I suppose it would not hurt to be specific, but I thought that the SAR would be more along the lines of 'show me all that you have'. Sometimes little gems are thrown up in the content. What I am really asking - I need to be 100% clear on what gives them a right to report to credit agency even while the amount is disputed. I guess the right to report will be in the agreement. I know for a fact that this agreement was done via telephone via an agent for T-Mobile, so I doubt that they have the signed paperwork. I can't use the Consumer Credit act - its not credit. Is there any similar law covering telecoms contracts?

I am hoping that we don't have to get all legal about it. I am hoping that through rational and reasonable discussion we can resolve this matter to satisfaction of both sides. The way things stand, both T-Mobile and I are losing out - T-Mobile have lost a customer, I will and actively do let my friends know about the shoddy mess...the old analogy where losing 1 customer costs you 100 potentials, because each 10 tell another ten. It holds true. Reputation Damage is very bad for any company. TMobile lose out because they could be getting some payment, rather than none. I lose out because they're reporting it on my credit file - to nobody's benefit. My strategy for the moment is work through the complaints procedure and then if we are no further forward after that, I will send them a Data Subject Access request - they have to honour it. Maybe just maybe, there will be an entry in there that shows my request ... If that doesn't transpire, my contention would stand. If there is nothing contrary to that contention either ... then I think that if it does go legal, the judge would likely weigh up both arguments in the absence of proof either way. My intent to pay would swing it, I feel. Too early to say at the moment. I have a couple of weeks to see what happens.

I asked that the first time I got the statement .. no joy Yes lame, what is the point of that - the t&c's didn't arrive until after I got home

Well ... apart from asking them what rates the tariff carries and does it defintively cover Turkey what else could I have done? I bet they won't have proof that they didn't. It's the only default on my record. I got declined for even the most basic of credit cards yesterday, seriously going to lessen my wedding celebration plans. Has to be that there is nothing else negative on there, so it will be deep breath and count to ten when dealing with them.

I will do that right away, and wait and see. In my requirements for resolution I will say that I would like the bill reduced to the level I agreed originally, subject to their current european tarriff. I will say that I want copies of the last statement so that I can verify that the call times x tarriff is OK. I will ask for time to pay that amount. I will say until such time that the complaint is in resolved please stop reporting this as a default on my credit file, or we go to law. Fair?

Hi All, I have a tricky situation. The background of it is like this. I have had some debt troubles in the past and thankfully these are mostly over now. There was one very problematic Default /CCJ from Cabot - but with the magnificent help of this site's members I managed to 'persuade' them that they were in the wrong. Now gone from my credit file. I have one other bad thing in my record and as it is fairly recent. I need a bit of advice to handle that one. OK so lets start at the begining. Year before last, I went out to Turkey to help my elderly mum move her appartment. As the old landline phone there was disconnected as part of the move, and the new one cannot be connected until you sign the lease paperwork, Mum was phoneless. I had a brain wave. I decided to call T-Mobile and have them activate Roaming. This was done. I specifically asked the operator to put me on a tarriff for Turkey. He even quoted me 'per minute rates to the uk' and 'per minute rate for internal calls'. As I recall, these were not too steep, so I agreed to that and told him to proceed. I used my phone quite a lot to sort stuff out, and to call home to my fiance. I thought nothing of it as I believd that I was on a reasonable tarriff. Lo and behold, the next statement from T-Mobile was £1138 for the previous month. I went straight on the phone to customer services. They said yes, they could see roaming had been added the month prior, and that there were many expensive 'foreign' calls, hence the size of the bill. I said, yes, I see that too and I confirmed that I had asked for that roaming to be applied, but it seemed that the tarriff hadn't been applied. I quoted back to them the rates that I had been given. The operator then informed me that these rates were the european tarriff. Turkey is not in Europe. I then said that I had specifically asked for a tarriff covering Turkey (because - you know - that's where I was at the time, and stuff ). The operator then said that must have been a mistake when setting it up. OK Then I said, what would be the rate for Turkey - could the bill be ammended to that rate for the calls that I had made, I would pay that instead. Deathly quiet, then after some moments a response; "No that wouldn't be possible." I asked why not - I want to pay for what I have used. Deathly quiet again, then the response - "T-Mobile do not have a roaming tarriff covering Turkey." The bill stands at flat rate. I said I refuse to pay that because I was informed that the pricing was different. I seem to recall that she said - 'the new tarriff would have been sent to your home address - it is binding on your contract'. Or somthing to that effect. (Handy that, considering err , I wasn't there, until I came back, after making the calls ). I asked how it could be a binding contract, if I hadn't had sight of the terms? Her answer was 'it is binding because I used the service, and that forms a legal acceptance of the terms of said contract' . I said that I would not have used the service if I had been accurately told the terms, which had not taken place, becuase there had been an error. As a gesture of goodwill could I pay the equivalent european tarriff, as in the one quoted to me at the time. I thought thats what I was going to have to pay (because they TOLD me thats what it would cost.) I think that was fair and just. Deathly quiet, then after some moments - No that wouldn't be possible, you used service in Turkey, so you have to pay for that service. I instructed them to terminate the 'service' immediately and flag this as a disputed account. They did terminate the services, but I feel thats more likely because I stopped the direct debit for the monthly bill. Time passed. No contact, no letters, nothing. But this account is still showing on my credit rating as a default. I don't think that is fair - their mistake, leading me to make an ill-informed choice regarding its usage. I recently got declined for a credit application - I don't often seek credit, prompting me to again look at the old credit reference report. I suspect because of this, as it is the only default remaining. Pleease Please aadvise me as to what is the best approach to get this removed / settled / sorted. I have the full intent to pay for what I agreed to orginally, but nothing more. I feel my life should not be blighted by an ill-informed choice I made based on inaccurate information pertaining to a service. Surely I can't be expected to pay such an extortionate amount for less than 2 weeks of mobile service? At least , don't report that amount as a default - it is in dispute.

