Hi

So I made a dispute with Barclays as they defaulted my account for "not making sufficient regular payments" into my account. They rejected my appeal months later because although I had been making regular payments to pay off my £500 student overdraft, these payments were not sufficient enough. After checking my credit report I noticed the default.

Looking at my report, from Feb 15 to Feb 16 there had not been much activity with transactions and was £500 in student overdraft (while I was student). I had been using another bank hence lack of activity. Went into Barclays to discuss my account, I was told that I needed to start making regular payments. So not having a job, I paid small amounts in making regular payments...

Balances from Feb 16:

Feb 16: -£500
Mar 16: -£490
Apr 16: -£450
May 16: -£430
June 16: -£420
July 16: -£405

On credit report, late payments as marked:

Feb 16: 1
Mar 16: 2
Apr 16: DEFAULT

They called me to say they rejected the appeal. I tried to explain I had been making payments to what I could afford at the time. He said the payments weren't sufficient and couldn't lift the default. They sent £100 compensation for the delay in dealing with the appeal.

Their argument however was that they had been sending letters and there were no response to them. I noticed these letters were sent to my old address, and I'm at fault for not updating them with my new address.. I agree however is it still right they marked as default although payments had been made? They could see payments being made and still defaulted it! I was not told how much needed to be made or how often.. which sounds ridiculous to me? I was told at the bank it's not relevant how much needed to be sent, just payments had been made so the account would continue being active... any advice?

Many thanks