UPDATED Egg gave wrong info to Experian - Compensation due ? Now agreed - read more

jongar

The day off came from my annual leave. While I was paid for it, I lost the day of leave, I rarely take my holidays at the bank . Its not a question of quitting while ahead, its compensating me for thier damaging errors.

hypno06

jongar wrote: »

The day off came from my annual leave. While I was paid for it, I lost the day of leave, I rarely take my holidays at the bank . Its not a question of quitting while ahead, its compensating me for thier damaging errors.

I really do feel as though you are wanting to have your cake and eat it here. How can you claim for a day's earnings when you have not lost a day's earnings - there is no loss to you as you have admitted that you don't even generally take your holidays!

As far as I see it, you have agreed to pay back roughly a third of your debt, so they are "out of pocket" so to speak there, you have had a ruling against you with what many would consider to be a reasonable amount of costs, but yet you still want more.

They have admitted they are wrong. You say that they have put your credit record right. Surely the default should stand as, by only paying off 37% you have defaulted on your original agreement with Egg, but will automatically drop off after the 6 year period, and if the record has been put straight regarding the amount to be paid, then potentially you could reapply to those who turned you down before?

As I have said before, I am not trying to be negative or difficult, merely trying to understand what it is you are trying to achieve and why you are trying to get more than, on the face of it, seems reasonable.

jongar

I did not take holidays when I was earning so little money as a baker at waitrose. I cashed in my holiday as I was never more than 20p from destitute. But now I earn a good whack and my holiday has value to me in the time off, the ability to do !!!!!! all. They made a commercial decision to accept the offer. It was that or bankruptcy - they refused a long term offer to pay 10 a month until my situation improved. Bad bet. I bounced back, only to find that they had maintained inaccurate information about me, that was defamatory. It caused a great deal of embarrassment and hurt, as well as a lot of what is now very important downtime.

To your last sentence - and bear in mind I have a huge amount of respect for the time you put into this board and help you give to others, I cant say that enough - reasonable in these issues, namely finance, is commensurate with your financial standing. As a baker on minimum wage, I would have accepted £100 knowing it would get me through my next mot or payment, maybe some flowers for the missus. That represented 20 hours of my time. Now it represents 4. Its not a moral, its somewhere between principle and self richedness. Its about self worth. Its about making good on my time and loss of face.

Society should not put a value on these things, a housewife as much as doctor, a scroat from the estate on the dole as much as a city bigwig. But companies don't, they differentiate all the time, offering different rates of interest based on circumstance. Those that can least afford pay more. So conversely should those that earn more expect to compensated on that same linear line (actually looking at capital one its a exponential line).

Sadly I will be offline for a week or so, moving house and taking a little time off prior to a new job.