Ok so if it is not to be a full and final settlement - what other type is there? I'm thinking of being cheeky and asking that we reduce the balance to one pound. Would that work? From what I understand having a balance on the account keeps the account in dispute and the contract in action. Would you help me to draft a letter to Wescot to be something along those lines. This is new territory, so all guidance is welcome...... Once this is sorted, I know that I will have to step up to the plate and get more active on here ... that is not a problem for me - i will make it a personal commitment.

I think that you have maybe misunderstood Sarah's comments a little. Nowhere in post 9 does she say that we must not settle - she merely indicates that Wesot can be stopped in their tracks. We will be taking this to it's full extent, but I would like to go by the book on this. 'The book' i'm talking about is the Banking Code, which is the standard that the FOS will apply when making their determination of HBOS' conduct.

That cannot be the position I'm afraid as we are aware that the loan has not yet come to term. We estimate that there are 18 payments left to go.

Sorry, I don't agree. I would refer you to both the Banking Code and the FOS Guidelines. Thus: If FOS determines that HBOS have acted improperly they will come down on them 'like a ton of bricks' (I quote my solicitor there) - The guidance from FOS is always to settle the debt and reclaim according to your statutory rights afterward. The banking code is aligned to that guidance. For the record, I don't think that mom can take much more of the worry - hence making the settlement will releive that burden. She worries that we may not win the case and couldn't take that. I know that we are in a strong position, but understand that it is extremely difficult to be positive when you are frightened. So that's the current thinking.

OK, My Mum,Her partner and myself all think that the best way forward for this would be to settle at the figure we have been given, and then press our rights as has been discussed previously. We have a slight concern that because we have also instructed a solicitor to enquire as to the true standing of the account. I hope that HBOS have the sense not to ignore an officer of the law. Our solicitor drafted a strong letter to HBOS. Now we wait for the results, but We feel that HBOS will now realise the seriousness of this matter and that it is not going to go away, and respond accordingly, and hopefully reasonably quickly. What do the forum feel? I say that no matter what our solictor does, our statutory rights can still be enforced. Anyone have any advice?

Well Sarah, As a scotsman I would use a claymore rather than a gun !!!!

Apologies for the nonsense, it has been removed for clarity. Had a brain wave - anyone point me in the direction of the rules surrounding the communication of the default?

Guys, This is far far worse than first thought. The balance is now £5298.xx I'm in way over my head, but I can swim real good - UPDATE The debt has NOT been assigned to Wescot, they are merely acting on behalf of HBOS. We have even been told by the Manager of the branch where the original loan was taken out

agreed. in 1974 the ratio of wealth to populous was 7:84. Let me explain that 7% of the populous owned 84% of the wealth. Who here thinks that the situation has improved?

