months to clear up even the most simple stuff.
Incompetent simpletons, the lot of them. It's scary how much influence they have on our lives.

Rant over (sorry)!

Haha - nice rant! They actually make more mistakes than banks in my opinion - in fact, their credibility went out the window 10 years ago when they tried to dominate the market. It just needs a rich person to take them on!

I'm trying my luck with Equifax but only cos I know it cannot go far at all cos I didn't live at the address they purport, so really there is no case to answer and any self-respecting judge that puts this through the legal channels needs a slap as it is so clear-cut its blinding! :eek:

never-in-doubt

Hiya

Ok, I think it is time to actually issue a last threat with a copy going to the FOS as back-up. You need to remember that you have to stick to facts from now on and whatever you do, do not speak of things that you are not asked about! For instance, you're only going to complain from the point that suits you, not from the beginning. I will explain this in PM not on a public forum.

Send the letter below to Marbles. The references used relate to the following:

Letter 1 - #31
Reply 1 - #707
Letter 2 - #710
Reply 2 - #1068

You also need to print and Send a copy of Letter 1, Reply 1, Letter 2, Reply 2 and Letter 3 (this letter) plus a copy of the letter to the FOS):

---

Letter to send Marbles

---

Marbles
Customer Relations
Dundas House
Viking Way
Rosyth
KY11 2UU

Dear Marbles,

Ref: XXXXXXXXX

I write with reference to your letter dated 17th August 2009, in response to my previous letters to you dated 12th June 2009 & ENTER DATE OF LETTER 2.

It appears that I am going around in circles due to Marbles inability to perform the simplest of functions. I have specifically stated in both previous letters to you that I am disputing the late payment markers registered against me because they should never have been registered in the first place due to the account being both in dispute and with a payment plan agreed.

I have also explained that at no time did I deliberately cease payment to you, I was told what to do and when to pay and I simply did as I was told. I have copies of all correspondence, dates and conversations and will if necessary use these against you in court. What more do I have to do to get you to actually investigate my complaint properly and come to the correct conclusion that I have done nothing wrong and so there should be no late payment markers registered.

I am sending a copy of all correspondence starting with my letter to you dated 12th June 2009, to the FOS for thorough investigation. As you are no doubt aware, this action alone will cost you an administrative fine imposed by the FOS. Action that is totally unnecessary, due to your lack of willingness to read and acknowledge that I have done nothing wrong.

I again refer you to the Banking Code (s.13.6) which quotes;

"We may give information to Credit Reference Agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

• You have fallen behind with your payments,
• The amount owed is not in dispute; and
• You have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand."

The account and amount owing was in dispute and remains the case to this day; there were proposals in place that had been agreed by Marbles but not by myself and I was not behind with my payments at the time. All three reasons agree that the banking Code should protect me in such circumstances but it is evident you have no regard for such Code and therefore leave me with no alternative but to report you as necessary.

Therefore, my final response to Marbles is to reiterate the content of my previous two letters, specifically referred to in para 1 of this letter with a copy attached for reference. I do, in the forthcoming 14 days, expect all entries to be removed from the credit reference agencies in line with the banking Code quoted above and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

All I want is for my account to be rectified and to show as current with no late payment marker, as would be correct in the circumstances had I not been given incorrect information from an appointed representative of Marbles.

I look forward to your reply within the next 14 days, however a copy of all correspondence to date has also been sent to the FOS for full investigation. May I suggest you sort this out promptly and I will not hesitate in contacting the FOS revoking my complaint.


Yours faithfully,





digitalphase
(sign electronically)

never-in-doubt

Hiya

Send a copy of the letter below plus a copy of all letters detailed here to the FOS. You can, if you prefer, email it ([EMAIL="complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk"]complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk[/EMAIL]) but make sure the scan of the reply from Marbles is legible and large enough to read.

You also need to complete their complaint form – "Word" version

Send a copy of Letter 1, Reply 1, Letter 2, Reply 2 and Letter 3 to the FOS as well so they have a record of events to date.

---

Letter to send FOS

---

The Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London E14 9SR

Dear FOS,

Ref: Marbles Account Numbered: XXXXXXXX

Please find attached copies of correspondence between myself and Marbles.

I am trying to get them to remove incorrect data they have registered against me with a Credit Reference Agency over an account that was in dispute over the actual amount owed and remains the case to this day.

Whilst I appreciate that they have a valid point that payments were indeed late, this was only due to their inability to perform a basic function correctly and as such I was told to cease payment as well as being told varying amounts and varying companies to actually settle with.

I have never seen any Notice of Assignment and it seems that whenever CapQuest get involved things go wrong. If it was not for them telling me not to pay then I'd not be in this mess in the first place.

I have tried on numerous occasions to sort this matter amicably, all to no avail. Marbles just ignore my letters and respond with any old nonsense all the while disregarding laws set in place to protect me, the consumer.

I would like to refer you to the banking Code (s.13.6) which quotes;

"We may give information to Credit Reference Agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

• You have fallen behind with your payments,
• The amount owed is not in dispute; and
• You have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand."

