Taking company to Court vs Backing down

sensation99

The_Fat_Controller said:

How did a "cocked up Direct Debit" lead to £3000 of arrears that you did not notice ?

If you have it in writing or a recorded phone call that they would remove the default once you paid your arrears then you have a case.

Thank-you

sensation99

I have it in writing, and call recordings.

That if I pay off all the debt, default would get removed.

They still refuse to remove Default, after clearing outstanding.

Nofinway

A couple of posters on here have indicated that if the DD is set up and they fail to take it then the onus is on, in this case EON, but could be the lender et al. One person even linked to the DD guarantee. 
The DD is simply the means to facilitate the repayment  - it does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure that the payments are made, in fact this is specifically mentioned in the page linked to. The responsibility to ensure payments are made lies with the payee not the originating company. DD's can and do fail for a myriad reasons; they're not fool proof even if they are usually the best option.
I suspect that is why the Ombudsman has sided with EON in this case. To achieve 3,000 arrears 'without noticing' is at best negligent. 
However - if the OP has in writing and recorded calls that they would remove the default upon receipt of payment then it is worth investigating and complaining to their customer relations team (again I suspect this has already happened to reach the Ombudsman) but taking them to court would be a step too far in my opinion. The cost would be extremely high with only an outside chance of winning. 

sourcrates

"They stated if I pay off the outstanding £3,000 debt/Balance, they would remove the default.

I've paid it off. And now they refuse to remove the default. Stating I'm sorry we misadvised you".


They advised you incorrectly, in essence they made a mistake, an error of judgement, it happens.

You were not under any undue duress to take out high interest borrowing to repay this debt, it was by your own admission that you did so, granted you thought you were about to gain something by these actions, which unfortunately turned out not to be the case.

From my experience with debt, it would appear a substantial balance had been accrued on this account, something much more severe than the failure of just one direct debt, so it appears on the face of it that the default was correctly applied, and the agent who told you the default could be removed, was incorrect, I suspect the default was applied quite legitimately, and therefore cannot be removed under those circumstances.

I suspect this is why the FOS sided with Eon, and I would expect the same result to emerge from any court action as well.

You see it all boils down to not what was said, but if the correct protocols were followed in the first place, and it appears that they were, so no matter what you were told, the default was applied correctly, yes the advisor was wrong, and for that some kind of recompense should have been made, a payment of say £50 would be deemed sufficient, but your credit file accurately reflects events that happened, so there is no case to answer here.

[Deleted User]

Nofinway said:

A couple of posters on here have indicated that if the DD is set up and they fail to take it then the onus is on, in this case EON, but could be the lender et al. One person even linked to the DD guarantee. 
The DD is simply the means to facilitate the repayment  - it does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure that the payments are made, in fact this is specifically mentioned in the page linked to. The responsibility to ensure payments are made lies with the payee not the originating company. DD's can and do fail for a myriad reasons; they're not fool proof even if they are usually the best option.
I suspect that is why the Ombudsman has sided with EON in this case. To achieve 3,000 arrears 'without noticing' is at best negligent. 
However - if the OP has in writing and recorded calls that they would remove the default upon receipt of payment then it is worth investigating and complaining to their customer relations team (again I suspect this has already happened to reach the Ombudsman) but taking them to court would be a step too far in my opinion. The cost would be extremely high with only an outside chance of winning. 

You need to stop repeating this myth. A DD not being collected by the company (where it is correctly setup) is not the fault of the customer and they are not liable for this, the company is required to take the DD under the DD guarantee and any complaint to the firm (and ultimately the ombudsman) would side with the customer as the fault was the lender not taking the payment they agreed they would

Nofinway

Deleted_User said:

Nofinway said:

A couple of posters on here have indicated that if the DD is set up and they fail to take it then the onus is on, in this case EON, but could be the lender et al. One person even linked to the DD guarantee. 
The DD is simply the means to facilitate the repayment  - it does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure that the payments are made, in fact this is specifically mentioned in the page linked to. The responsibility to ensure payments are made lies with the payee not the originating company. DD's can and do fail for a myriad reasons; they're not fool proof even if they are usually the best option.
I suspect that is why the Ombudsman has sided with EON in this case. To achieve 3,000 arrears 'without noticing' is at best negligent. 
However - if the OP has in writing and recorded calls that they would remove the default upon receipt of payment then it is worth investigating and complaining to their customer relations team (again I suspect this has already happened to reach the Ombudsman) but taking them to court would be a step too far in my opinion. The cost would be extremely high with only an outside chance of winning. 

You need to stop repeating this myth. A DD not being collected by the company (where it is correctly setup) is not the fault of the customer and they are not liable for this, the company is required to take the DD under the DD guarantee and any complaint to the firm (and ultimately the ombudsman) would side with the customer as the fault was the lender not taking the payment they agreed they would

Seriously!!

Even the Ombudsman disagrees with you and I suggest you actually read any form of loan or credit agreement. You keep spouting on about 'where it's correctly set up' Why, if it's correctly set up, did it fail? 

sourcrates

Nofinway said:

Deleted_User said:

Nofinway said:

A couple of posters on here have indicated that if the DD is set up and they fail to take it then the onus is on, in this case EON, but could be the lender et al. One person even linked to the DD guarantee. 
The DD is simply the means to facilitate the repayment  - it does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure that the payments are made, in fact this is specifically mentioned in the page linked to. The responsibility to ensure payments are made lies with the payee not the originating company. DD's can and do fail for a myriad reasons; they're not fool proof even if they are usually the best option.
I suspect that is why the Ombudsman has sided with EON in this case. To achieve 3,000 arrears 'without noticing' is at best negligent. 
However - if the OP has in writing and recorded calls that they would remove the default upon receipt of payment then it is worth investigating and complaining to their customer relations team (again I suspect this has already happened to reach the Ombudsman) but taking them to court would be a step too far in my opinion. The cost would be extremely high with only an outside chance of winning. 

You need to stop repeating this myth. A DD not being collected by the company (where it is correctly setup) is not the fault of the customer and they are not liable for this, the company is required to take the DD under the DD guarantee and any complaint to the firm (and ultimately the ombudsman) would side with the customer as the fault was the lender not taking the payment they agreed they would

Seriously!!

Even the Ombudsman disagrees with you and I suggest you actually read any form of loan or credit agreement. You keep spouting on about 'where it's correctly set up' Why, if it's correctly set up, did it fail? 

​​​Direct Debit Guarantee

Your rights

Organisations using the Direct Debit Scheme go through a careful vetting process before they're authorised, and are closely monitored by the banking industry. The efficiency and security of Direct Debit is monitored and protected by your own bank or building society.

The Direct Debit Guarantee applies to all Direct Debits. It protects you in the rare event that there is an error in the payment of your Direct Debit, for instance if a payment is taken on the incorrect date, or the wrong amount is collected. It cannot be used to address contractual disputes between you and the billing organisation.​

The_Fat_Controller

Until the OP posts exactly how the problem with the "Direct Debit/Payment Plan" came about and £3000 of valid charges were not taken at the correct time we are all speculating as to whether the DD guarantee applies.

MrFrugalFever

The OP has still neglected to answer the multiple questions relating to how the £3,000 arrears came about, thus not allowing for fair and proper advice by others on here.

phillw

The other hurdle that the OP will have to overcome is that if Eon had removed the default, then they would still be paying credit card interest.

If you didn't want to pay interest, then you shouldn't have paid with a credit card.