Yes, at least £2,000 sounds about right! Not sure Pumpytums what the going rate for these types of claims would be, suppose it would depend on the amount of damage it has caused in any one case. Hopefully, someone can give you a bit more help. Good luck with the counterclaim. Magda

Well, I contacted Experian for starters to inform them that the entry from GE is incorrect. Had an email back stating that they would contact the creditor and query it with them. I had a further email today informing me that they have contacted First National now and FN have informed Experian that the entry is correct and they wish it to remain on my credit file. I'm really annoyed about this, to put it mildly, as they have further stated that they cannot remove an entry unless the creditor says so. I am now going to write direct to FN and then take this matter up with the ICO etc if necessary. Basically, the creditor can put whatever they want on your credit file it seems without any verification that it is correct, which has to be a very flawed system - which of course, we already are fully aware of. On to round two......

Exactly. They do it out of spite - can't enforce the 'debt' so they start messing with our credit files. I bet GE will have another story entirely when I contact them. I noticed on another thread that they have gone one step further and actually issued proceedings against someone for an account that had already been subject to litigation - same scenario as ours, assigned to a third party and then reassigned back to GE (or so they claim). How stupid is that. Magda

Hi Beachy, glad you seem to be getting there and will soon have the entry off your credit file. I am going to write to GE and ask them to remove the entry (and also the other companies who have also placed incorrect info on our file) and if they won't play ball, will then take it further. The credit ref agencies are just like the courts, they take everything the creditor says as Gospel, and when we say they are wrong, they side with the creditor anyway. Well done with your own battle and your success against Link Financial (always nice to hear of someone getting the better of them:-D) Will update if I get any news. Magda

Hi Jasper, thanks for the good wishes, will probably need them! The trouble with judges like HHJ Waksman is they don't actually live in the real world, everything is black and white as far as they are concerned. Will let you know how I get on. Magda

Hi Jasper, many thanks for your reply. I did send a secure email to experian (I have a 30 day free trial to access my file) and they have answered now stating that they will contact the companies concerned and in the meantime will put a notice on showing that I have disputed the entries. As you say, I'm sure the companies themselves will come back and say that the entries are correct and I will have a battle to get these entries removed. It actually is really unfair that these accounts actually reflect our financial situation as it was around seven years ago and they are still showing these details on our files now, except with amended dates for the deafault, to make it look like a more recent event, which creates the impression that we have recently defaulted on accounts, when in fact that isn't correct at all. Will follow your advice and write to all of the CRAs I think to make it more formal and also to the companies themselves letting them know that I will be contacting the ICO to dispute these entries further. Amazing isn't it how easy it is for these companies to log these entries and how difficult it is for us to actually get them removed. Many thanks again, Magda

bump

Hi, I have had quite a few problems with creditors placing information on my credit file six or seven years after the event actually occurred. For example, I had a debt with First National which fell into arrears at the end of 2003 and was defaulted in 2004. The default was showing on our credit file and the name changed over to Link financial, but details remained the same. This account was sold to Link Financial, who then took me to court. Their claim was discontinued and they then sold the account back to FN, or GE Money as they became known. GE has kindly placed info on my credit file (and husband's, as joint account) showing that we are six payments in arrears and, wait for it, obviously heading towards a Default, which will be on our file for six years. How can this possibly be fair? Beachcomber has had the same problem and involved his mp and the BBC, and GE are now saying it was all a mistake.... despite previously refusing to remove the incorrect information they were placing on his file. I then also have Lloyds TSB (or my husband does). Account fell into arrears around end of 2003, pretty sure a DN was issued around that time. A couple of years ago, Lloyds suddenly decided to clear the arrears from the account (to so called give us a fresh start) issued a DN and the proceeded to mark the credit file with late payments, which have now resulted (in 2010) in a default, 7 or 8 years after the actual event. We did continue to make token payments to Lloyds, but this doesn't alter the fact, surely, that the account was defaulted before we came to a repayment arrangement with them. We did maintain the agreed repayments by the way, and didn't miss any. Lloyds were actually claiming that we had failed to pay the contractual repayment which they started to demand again. Then we have Redcats, same scenario, account fell into arrears in 2004 and DN issued, but a default has been placed on my file in 2008, so has another few years to go before it drops off. Finally, there is Tmobile, they have stated that my account defaulted in 2007, when in fact it was 2004 again. All of our financial problems were at the end of 2003 beg of 2004, that's when they all defaulted. Our recent credit, such as the mortgage that we already had, bank accounts, that kind of thing, are all showing as being completely up to date, with no problems whatsoever, so it is really misleading to show this kind of information which actually dates back a number of years (more than six) and isn't an accurate picture of our current situation at all. What I'd like to know is: If an account has been defaulted by the creditor but they didn't place a Default on your credit file at that time, can they suddenly, say, six or more years down the line,start reporting adversely on your file and then place a default, supposedly from the later date? I know that if a default has already been placed on your file once, then once it's removed, that is it, or should be, anyway,but what happens if they didn't originally report the default on your file? We had a vast number of defaults until recently and most of them have now dropped off and our credit file is looking much better, apart from the ones mentioned above, which continue to cause problems. Any opinions on this really welcomed, be interesting to hear what others think or hear of your own experiences. regards, Magda