I meant 'free to the customer'. No offence Conliff, but your arguement is moot. The operational cost of a bank should be covered by the profits that they vast make on OUR SAVINGS. I am not saying that the banks should lend money for nothing. That is a service. Come on have the discussion that's bubbling under the surface here. I propose the theory that the banking system is morally corrupt and has been since 1694. I am wholly enjoying the credit-crunch,the recent runs on the banks, the sub-prime fiasco in the US and the weak attempts of the central reserves to help the irresponposible lenders to sustain liquidity. It's about time that the greedy were taken down a peg or two. I know how to grow food from the ground, I can cook it aftewards so I wont starve. I am morally grounded enough to know that if I have an excess, I should help those that do not. In no way am I advocating a return to susbsistence farming, but I can provide other services of value to cover the things that I do not know how to do. I'm clever eenough to learn, fit enough to perform and adaptable to changing circumstances. We already live in a system of barter. We go to work (whatever it is we do) and in exchange for our services we are given a token of value. This token at the moment is money. It doesn't have to be though, as long as both the parties in the exchange trust that the price is fair to both, and that the agreed price will be paid. This is an example - Anybody want to paint my shed? I'm useless at painting but I can cook and grow my own veggies. I know how to make wine from fruit and sugar. It'll only take an hour or two, and in return I will provide a three-course meal with organic veggies, and with home made wine(its' nice) for your family. The meal will be ready when you finish the painting. Seem like a fair deal? My point is that there are many monetary systems that have been around for centuries. They've been around for centuries because they work, they are based on equality and fair exchange. I feel it's time for a change, as the monetary system we have today is not based on equality nor fair exchange, it is based on greed and status. It's morally corrupt as it serves only the few. My grannie used to say money is a great servant, but a terrible master. Discuss?

I agree with BW. Until such time as the practice of levying penalties/charges/fees (or whatever you choose to call them - at the moment makes no difference) has been shown as unlawful, there was no way to stop it from happening as the FSA would have been interfering with lawful commerce. They are not allowed to do that. If the OFT loses this case, nothing will happen except the Banks will try to recoup their legal costs. If the OFT wins, free banking will end, the banks will offer us fees for service on each transaction - dependent on the type of 'service' rendered. I don't see why the Banks would be prevented from charging a fee for a customer to deposit funds into the banks' vaults. That's where it all started from remember. Of course,this would be offset with the interest made on said deposit, so long as the customer makes a net gain, there is no change to the current system. It will be at the baks discretion to waive the fee depending on the amount deposited. (still no change to the current system, as the higher your balance is, the less you pay in fees). Guess who gets screwed over again? That's right, us relatively poor people.

Everyone, Thank you all for your kind words. I will draft a confirmation that I am now fully satisfied with cabots actions, but I will wait until I get my consumer action group labels. Just goes to show that if you remain Honest Determined Open to the suggestions of others Willing to seek help when you need it from like-minded folks Willing to make choices based on experience, even if they are tough Logical Willing to research Willing to listen you will win out the day ...

hehe a 'wealth of experience'. Finallly, I'm wealthy.

Hi, there have been some developments. My mom wanted to wait to give the bank the chance to explain the themselves. She did ask for a full statement of account and the original agreement verbally in the the bank. The lass there said that it would take a while to get the information togeteher. This was over a month ago. Yesterday, my mom attended an appointment with the bank lady. The end result is that she was given a single sheet of computer printout which was hardly legible. There are codes and amounts, but not explanation of what those codes mean. I can't see how this could be deemed as a full statement of account. Still no orginal agreement in sight, although it was asked for at the same time. When pressed as to why it has taken over a month, the bank lady explained that she was having to go through Wescot to get information,hence the delay. We had been under the impression that the account was active with the bank as the payments are still coming out from the originally mandated DD. The bank and the bank lady said no,no,no its Wescot now... and confirmed the payments are going to Wescot directly. Bearing in mind that this has been going on since 2002, Frankly, I'm amazed. Doesnt this mean that the bank have changed the DD mandate without the knowledge of my mom? Is that allowed? The upshot is that apparently 13 payments have been missed and there are 12 remaining to take the loan to it's full term. We calculate that at just over £3675, not the alleged £5440. And yes, there are charges all over it, and interest on those charges. We really need to know if the bank is allowed to pay Wescot without letting us know. Surely this cannot be right?

