Hmm, my experience of S.A.R with regard to loan companies is that I receive a pile of copy statements, a barely inteligible list of events, and a photocopy of the agreement and nothing else. then when questioned through the CRA about their recording they make reference to information that was not contained within the S.A.R. So I dont expect the CRA's to work any differently

Mina you say this is the third compaint? What happened to the previous 2? There must be guidelines regarding complaints precedureswhich they may have broken, might be fun to complain also about their complaint handling

CAIS = Credit Account Information Sharing pronounced "keys" Mina I almost love you It's a shame you no longer have access to this piece of equipment, I would sneakily ask you to get a copy of my report through it and compare to one obtained through a Subject Access Request. If they were different, well, with the publicity I would get it I would sue and open the floodgates for everyone to do the same Actually this gives me an idea, Mina how long ago did you work for them, and for how long? Did you have regular access to the machine? Why do you believe the information on it is different to that available under a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) or shown to the subject on their credit file?

Ok thats slightly different, I take it you received a default notice, and eventually they informed you that the contract was terminated and demanded repayment in full within a ridiculously short time frame or they would begin collection? Ok that means they probably re-financed the loan, maybe with what is called a "managed loan" Well the terms of the original loan with regard to the sharing of data regarding that original loan are likely to be in effect indefinately, but if that loan agreement is otherwise no longer in effect, and is "satisfied" then I would send them a letter refering specifically to that particular contract (not the one currently in effect) notifying them that I withdraw my consent whether implied, explicit, or under contract for them to hold, process, and share my information with regard to that agreement, and should they not agree to the variance of the contract terms in this way they can "cancel" the contract effectively negating the terms anyway. I'd also point out that as they reserve the right to vary contract terms by notice in writing, failure to allow you to do the same would render the contract unfair, and therefore unenforceable under law, resulting again in them not having consent to share your information in relation to this account. Send it by Recorded delivery and state that non response within a specific reasonable time period will be deemed acceptance of this change in the terms of the agreement Then hit them with the S10 notice, they no longer have consent to hold, process, or share your data in relation to this account The first part would need to be done very precisely, S10 is not available "in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met", and paragraph 1 of schedule 2 says "The data subject has given his consent to the processing" might work, might not, but if you can prove it was their f**k up then its time to go after the compensation, which would include the additional interest you have had to pay under the managed loan and anything else you can think of and quantify. As an example of the compensation that you can easily go for, one credit company took me to court, the defence and counterclaim I made contained an itemised claim for £27,842.50, against an original loan of £2,500, and an outstanding balance of £1,200. They settled out of court Hope this helps

If you serve a S10 notice the bank may respond that you have given your consent for them to hold, process, and share your information as per the contract you signed when you took out the loan, this is a standard clause in probably all credit agreements. That doesnt mean you cant try it if you want to, but in this case I personnally wouldnt, I'd go down the above route, and claim for damages.

Oh and to answer the original question, a default on your account is simply a "didn't pay this month" notice, it doesn't matter if you bring the account up to date the following month, you still didn't pay that particular month. It will also apply if you pay a double instalment one month, and then don't pay the following month. The financial ombudsman limits the time they can keep this information on your file to 6 years, otherwise they would probably love to keep it forever, but I am unaware of a stipulation requiring them to keep it for the full 6 years, thi however shouldnt be a problem if you can prove it was due to their error. If you can prove it is their error then you have recourse through: The Defamation Act The Data Protection Act The Consumer Credit Act and probably a number of others

So let me get this right, you had a perfectly good and functioning direct debit (DD No1) in place with a number of "actions" to be performed, decided to change the account from which the direct debit was drawn on (DD No2) and the direct debit functioned correctly, then returned the direct debit to the original account (DD No3) and it consistently failed? If this is the case then I expect they supplied the reference data from the original direct debit (DD No1) when drawing funds following reinstatement of the direct debit to the original account (DD No3), this would therefore be refused as the series of direct debit "actions" to which it refered had been cancelled. Basically it sounds as if you acted in good faith, and either the lender or the bank on which the DD was drawn made a mess of it, the problem is proving it. If you can get the bank to confirm in writing that the reference data the lender supplied was incorrect and caused the direct debit to fail, along with a copy of all three direct debit mandates to demonstrate the information given to by yourself to the lender to be correct then you have a case and could theoretically take court action under several acts of parliament. Hope this helps

Hi Sarah Was the previous loan paid in full? or has it been 6 years or more since you last had any dealing whatsoever concerning this loan? If you are satisfied that there is no reason for a debt collection agency to be contacting you then there may be a risk that you have been a victim of identity theft. First thing I would do is an online check of my credit file to see if there is anything there that shouldnt be, this should show any signs of credit being given against my name. If the previous debt has had no events in the last six years then I believe it is statute barred (they can't inforce collection but that doesn't stop them chasing you) so you could just ignore it, but satisfy yourself that they have no reason to contact you first.

Capquest are a debt collection agency, you may not have any debt with them but they may have just aquired one you have elsewhere, or been instructed to collect one. First would be to contact them and ask why they did a search on your record, if they have not aquired or been instructed to collect a debt then they have no reason to search your record, you could then ask them and the credit reference agency to remove any record of the search as it is damaging and unwarranted (Data Protection Act Section 2 sub-section 10). also I believe they have no business searching your record without reason, maka complaint to the credit reference agency and the information comissioner. The thing to ask yourself is could there be any reason for a debt collection agency to search your file?

I expect all credit agreements contain a clause in which you give permission for your information to be shared, but they also as a general rule contain a clause which allows the creditor to vary the terms of the agreement as they see fit by giving notice in writting. Therefore if a debtor wishes to vary the terms of the agreement (i.e. withdraw consent to the sharing of information) and this is refused by the creditor it can be argued that the contract is unfair and therefore unenforcable. I am sure the DPA gives the right to withdraw consent, as I argued this point with a creditor myself and successfully managed to have them and the DCA that followed them remove my phone number permanently from their databases. I will try to reference this if anyone wants it. The thing to do is to write to them informing them that you withdraw consent to process and share your information as is your right under the DPA and require them to acknowledge in writting that they have done so within a specific time period, say 28 days. Leave them a couple of weeks extra beyond reciept of their confirmation, then check your credit reference. If they have left your information there then they have failed to comply with the DPA, and misrepresented that they have complied. Then you have all the evidence that you require, a letter confirming that they have ceased sharing your information as required, and your credit reference demonstrating that they are telling porkie pies. This would be quick and easy for the Info Com to investigate, and gives opportunity for a court order to enforce compliance. Now I may have got it all wrong, but all these organisations have become as powerful as they have through the sharing of our information. The downside would be that if they don't agree to the varience of the contract terms they could alternatively demand immediate repayment and cancellation of the contract. So I would only use this on one I had told to get f****d. We may be straying from the thread topic now, but hey, it's another approach that may be simpler. Would be good to hear what you all think though

This is fascinating. Post 688 where UK26 posts the response from experian, section headed "The Account Sharing Data: CAIS" "All individuals referred to in its data files supplied to experian will have given consent to the processing and sharing of data with other members (where consent is necessary)......." Now my understanding of the DPA is that we can give consent, and we can withdraw consent. If we withdraw consent for the offending companies to share our information, whether contractual, implied, or explicit consent, then surely they can't put it on the credit reference agencies? Does anyone know where consent would not be necessary?