That's really good news - will have to see if I can get them to back down over mine now, be interesting to see what they come back with. Not surprised about TS, I've tried them in the past and found them to be pretty useless as well. Magda

Yes, I would think it would only apply to that particular claim, if the same creditor wanted to reinstate proceedings. If they sell the debt on again, or pass it back to the OC, as you say, I don't think the permission to restore would apply. I do agree with all that you are saying about something usually not being right and what you were saying about the agreement perhaps not being enforceable, I know that is something we see a lot on here. If it's for some other reason though, I think they are more likely to make a second attempt at proceedings, such as in the case of a DN. I am really enquiring about this as one of my own accounts, ex First National (GE Money) was assigned to Link, who issued a claim then discontinued. They then claimed to have sold the debt back to the OC. This was a few years ago now, and no real problems. GE has recently issued a claim though against someone in a very similar situation to me and threatened others, so just interested really to know what happens in this scenario as far as being entitled to issue a new claim for the same account is concerned. It is confusing as cpr 38.7 seems to imply it concerns the same creditor reissuing proceedings, not a new one. Be nice to know for sure. Magda

The trouble with that is that the original claim being discontinued isn't necessarily because the claimant doesn't have an enforceable agreement - it can be to do with other issues, which they may have decided, at the end of the day, were not worth risking in court, even though they originally intiated the proceedings. They then sell the debt back to the OC (sometimes the Deed of Assignment gives them an automatic right to do that) and the OC then decides they are going to give it another go in court, thinking that if the original issues concerned the DN, for example, they will issue a fresh one and recommence proceedings, although this of course has its own set of issues, if, for example the account was terminated. Legally, i'm just wondering where we stand as far as cpr 38.7 is concerned if the organisation re-issuing the proceedings isn't actually the claimant who previously issued the claim, although it would of course relate to the same debt (account).

Good luck with it all, i'm sure you won't have any problem sending GE packing as you seem to have it all under control! regards, Magda

It's clear that cpr 38.7 should mean that a claimant wishing to bring proceeding for the same claim would need to apply to the court, as they have already had one attempt at litigation and discontinued their claim, for example. In superg's case though, the claim was discontinued and then, it seems, assigned to Aktiv. Is section 38.7 still relevant in this particular scenario? As it is actually a new claimant in effect, are they entitled to issue proceedings without application to the court? Just wondered if anyone could clarify this as cpr 38.7 says: "A claimant who discontinues a claim...." It doesn't seem to clarify what happens if the debt is subsequently sold on to a 'new' creditor who wasn't directly responsible for the discontinuance.

