I guess so. It just shows you the level of abuse that's levied against consumers' data.

I yearn for the day 1st Crud loses its licence! But it's their stupidity that amazes me: getting a thicko threat merchant sol from Glasgow to issue a default notice ona certain date yet defaulting me on the same account over a year earlier! That is, in effect, two defaults they've marked on that account, though only one of theirs appears on the file. It doesn't help that the ******* from Yuill & Kyle in Glasgow doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Yes, sorry that's who I meant by IO. Case opened last September and only now are they contacting 1st Crud.

Trading Standards STILL waiting on replies to further questions asked of the monkey Sol and his 'default' letter. Snails move faster than this process. Will post back as things progress. If they ever do!

Whom, the SLCC and the IO? I get the impression no-one really cares!

And...cant get to Law Society as my case has to go through the SLCC first and since the found my case without merit, that's that avenue dried up.

Now waitin on Information Commisioner to try sort this one out.

Hi no documented proof mostly word of mouth ie number of threads where account has been returned to OC or previous DCA and in my case as above approx 8 or 9 DCA amended my CRA file to reflect their purchase of my account when I told the they had purchased a "pig in a poke" they sent letter to say they had closed account and returned it to previous DCA etc, checked later and CRA file had been changed again to reflect present owner. This account will be statute barred in May 2013 and just has one entry on CRA files though the owner has been amended often.

 

Had to inform a couple of DCA I would take them to court for defamation as they had changed default date to try to prolong statute barred period idjuts.

 

dpick

Defamation? On what grounds? Surely you should be going through the Information Commissioner's office if these clowns are altering details? Why would you risk a court case on a charge of defamation of character?

Update: SLCC complaint finds both my complaints (with regard to the incorrectly set-out stat demand) 'without merit', after over three months of deliberation. No matter, Trading Standards is on his case, big-time, and next stop is the Law Society. And the Police have lost the letter on suspected fraud I sent them.

Equifax tell me to contact 1st Crud, whose data controller was copied in on the request to rectify the default date and no response to date, so complaint off to ICO today.

HBoS are a shifty lot and I had an awful time with them a few years ago with them denying they had seen correspondence even though I was looking at signatures saying the letters had been signed for. That company is peppered with inveterate liars, but that's another story.

So, how did you approach this? The way I did it was to go through all my statements and highlight the excessive £35 charges HBoS was slapping on my account. If you don't have them, you can request them from your bank. They will shilly-shally, delay, prevaricate and supply you with statements missing data but you must persevere with this!

In my case, they then stated that they found their charges fair and acceptable and that I had agreed to be penalised by them by virtue of having been served the account T&Cs when opening it. They kept on stalling and then I hit them with the charges plus interest letter. You may be aware that you are allowed to add interest (you will have to research this) and whilst many people did so I eventually did not, even though I was doing myself out of several hundred pounds. When they were hit with that charges plus interest letter and a wee visit from the FO, they caved in like a house of cards. Watch out, though: don't put the charges cheque(s) into any account you still hold with them as they will sweep that for debts you may hold with them elsewhere.

Now go get them!

Thank you, but it's all in the past, now, and I sorted out HBoS good and proper own my own, from advice imparted and info learned on this site. Anyway, all the call logs were on an old PC and even though I have copies of all correspondence, I don't see what can be achieved several years down the track. Thx, anway.

This is an interesting one. Any update, TheDarkNight?

Just checked the CF again to find the incorrect default date still there, despite raising an online query with Equifax. Tried to get access to the 'My Questions' folder online only for the page to tell me that my details are incorrect (they're not) or that the account has been disabled. Nice! So, have had to write to them and also 1st Crud to get that default date removed or altered back to its original one. Trading Standards reckon this solicitor has a case to answer and I'm having a meeting with them next week.

Glad you got something out of them. Now, if only I had been so diligent with BoS/HBoS all those years ago.

Well done.

