I dont have the entire quidelines, just an extraction from Experian quoted from the ICO. I have not seen any of this on headed paper from the ICO mind. The part I have on my letter reads: The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor. Where a legal liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable. Responsible lending decisions are dependant upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals’ ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts. Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor, but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable agreement I would be interested to see these new guidelines from the horses mouth...

car2403, you are a legend, why I didnt think of it like that. I too had a reply from CreditExpert/Experian saying that my data can still be processed without a signed credit agreement. Consectutive payments to the account are proof that an agreement exists, plus, the fact that a credit account would be set up for me means that the consumer 'must' have agreed and entered into that agreement. I have since replied saying that this is outrageous and that there are instances other than fraud that accounts are set up without credit agreements. I know this because I did not sign one. I have also drafted a letter to Mint my credit card supplier who have me in default, saying that due to the change in the 'rules' of the ICO, that I insist that the default be removed in return for full payment of my account in one lump sum. I'll have to find the money but i'll worry about that later, right now getting that default removed is paramount. Like you said with the payments already made, you could easily use the ICO new guidelines against the banks. It cant be one rule for one, one for another. I only owe Mint about £550 now but I have easily paid triple that in the time I have banked with them. Cut off nose despite face springs to mind - just remove the damn default eh?

I am atm trying to get a default removed from Mint and they have openly admitted they have no copy agreement for me (besides my signed application form). I am still paying them £15.00 per month with no interest being added as the account is terminated. Am I right in saying that because they have no contract for me, if I stopped paying, they cannot make me through the courts - but what would happen with my account with the CRA's, can Mint make it any worse than they have with the default? I am paying for something that basically they cant make me pay for but will not remove the default. What are your ideas on non payment? They would contact me and say pay now, and I'd say I'll pay you when you remove the default...hmm I wonder whether that would work? Either they DO have a signed agreement and havent given it to me yet - or they dont have the agreement like they have told me and cannot make me pay. I wouldnt consider this if I didnt have the default but seeing as I already do then do I have anything to lose? I WILL fight the default removal until the end, but would it make matters worse in trying to get the default removed if I stopped paying? I just dont know!

Thats my point!! How odd is that. Its should either be one way or another, preferably written off!!

misscynical Could you tell me who the letter was signed by or sent by? It seems like a weird reply being that the debt is not made void with no contract yet they cannot make you pay it through the courts should you stop paying!! Seems a bit contradictory to me?

Well I've been sat on this one for a while thinking about my next move. Im getting somewhere with my Lloyds case with the FOS so I have more faith that if I choose to send my complaint with Mint to the FOS that it will be recognised (whether I get the result I want is another thing). Before going down this road I decided to send creditexpert a very very long e-mail. It took a bit of thinking and going through details with a fine tooth comb but I am happy with the letter that I sent to them. I basically quoted numerous paragraphs from the guidelines published by the ICO on filing defaults and how the CRA's should act on any disputes by the consumer. I scanned the letter I received from Mint saying they do not have the original signed credit agreement and more or less said that unless they come up with a reasonable explanation of why this default should remain on my credit report, I will be taking the matter further through the courts. I have had a reply from the Directors Office saying to bear with the while they look into my dispute - which at the moment I find reassuring as the last time I got in touch with creditexpert over the same thing with Mint (the e-mail I sent was very brief and rushed) I got a reply but just from the customer service dept saying that they had got in touch with Mint who have advised that the information they give about me is true and accurate. The e-mail I have recently sent says that they have 28 days to get their act together with acceptable PROOF from Mint that my account should remain as it is. They too have a duty to ensure the details about me are correct so if they arent doing their bit it will only bite them in the ar5e when I take my case to court!

Surfer, When I sent CCA request to Mint, they also supplied me with a copy of my application form - I wrote back saying that a copy of the aplication form does not fulfil my request for the CCA. Next, I sent them my SAR..I got a reply which at the end said, I can confirm that on this occasion we are unable to provide a copy of the original signed agreement. So I have it in black and white that they do not hold an agreement for me. I have been writing since and each time have been fobbed off. Eventually they got f'd off with me and gave me their final response saying bog off. Ive just sent an e-mail to creditexpert scanning in this document from Mint saying they hold no CCA and gave all my reasons that the default should be removed. The next step should that fail is court. Or the Ombudsman?