Hi Pumpytums, I believe they need to apply to the court if they want to bring proceedings again for the same claim, not sure if that still applies if the claimant has changed, although I would think it does. I wonder why they are re-issuing proceedings against you? Myself, Semyaza, Beachy and probably quite a few others are in the same position, but so far they seem to be sending arrears notices and so on but that's about it. Probably working their way around to us.... If I were you, I would request a copy of the Deed of Assignment, if it has been sold to Link and then sold back again to the OC, there must be paperwork to prove this and it all needs to add up, so that might be worth looking into. These companies make me sick, they will originally have written the debt off as a bad debt, sold it on, and now, want to try to go one step further by taking your to court again. It also infuriates me that they can randomly place Defaults on credit files even though it isn't an accurate picture of that person's financial situation, because the default, for example, might actually have happened seven years before. There is something very wrong with it all. Will have a look at your thread when I get a chance. Good luck with defending the claim. Magda

Something I've noticed on my credit file (no mention of M&S at all) is that HFO have been carrying out some kind of credit search every month for the last three months, not sure why they are repeating them so frequently, seems a bit odd.... Magda

Hi Beachy, it's disgusting that they think they can get away with messing up our credit files like this. My story is practically identical to yours - taken to court, Link lost, sold the debt back to GE/FN. The DN should have dropped off my file earlier this year at the latest, but as in your case, now showing that I am six payments in arrears. I also received a new DN etc. Could it get any more ridiculous for them to threaten issuing new court proceedings, a judge has already declared it unenforceable in your case, and in my case, Link discontinued because they knew they wouldn't win. I didn't mind so much when the defaults originally went on my file, because at least I knew that they would drop off in six years and we'd just have to weather the storm, but to get defaults on your file six years or more down the line really isn't on. That's great news about Auntie, let's hope it will do some good, let me know what happens. All the best, Magda

Hi Semyaza, hope you are ok. Did Experian place a notice of correction on your credit file? I have just emailed them, because I've checked my credit file again and the First national one is actually showing as 6 payments late, not actually as a Default, which I initially thought. They are obviously building up to that.... Also got another Default showing from Redcats which was added in 2008, even though it defaulted in 2004 and was on my credit file around that time. Apart from these two, my credit file is in really tip top shape... the first time in six years because all the other accounts have dropped off, so this is particularly annoying, to say the least. Did you contact FN to query the defaults with them? Just wondering how you got on with it all. regards, Magda

Would also still be very grateful if someone could advise on whether an assignment made between a uk company and one registered under irish law (as with HFO) would be legally valid? thanks, Magda

Good thinking! I hadn't thought of that. Many thanks, Magda

Hi, I have been getting quite a few letter recently from HFO regarding an old M&S Account - a store card. The card was taken out in the mid to late 1990's, so quite a while ago. The account has apparently been assigned to HFO by M&S. I requested a copy of the credit agreement and later received a copy of an application form. Nothing else. I wrote back and said that this did not comply with section 78 (no terms and conditions etc) and if they were unable to respond in a satisfactory manner, to inform me in writing. No reply whatsoever, but continued to receive their threats. I have now received a letter from Turnbull Rutherford giving me 21 days to respond or a court claim will be issued. That doesn't bother me, it's the usual rubbish these companies come out with and if they do issue a claim, I'll defend it. The thing is they have attached a DN and also a notice of assignment headed "M&S Money." The NOA states: "We have assigned your account to HFO capital ltd a company incorporated under the law of Ireland with a registered office at ............ Dublin 2, Ireland. Would this assignment be valid under UK law? The account was apparently assigned in 2008, but they are only now starting to pursue it. I'm going to do a SAR to M&S because I haven't made any payments to HFO and for all I know, it may be statute barred. Many thanks, Magda

Thanks DX, will have a look at that. All help much appreciated! regards, Magda

Will let you know how it goes, bigdebtor, and will give you a shout if I get stuck! Many thanks for all the advice and help you've given on this. regards, Magda

Ideally I'd like to sting them for as much as I can, so will wait for the statements (if they provide them) and then work out exactly what I am owed. I'm sure it won't be too bad once I've mastered the spreadsheet:-) Many thanks, Magda

Hi Bigdebtor, thanks for your help. I'm trying to get hold of all the statements I need at the moment, so hopefully can then work out what I need to charge as far as interest goes. I suppose if it started at say 19% and ended up being 23% APR, then you could maybe just charge 19% on the whole lot. Thanks again, Magda

Hi all, just wondered if anyone has a spreadsheet that will work out contractual interest on credit card charges for me. Also, quick question: I read on another thread that it is possible to charge contractual interest on each individual penalty charge, and then further interest on the overall amount that you've calculated. Is this correct. Many thanks, Magda