2Grumpy, I don't wish to appear contradictory but although I am largely in agreement with you, I find your statement regarding defaults a bit consfusing. My argument would be that 'If the defaults have been inaccurately (or even unlawfully) recorded', the data subject always has the right to ensure that detrimental records are removed or made accurate under Sections 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act. The act affords the right and ownership of said data (at all times) to the data subject(hence the term Protection), therefore if the debts are being enforced outside of the Consumer Credit Act in respect of equitable assignment, this could be applied- with the argument that the trust has been breached between the two parties to the contract, and therefore the data subject can revoke the creditors' right to hold,process or share the data subjects' personal information. CurlyBen has a good lot of experience in that and has worked up a stratagem to do exactly this. Check out his threads. Last count for him was 7 for 0 no loss. I myself am 1 for 0 with the slipperiest of DCA's - Cabot - although the circumstances for me were fairly clear cut. Also, you suggest that it's the DCA's that should get the CCA (Consumer Credit Act request) - I agree. In the first instance. As for the DSAR (Data Subject Access Request) - I would do both the original creditor and the parties trying to now enforce the debt. There is a whole host of information that will come - maybe even the true closing balance of the account when it was transferred between the OC(original creditor) and the DCA(debt collection agent). The CCA74 says quite clearly that any charges or interest levied on the acount must be in keeping with the original agreement, even after transferral of assignment. The DCA's don't generally abide by that rule, as they add charges and apply interest on those charges - that's not permitted. Upshot being that wriet some letters and watch those balances shrink!

Bikeman / Saintly. Oops, Yes you are correct about 12 years on a mortgage, I must've been tired(aka beered up). Sorry for the confusion caused. Makes the other actions even more important. regards Simon

RC, Sorry to hear of your troubles. Please just know that you are not alone in this. I know that what I am about to say will not make you feel better instantly, but think about it a while. Nobody ever died of being in debt. (a bit like you can't be killed by a gun, but only by the person firing the gun). First thing that you need to do is get down to the citizens advice bureau. They will offer you some support in arranging reduced payments with your creditors - please don't agree to anything straight away though. There are other things to do afterward. Be very firm with yourself and family and work out a realistic budget (there is a budget planner spreadsheet in the templates library). Try to include all of your outgoings and allow for contingencies. That's the first step. Once you know all the things that you NEED, you should have a figure that you can allocate to your creditors. Ask them to take into consideration your willingness to pay and your will to avoid default positions, even if it will take you a while longer to pay them off. Mostly they will accomodate the arrangement, as it actually costs business a lot to recover defaulted debts. There are many options to get you out of the circumstances you find yourself in. Then, we will start on the bank, when you feel a bit stronger - I advise this as you need to make some choices, and you need to have a balanced mindset to make the right choice for you and yours.

Bad bunch - best kicked into touch at the earliest.

EnglandsNo1. You are an educated person. Surely you can see that your proposed course of action is just plain wrong. Simple case- You entered into agreements with your creditors. To continue to operate the accounts without the intent to pay, is (arguably) fraud. Take a lesson from the Uni. of life (at least that one is free!). You simply must be more responsible than to run away from your commitments if you are to get yourself into a better positon later. I know the prospect seems far off and your life is bleak at the moment, but stay positive. Point 1 - Remember that all your(present,past and future) addresses are linked to you - so your creditors will find you even if you were to move. You need to be on the electoral roll for council tax, otherwise you'll be almost a non-person and won't get access to certain services, if not found on there. Also, not being on the electoral roll is certainly detrimental to your credit score, so doesn't help you in that respect either. Point 2 - Yes, creditors certainly can find you through your new employer, but they need to apply for a sequestation of earnings order through court. If you have defaulted on the contract - that will sail through and you don't need to be informed of that case. Point 3 - Yes, there is a limitation on when a debt can be enforced - the statute of limitations act 1980. The limit is SIX YEARS from the last payment in respect of the contract. Here's another tip. Six years without access to credit and always worried about what will drop through your letter box will blight your life - beleive me - read some of the harrowing tales on here if you don't agree. That's the dark side you speak of. Nobody on this forum will help you to avoid your legitmately owed debts. But, instead they will guide you to the best of their ability to reduce your payments, get back what is rightfully yours and avoid future troubles if you are careful. If I were you, I would disassociate myself from your colleague who has made this suggestion - a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Their views are highly inaccurate and dangerous in the extreme. Can I just say, you seem to look at this site as offering debt-avoidance advice - NOT SO - it's more about debt management and debt counselling. The Light and Right, you might say.