As is perfectly clear with the above, it was wrong for Marbles to add derogatory data against me because the balance was disputed and so I should not, therefore, be punished now when I was simply following guidance from their collection agency and current legislation.

Please can you investigate this and enforce Marbles to act appropriately and do the right thing.

Yours faithfully,


digitalphase
(sign electronically)

digitalphase

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Send a copy of the letter below plus a copy of all letters detailed here to the FOS. You can, if you prefer, email it ([EMAIL="complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk"]complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk[/EMAIL]) but make sure the scan of the reply from Marbles is legible and large enough to read.

You also need to complete their complaint form – "Word" version

Send a copy of Letter 1, Reply 1, Letter 2, Reply 2 and Letter 3 to the FOS as well so they have a record of events to date.

---

Letter to send FOS

---

Thanks very much for both letters NID

I think I may have to change a bit on the letter to the FOS as CapQuest also did not inform Marbles that I was paying them, which I think has been a major factor.
Also, I'm not sure I should put that Marbles ignore my letters, maybe reword it to say that they continually miss the point of my letters and my argument?
Afterall, all I want is the late marker removed as it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Also, is there someway I can include in the letter to the FOS that they incorrectly put a default on my account (without sending the notice) which they then swapped for a 5?

never-in-doubt

digitalphase wrote: »

Thanks very much for both letters NID

I think I may have to change a bit on the letter to the FOS as CapQuest also did not inform Marbles that I was paying them, which I think has been a major factor.
Also, I'm not sure I should put that Marbles ignore my letters, maybe reword it to say that they continually miss the point of my letters and my argument?
Afterall, all I want is the late marker removed as it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Also, is there someway I can include in the letter to the FOS that they incorrectly put a default on my account (without sending the notice) which they then swapped for a 5?

Hiya

Ok amend the bits you feel necessay but remember what I said - only mention the bits we want them to know about - do not give too much away and sound like a babbling customer out for revenge. Be swift, to the point and accurate.

Forget the default, the FOS can't do much with that - that is CCA so ICO but wait while you get a reply first.....

never-in-doubt

aron wrote: »

How do you manage to spend 20hrs a day on this site? Don't you sleep?

I dont spend 20hrs, only a couple but pop in and out. On this thread I come back cos lots of people are going through different stages of fighting so need help and if I can, then great.

digitalphase

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Ok amend the bits you feel necessay but remember what I said - only mention the bits we want them to know about - do not give too much away and sound like a babbling customer out for revenge. Be swift, to the point and accurate.

Forget the default, the FOS can't do much with that - that is CCA so ICO but wait while you get a reply first.....

Thanks I'll do that when I get home tonight.

Can you just clarify something NID - I thought an account could only be defaulted ONCE, is that correct? If so, even if I stop making payments they cannot default my account again. Even though it isn't even default now and I certainly don't want it to be again.

never-in-doubt

digitalphase wrote: »

Thanks I'll do that when I get home tonight.

Can you just clarify something NID - I thought an account could only be defaulted ONCE, is that correct? If so, even if I stop making payments they cannot default my account again. Even though it isn't even default now and I certainly don't want it to be again.

A default can only be present once yes, but as I always say this means little cos the lender just adds them w!lly-nilly knowing its up to you to enforce them to remove it. Just do what you said, obviously for £25 its up to you whether you pay, maybe do it this month for the sake of argument, being you're going to the FOS so makes sense to give them no reason to find in Marbles favour.....

jon_boy75

jon_boy75 wrote: »

Dear Mr AbbeyMan,
After recent and numerous communications with you it appears you are still unwilling to remove the default which appears on my credit file and which is wholly unsubstantiated.
....................................................................................etc etc etc

Yours faithfully,

Hey NID, this one's for you!
I'm kind of dreading this because it's gonna look like I haven't followed your advice, but bear with me.
You advised me to drop the court case against Abbey for now, as there were numerous other steps to take first, and I agreed. So when I spoke to the nice lady at the courts she told me it would take months for the case to even be allocated, so I could let things proceed and then drop the case at that stage if I was satisfied. So I followed that path.
Also, when it was to be allocated, I was going to request disclosure under CPR 31.16, which would then have delayed things further, all the while following your advice and sending the letters to Abbey as suggested.
As it turns out, Abbey never responded to the claim in time, didn't file a defence and so Judgment was issued by Default at my request. I'm aware there is still another play to come from Abbey, in that they can request judgment be set aside, which would mean (if the Judge accepted their reasons for not filing before) we would be allocated to the County Court.
So, I dont want you to be !!!!ed at me, I didnt anticipate this happening, I thought months would pass before we even got allocated to a track and court. I guess nothing much has changed, except now Abbey need to convince the court their defence should be heard. That may or may not happen. If, after 28 days, they havent either requested set-aside, or removed the default, I will then go down the enforcement route. For now, Abbey have a CCJ against them and I guess I'm at a slight advantage, but I'm not cracking open the champagne just yet.
FYI, I also have a friend advising me on the procedural side. I would be interested in your thoughts, as ever, and trust that youre not offended that I didnt drop the court case in the end. I'm not trying to dupe anyone, I'm just trying to take the best advice I can...most of which I take on board, the rest is just gut feeling!!
peace