Do not speak to them! Once they get a handle on you, they won't let go! Write to them and ask what the debt in question is and ask them to refrain from calling you at home. Tell them if they continue to do so, you will report them to Trading Standards and to the police, citing harrasment.

Ok, just having a look at the file. The account is question has a default mark against it placed by 1st Crud. The default date is clearly marked on the file as xx/07/2008; this date is out by some three years and also by day and month dates. Why would 1st Crud do this? I have raised a dispute on this with Equifax.

Unfortunately, there is no mark that I can see from the monkey sol in Glasgow. In fact, there is nothing pertinent to the default he issued in May this year! Has he acted fraudulently?

Has a default marker actually been placed against your credit files by this guy ?

I cant check right now as Im working abroad. will have to wait a couple of weeks till Im home before I can reactivate the CR file held by Experian.

He has a consumer credit license to collect debt, not to make up default notices out of the blue for a debt he doesnt even own! Absolute monkey!!

I am livid. Wrote to the sol today and tried to explain to him why he cannot served a default notice on a bought debt from an account upon which the OC had already served a default notice some years earlier and terminated the agreement. I also asked him to remove any default marker he has attempted to place against this account (if he can, that is) and this is the reply I got tonight from and advance copy of the letter I sent to him via e-mail:-

We acknowledge receipt of your email with attachment.

We have no intention on acting upon it.

We have suggested before you take legal advice and once again urge you to do so.

Can you believe this **EDIT** nerve? So, if I find a mark placed by him (or the DCA) who do I approach about getting it removed? If it the sol himself and he is refusing to act, I will have grounds to sue, will I not?

All help gratefully received.

Had a word with the police force and am submitting statement (with evidence) alleging attempted fraud by the sol tomorrow.

That's ok, CitizenB.

I've emailed my case officer at SLCC with this additional info but I know they are weeks away from making a decision on it or passing it to the Law Society.

As an aside, no law firms up here - esp the big finanicial ones - will handle any bank/CCA disputes; any approach I've made in the past - even to the law firm I usually use - has resulted with a 'Sorry, can't help' letter or has been totally ignored. All the help and knowledge I've gained to fight these people has come from sites like this.

So, does this look like fraud by false representation, the fact that he's issued a legal financial document that he has no right to issue? Again, because it's Scotland, there may be a different set of rules. I think this new angle I should submit to the SLCC but it would be good to hear from others in they think fraud is defo afoot here.

Govan don't help outside their own catchment area, CitizenB.

right original was sheet two only.

The two pages are the 'default notice' the solicitor drafted, signed and sent me!:-)

Is that you hiding there, Stephen?

Ok, I've dug out the old paperwork pertaining to the account. The sol has lifted a section of the T&Cs that were part of the original agreement. Back then, in 2004-5, with the help of CAB and in agreement with the bank, I had reduced my month payment to the account. The bank then issued the default in July of that year, IIRC, and I kept on paying until I CCAd them in 2008. I haven't the faintest why this sol has included this paragraph.

The fool has no idea of the actual status of the account and I think the SD was one of those 'long shot' threats for, despite threatening to take me to court for the outstanding amount, he has vanished from my door-mat.

I am keen to teach this guy a lesson. As I've stated, I have a complaint against him being reviewed by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and then possibly by the Law Society. However, if he is guilty of fraudulent activity, I'd need good evidence of it before I went to the police. The OFT will not help me on this one, other than acknowledging his (or his DCA's) handling of the SD.

All help greatly received. Come on, help me drown a dirty rat!

This original default notice for this account was served by the original creditor to me in July 2005; the T&Cs were all over the place, etc,etc.

What I have also pulled this sol up for is that in his 2nd para, he mentions that '... interest was charged on unpaid amounts....' How can this be possible, when the account was in dispute and no further charges were applied since the OC issued the default notice? I seriously think this guy is talking out of his ring.

Citizen B - I have the T&Cs but haven't yet looked at clause 3.5 but will tonight.