Okay so I got the FOS involved and between them and me, things seem to be moving along nicely. An e-mail from my adjudicator at the FOS to the idiots at Lloyds have prompted them to re-finance my loan (it may have taken 2 years but we got there in the end). Paperwork was received last week for the re-finance of my loan but the APR was 12.9% instead of the agreed 9.6% - a lot when I still owe them nearky £3K. I got straight on the phone and had to argue it out with the lady who point blankly refused to alter the rate of interest, instead she advised that her system couldnt allow it as my account is in Collection...WHAT?!?!?! Of course, the reason why my account was in Collection was that they wrongly put me there so I tried explaining this to her. It ended with me demanding that the manager call me back. The call never came so I called them myself (bearing in mind my last landline telephone bill was an extra £20 last month by calling Lloyds alone, I find it cheeky they do not even have the decency to return my call). I eventually spoke with a nice girl who explained that the person who was returning my call was away and that someone else was going to call me back, however now that I was on the phone she discussed my loan with me. She was more than happy to cancel the previous documents for the loan and amend the APR to 9.6%. I got the paperwork through this morning and was delighted to see that they had actually changed it to 7.1%!!!!!!!! Thank you very much Lloyds. Now to the other half of my complaint, the missed payment marks on my credit report. They have since removed the 22 months of missed payments and replaced it with 2 missed payments. Its actually supposed to be zero but I was going to deal with that later in the week (picky picky). Only I got a phone call from my adjudicator at FOS who was happy for me and my new loan, and said that if I put to him all of my disputes regarding the entries with Lloyds on my credit report on an e-mail, he will deal with this in due course. So, although im not 100% there I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Thank god!

I certainly would. Worth every penny!! Good luck - and let me know what they send you back

Hmmm. Thats strange them saying that, I wonder why they said that? What exactly did they send you on the CCA request - what was it that made it disputable? I was temped to give Mint's details to the Information Commissioners Office but didnt bother, I am really not sure what to do with them. I wonder whether I just have some monkey writing to me and that if I got a response from someone else at Mint, that it may be different? Might look up sending them to court.

My advice, take it or not, would be to follow through and send the SARN for the small cost of £10 and see WHAT they send you back. When I sent mine off, they openly admitted that they didnt have my CCA. I have it in black and white. It seems though that despite having this proof on B&W, that they dont care and still refuse to acknowledge the points raised in my letters arguing the default, based on the fact that they have no contract for me. Im still racking my brains on what to do, as I guess you are, but to have this letter from them saying they have no contract can only go against them should I send them to court.

Hi Surfer01, Im afraid I dont know what to do in this case, but I have read that if they cannot provide you with the Subject Access Request documentation, but later do, they are not defaulting on your request. If it were me, I'd probably just wait until 17th to see what they send, assuming they do actually send it.

I too was going to take this route with the Information Commissioners Office - I certainly threatened it a few times in my letters to Mint. I just dont see them helping as I have read mixed responses when trying to get the Information Commissioners Office involved. So have they not supplied the Subject Access Request documents that you have requested is that what you are saying? Did you send the SARN template letter along with the £10.00 fee? Apologies if I am going over old ground here.

Hi underdog, I too have sent CCA and SARN to Mint who have also told me that they arent required to provide original CCA and default notice etc - I have argued this with them for months and recently I got their 'final response' basically telling me to sod off. I dont know whether to pass their details on to the FOS or just take them to court. All I want is the default notice removed from my account. I have an ongoing balance of something like £500 which I am paying them £15pm..no interest is being added as the amount is defaulted. What are you doing with yours? Im stuck on what to do now..:-|

Following Mint's last typical fob off letter, I replied stating that they have no credit agreement for me, cannot provide proof that a default notice was issued to me blah blah. I then received their Final Response letter which to me was another cop out, admittting no responsibility for their poor ability to follow paperwork proceedures and stating again that they are not obliged to provide proof of the default notice, or default notice. Have since replied AGAIN..and today received what I guess will be the last of their correspondence with me. Goes along the lines of... Any request for a copy of an executed agreement under s78(1); states thats the company must meet it's statuary requirements by providing a 'true copy' of the agreement relevant to the card product at the date the card agreement was made, plus a copy of the current terms of the product...........we have supplied a copy of the credit agreement that you signed (which they havent, I received a signed application form)........we have therefore met our obligations under s78(1) to provide a copy of that executed agreement and again we are satisfied that what was provided complied with the Regulations expressly made for controlling what is a 'true copy'.....blah blah. Where do I go with this now?! I already have a claim against Lloyds for something different which is with the FOS so im a bit jubious as to whether to go this route for Mint as well - wont the FOS think im trying to get a free ride with two seperate disputes, neither related, but still slightly similar? What are the ICO capable off? If they are just there to give them a ticking off then I wont go that route as I want results..or theres court? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks.