If beyond statute of limitations periods? I'm not sure what that means

If beyond statute of limitations periods? I'm not sure what that means

well scroll over the highlighted wording

I have and I looked it up, but I'm not sure what this means in terms of our 3 credit card debts.

We entered a payment plan with MBNA 8 years ago which were then sold to Idem 3 years ago.

I've raised complaints with the FOS about both MBNA and Idem.

statute barred means in enland/wales if within 6 years no acknowledgement or payments made the SB comes into effect and any defence would simply be that, if a claim is issued within that period then SB stops. in scotland SB is 5 years

sb is nowt relevant

the OP needs to put IDEM to strict they hold a valid NOA

Hi Blondigirl

 

I have read your historic post with great interest, as I myself are in the exact same situation as you unfortunately found yourself in with MBNA.

 

I have x2 accounts with original creditor MBNA to MOORGATE to IDEM now,

 

 

from my 2009 debt management plan following separation,

still not Defaulted instead showing AP markers...forever.

 

 

I have thus far complained to all, FOS and ICO.

I had negative Adjudicators response from FOS, but now await Ombudsman review.

 

 

ICO have unfortunately supported MBNA.

I have stopped paying IDEM since January 2017 but this has made no difference thus far.

 

 

Ive received all copies of what they hold about me, 3 Default Notices were issued over the years, but they never went through with them, and i didn't receive any of them, none reported to CRA either.

 

I was wondering if it has turned out in a positive light that you intended since all your endeavours?.

 

 

It does seem all exhausting at times but I keep seeing rays of sunshine.

Step Change have just dropped me and told me to get back in touch when all this is over with, when all I tried to do was the responsible thing and pay!

 

 

I wasn't advised to hold back at any point but I have done it now since Jan.

(Interestingly, since my complaint, Idem's statements now say...

.'if you pay MBNA anything in the meantime, this information will show at a later date' kind of thing!!

 

 

Seems like a strange switch in tactics from them since I have always been lead to believe they owed the debt these days!). They just play me off in the middle!

 

I have a 3 y/o daughter, work full time and look after my 70 year old mum.

 

 

I really would like to hope this situation won't hold us all back for much longer...but its like being in quick sand sometimes.

Save

Hi, not sure if you're reading this but the FOS said that MBNA had to report our account as being up to date and pay us compensation.

However, Idem report us as AR/AP which the FOS say is OK.

It doesn't make sense so I am trying to think up other ways to challenge this as I thought I'd reached the end of it all.

sb is nowt relevant

the OP needs to put IDEM to strict they hold a valid NOA

How do I go about doing this though?

I'm not sure how to hold them to account.

erm..ask them for it???

I did. I sent off a SAR a while ago and can't find anything that relates to this. Also, if I ask outright if there was one, surely they'll just say yes.

you sar'd mbna not idem.

simply write and ask for a copy.

Thanks, do you know if there is a timescale in which they must reply?

I would suspect in a timely manner though

Go read law of property act and find out

I am doing my best to get our credit files 'clean' and have, so far, been successful. Until now.

Idem are reporting AP/AR markers on our old MBNA accounts which is making our lives a misery.

In theory they should be reporting DM markers according to the present ICO guidelines but I guess the markers are as bad as each other.

I have managed to get MBNA to agree to change our files, but Idem won't budge.

Idem took over the accounts in 2012.

The ICO's guidelines on reporting changed in 2014 which seems to indicate that reporting crappy AP/AR markers for life is perfectly fair.

However, I know that prior to 2014, when Idem took over the accounts, the ICO's guidelines were such that this couldn't happen.

However, I can't locate the guidelines that I would have read before 2014 to complain to the ICO using the guidelines which were current in 2012.

I've googled and searched on the PCs (in case I'd downloaded it) etc and can't find any record of the previous pdf. I have wording in letters, but don't have an actual date.

Just wondered if by some miracle, someone had a copy or could find it.

The FOS have said that Idem are doing nothing wrong (even though they contradict their MBNA decision completely) so the ICO is one of my last hopes.

Also, I know that Idem can't DF us.

But, if we've defaulted on the MBNA agreements, how can this not be a DF?

We are in massive arrears, proving that we've defaulted.

MBNA made a new agreement and reported us as up to date, so they can't DF us.

But at the time that they sold the accounts on, we couldn't keep up with the high payments, so Idem continuously say we're in arrears.

This doesn't make sense.

TIA

Merge number 19 is it to your existing thread on this debacle...

Please keep to one thread

I have it on the server later

Now did you request that NOA from idem?

here we go.

this is one sheet I have for now.

but it shows the old principle in action.

Thanks very much for that.

I have quoted some relevant paragraphs in old letters to the FOS, which were valid back i 2012,

so I can re-quote those to the ICO,

but I don't know the date of the previous guidelines.

Annoyingly,

had MBNA not sold the debts on,

we would most certainly would have been DFd because we reduced the agreed payments.

it was around that time that Idem took them over and MBNA washed their hands of it.

Idem can't DF us,

but could MBNA retrospectively have to?

IMO we reduced the payments agreed under the restructured terms, thus we defaulted.

Idem just continued to report AR/AP but at the time,

the ICO stated that this should be a DF and a payment plan can only be for around 6 months.

If this makes sense.

This is why I am angry with the FOS;

under my MBNA complaint, they were clear, concise and wrote a very long decision agreeing with me.

They agreed that the account had been re-structured,

a new agreement made and therefore we were up to date with payments and made MBNA change our credit file.

Then it was sold on, and we couldn't keep with the payments.

Idem won't/can't DF us.

I believe that we have DFd. And the ICO guidelines were different when this happened in 2012,

and the FOS made their decision recently, that Idem can actually continue to report AP/AR markers forever

(but this wasn't the case in 2012 so I totally think the FOS' decision was wrong

- and it took them about a week to make this decision,

and the guy I spoke to wasn't interested.

It's as though they weren't bothered.

And yes! Have requested it

found it

Thanks so much - very useful.

I wonder if the ICO will agree for Idem to report as it should have been done in 2012 - ie, we were on a temporary plan and back then, they deemed 'temporary' at that time to have been 6 months. Presumably, MBNA should have DFd us because the relationship/arrangement broke down.

Hoping I can win this fight again!!

Agree?

I have complained to the FOS already - they rejected my complaint (but upheld the previous one, I have escalated this complaint). I am hoping that the ICO agree with me that Idem are reporting on my credit account incorrectly.

Has anyone managed to get a decision made by the FOS overturned because I believe that their decision is completely wrong and they haven't followed the correct guidelines? They simply aren't interested and have said 'tough'.

For a couple of years now, I have been trying to clean up our credit files because it's crippling us having AP/AR markers. The DFs have now gone which is great, but Idem are still reporting AR/AP. The FOS believe this is fine, and that they can do this until we're close to retirement!!!

2 years ago, I complained to the FOS about MBNA reporting our files as AP/AR.

After months of letters and phone calls, the FOS first decided that we'd DF'd then the adjudicator believed we'd made a new agreement so we were actually up to date and ruled that MBNA had to change our records to reflect this. They did. We were paid compensation and I was ecstatic thinking this was the end!!

But! In the mean time, and at the time that MBNA were selling the debt to Idem around 2012, we started to get into arrears because we couldn't afford the increased payments,

Idem would not accept our reduced payments and they started to report that we were in arrears.

Assuming that my complaint to the FOS would cover this, I was told that I would have to raise a new complaint.

I have stated to the FOS/Idem that at the time of reporting and once it was with Idem they should not have started to report AP/AR in 2012 because:

1. Once in arrears, it should be considered that we'd DFd because the relationship had broken down etc etc. We had not kept up with the payments agreed with MBNA and send reduced payments to Idem. Despite asking for them to accept reduced payments, they said no. They said that they'd take the payment but that they'd report us being in arrears.

2. At the time, the ICO's guidelines stated that an arrangement to pay could only last 6 months otherwise it's not temporary, and should be DF'd. The ICO say that if someone is on a plan, this should be reported over any AR/AP markers - but Idem won't report that we're on a plan. And at the time, the ICO stated that a plan could only be reported on for 6 months, before DFing.

They argue that actually, it's OK for Idem to report AR/AP forever more, because that's what it is - this is current ICO guidelines, not what was in place in 2012.

So I am stuck!

I believe I am right in my way of thinking as per the ICO's guidelines.

I have asked Idem for notice of assignment but as yet have had no reply

- I am hoping that they can't provide one which I gather means they have no right to report on our files.

The FOS say that I can take legal advice - but from whom?

I really don't believe that the reporting is correct and Idem should not have reported AP/AR from day 1.

The account had been restructured once with MBNA

- it cannot be restructured again so as we've not met the terms of the agreement, we have DFd.

I have no way of knowing what info MBNA/Idem sent to the FOS, and I can't believe they made their decision in a matter of days, when the MBNA complaint took months and they agreed with everything I said. It's as though they read my complaint, looked at current guidelines, and said 'tough'.

I would happily consult a solicitor but don't know who to contact.

Help!!

Does anyone have any experience on the ICO having any weight/say in what's on our credit files? If information is incorrect, can they enforce that it be changed?? TIA

Does anyone have any experience overturning a FOS decision??

That what they do...

So the ICO could over-turn the decision made by the FOS on our credit file not being correct??

the ICO wont go against the FOS

got that notice of assignment yet?

Oh sorry, I thought you said 'that's what they do'.

So the FOS can make mistake and aren't accountable to anyone??? Having read posts on here, sounds like the FOS aren't as helpful as they make out! I am adamant that they didn't follow the ICO guidelines.

I haven't had any reply to my request for a copy of the NOA no.