This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Doesn't it? For the curious the company in question is Lending Stream. I have thanked them for their response, informed them it's really not on, and asked them to confirm that's their full and final response so that I can raise it with the ICO and begin court action without further delay

Incidentally despite being presented with evidence that the defaults are incorrect the CRA in question is simply shrugging its shoulders and continuing to keep the data on file. Its response is to ask the creditor again if the data is correct, which they'll probably confirm as they have already once, and completely ignore that they claim to misreport to the CRA as a matter of procedure.

The MMF data actually matches the NoD, which is more than could be said for the original creditor. MMF have agreed that their default was placed in error and have removed it.

All, This may help some folks if this is actually the company in question's process but I wanted to check first if it was above board or not. The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor, which were taken over by a 3rd party, however the earlier defaults were left on file and new ones added. 2 defaults for the same account. This has been sorted but it showed some quite interesting discrepancies. The accounts had the same start start date but different default dates and amounts. I put this to the original creditor and received the following response, with account numbers removed to protect the innocent: The MMF reported default gave default dates of 2 weeks after the NoD was issued and the balances reflected those on the default notices. Credit file reports 3 missed payments then account into default, which is interesting given that one account went into default status on 2nd September, showing 3 monthly payments missed, having been opened on 5th July, less than 2 months previously. I have a suspicion that this reporting process is a big no-no. I also have a suspicion that they register a default with the CRAs promptly for the amount on the default notice then change the details on said default when they sell it on. The technical guidance the ICO supply regarding report of defaults seems to bear this out. It's also fairly interesting to note that between 2nd September and 30th January isn't 180 days. It looks like this creditor plays extremely fast and loose with the reports they provide to CRAs. The 'reporting procedure' I've been given also appears to at very least not be followed. I have presented this to the main CRA, they previously asked this creditor if the data was correct which they have, of course, confirmed. I have supplied the additional information to them and suggested they should perhaps take proactive action given the creditor has told me that they, as a matter of procedure, don't follow proper process. I would welcome the thoughts of those more knowledgeable.

MKDP LLP have informed they are withdrawing their claim.

After a bit of thinking I thought MotorMile might like a nice chat with the FCA along with my local MP and copied the correspondence to Stella Creasy as I know what a fan she is of such things. Will keep you informed.

Actually this is part of their mess up here and part of why I wanted to share this. There is no 'may' there - they are saying that their agent will call and will continue to call until the door is answered, and invite the recipient to avoid potential embarrassment. I thought this was noteworthy as, for all their poor conduct in the past, they seem to have crossed a new line.

I've just seen an email from Motormile Finance which I suspect goes beyond being dubious as far as regulator guidelines on debt collection go and into downright illegality. Our home visit team has been scheduled to visit you in person to deal with the outstanding balance of £673.00 that is due to MMF. Our team of Recovery Agents will regularly be attending this postcode with a view to visiting you. Visits can be scheduled between 8am and 8pm Monday to Saturday. We would invite you to contact us to arrange a mutually convenient appointment, to avoid causing you any potential embarrassment that may arrive out of an unannounced visit to your home address. If you do not contact us then we will be left with no other option than to visit your address until we do meet with you. Whilst MMF is always committed to helping their customers reach an amicable solution, if we cannot agree a suitable repayment plan then w e will have no option than to report our findings to our Solicitor who may take legal action against you in your local County Court and thereafter take enforcement action against you. This will inevitably increase the size of the debt due from you. Also this will affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. This email is a genuine attempt on MMF's part to help you resolve this problem without the need for legal action. This issue is not going to go away and needs dealing with. Your options are: Complete and return the payment form attached. Contact our office immediately to arrange a repayment plan that is suitable for both parties. Contact our Home Visit Department to agree an appointment, option 1 on our telephone tree. A quick read of the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40 40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors. (1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he— (a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; Not a lawyer but they would seem on seriously thin ice with this. Specifically mentioning embarrassment alongside saying that they will 'regularly be attending this postcode with a view to visiting you' and 'be left with no other option than to visit your address until we do meet with you' doesn't strike me as being too clever. What are your thoughts, CAGmeisters?

No Sir. There is no CCJ yet, they have put forward their claim and I have responded with the rather poor defence above. They appear to want to accept an offer of payment out of court while continuing to pursue court action, in addition they appear to have not noticed that I submitted a defence. I am not up to speed with legalese. Are they permitted to do this or is this, as it seems, an error which I have comeback on. I am rather keen on avoiding this sitting on my credit record for a further 6 years.

Hi All, So our friends from Keynes sent me the usual letter before action and, despite my sending a response within the time limit, I received the paperwork from Northampton. I have completely messed up the defence - frankly I panicked. I sent a letter after receiving the claim marked without prejudice continuing to deny the debt but, due to ill health, offering them a settlement of a monthly payment for a period followed by a single one-off payment to settle the debt, because I want this to stop hanging over me. Their response has been to accept the monthly payment, reject the one-off payment, and they've informed me that: Any thoughts on next steps? They appear to be rejecting an offer of an out of court settlement to pursue action and seem to suggest that they will have judgement entered summarily regardless.

Right let's get this out of the way. It's not the notice of assignment that was sent to me way back when. This was something the DCA made up on the hoof. They are lying when the claim it came from HSBC and they are lying when they claim it's a copy of the NOA issued. Thanks for the 'help'.

Letter already composed to that effect, stating that as I'm sure they actually do have the documentation they claim to it all shouldn't be a problem. I struggle to believe a DCA can blatantly write letters claiming to be from someone else and this be legitimate.

Well yes there is; they specifically state the copy NoA provided was issued by the original creditor when the account was assigned to them. Are they allowed to claim something came from the original creditor and write it themselves too?

Well that's me thoroughly confused as to what the point of the NOA is. I stupidly thought it was a letter from the original creditor indicating assignment of the debt. Evidently the DCA can just write one themselves and pass it off as coming from the original creditor. In most circles that's fraud.