Ok, that makes sense but in real terms what are the chances of actually succeeding in this? I have an offer of the money but it may not be around for long. Also I have 2 other defaults that will get in the way on any future lending (not that I have any intention of borrowing any time soon!) so removing this default may be irrelevant.

Thanks for the quick reply. When you say ALL negative data, does that include the original default? Or is that a bit too much to hope for?

Hi there, I've been attempting to negotiate with good old Blair Oliver and Scott over an old IF, now Halifax CC. I've reclaimed charges, CCA'd (looks legit) and now I have some cash to make a full and final offer of about 70% of the debt at most. I wrote to them and was asked to call (I know, never talk but I did) and they made a 70% offer. I was about to accept as long as they put it all in writing when the guy told me it'd be marked as partially satisfied on my Credit report. This worries me as I believe this means the rest of the debt will be forever 'lurking in background' and I'll have to take their word for it that they won't chase it in future. I wasn't happy with this so spoke to a manager who was sympathetic but unable to mark the file as 'fully satisfied'. Naturally I asked for the address to write to so as I could negotiate more but all they have is the same address as I initially wrote to so the whole thing will presumably start again. So my questions are; 1. How bad is a 'partially satisfied'. I was defaulted nearly 2 years ago so this should go away in 4 years. If the debt is partially satisfied from now would that mean it is there for another 6 years causing almost as many problems as a default. 2. I've just found out I'm to be made redundant. Does this make my case stronger? 3. I've been regularly paying my agreement of £40 and adding another £10 off my own back. At this rate they will get all their cash back in about 11 years. Surely by then inflation would have made the initial sum near worthless? Why can't they see it makes more business sense to accept a substantial part of the payment now! Madness it would seem. 4. Any tips on wording for getting my credit file marked as fully satisfied? 5. Does anyone have an address/contact that goes above the phone lackies at BOS? As I'm sure the polite chap I spoke to does not own the company I assume there must be a higher up I could write to that would have some power to be flexible. Sorry for the mountain of text. Any help would be much appreciated.

Hi there, thanks to a recent windfall I'm in a position to settle with most of creditors which will mark the end of several awful years, however I have a couple of questions regarding my credit file. 1. Under financial relationships there is an entry for my ex from Nemo financial. I've never had any dealings with them, although they called me when I was rejected for a consolidation loan from elsewhere a couple of years back. Does this mean my ex has borrowed with them and because we were, until recently, joint mortgage holders and had a joint account it counts as a mark for me? Is there any way to get more information about this? 2. I'm negotiating with IF (via Blair Oliver and Scott) who have offered since the start of our dealings a reduced settlement figure. I managed to talk them down to about 70% of the full value as a settlement but they have now said it will only be marked as 'partially satisfied' on my credit file. Although they promise not to chase me for the rest it will still be an outstanding debt. What wording should I be aiming for to get the debt completely eliminated (I'm aware the default will stand regardless, unless I manage to get that revoked) Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

This appears to be a standard letter- I got one too. Basically trying to scare people off persuing any legal action, even if they are going for different arguments to the test case.

They are for a current acount and the charges are a mix of overdraft fees and bounced cheque/DD etc charges.

Just got a letter 'General form of Judgment or Order' asking for the case to be struck out as it is the same as the test case. I need to prove it is not but how! Are there new PoCs I can use?

Hi there, just need to check something. Although this is joint account I only put my name on the court papers. The maggots at 'Triton Credit Services' (aka natwest) are now constantly ringing for my partner (the other name on the account). Can they do this or is the account in dispute for both names regardless of who is on the court papers?

I think it is the OFT case, I'll check the exact name when I get back but I seem to remember the OFT case being refered to as Abbey and others vs. someone. The fact that judgement has already been passed (as you say in november) makes me a bit suspicious about their actions. Why ask for a stay until a case has been settled when the case has been settled? Do you think it is a mistake on their part?

Hi there, I've sent the AQ and I think it's all ok. Waiting for the next stage by preparing the docs I'm going to use. I recieved Cobbetts AQ yesterday and it is asking for a stay until the Abbey vs others case is resolved. Am I right in thinking this is/was the test case that has indeed been resolved. It makes me think that Cobbetts are just hitting the standard reply button every time. Oh by the way this is for Bank charges, not credit card charges.

thanks for that. I've had a good read and think I understand. Is there any advice about filling in the application questionairre?

Hi, its been a while since an update. They've sent through a defense that I now need to trawl through. Does anyone know what the next stage is? Should I scan some elements of it and post or PM a mod person? Its all a bit real and scary now, lots of legalese. Happy Christmas by the way.

Thanks for that- I took these from the Nov 25th update on the templates but I think you have a point there. I'm going ot be ammending them anyway as what is above was not my original POC.

I'm not sure when I need to respond by. All Corbets/Natwest have done is acknowledged to say they are going to defend. Am I right in thinking they now have another 14 days to file a defence or ask for more time (as the left it to the last minute to acknowledgement). I got the form number wrong but I think I can still ammend them but can I still do it after the defence has been filed?

Hi there. These are the POC's I'm going to send with forn (I think) N215. The lady at the court said I could send that along with a covering letter. I'll admit my original POC were scant as I expected to be stayed for a good long time only to find the test case ended. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Particulars of Claim The Claimant has an account xxxxxxxxx("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or aroundxxxxxxx The account was conducted on the basis of the defendant’s own standard terms and conditions. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer and the Defendant was a supplier within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 During the period in which the Account has operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. Alternatively the charges were levied in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant and relating to exceeded overdrafts, returned cheques, failed direct debits and so forth. The Defendant also charged interest on the charges which were applied. The charges were levied on the basis of certain purported contractual terms which apparently permitted the charges to be made. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim. The Claimant contends that: Insofar as they may be penalties, the charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant. Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal have held the services in respect of which the defendant has levied charges are subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. The purported terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are invalid under UTCCR because a. They are contrary to the requirement of good faith. b. They cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:- Bank accounts have become a basic essential service The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract. There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts. These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market. The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges. The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract. The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%. Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniousity which then triggers more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniousity and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit. The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking". The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position. The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.· As established by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal (OFT v Abbey & 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges. 11.In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8. 12. The Supreme Court has indicated in its judgment of the 25th November 2009 that unfairness under reg.5 UTCCR 1999 may provide a basis for challenging bank charges. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the restitution of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ xxxx b) Restitution of interest charges which have been paid on the above charges in the sum of £xxxx c) Restitutionary damages to be assessed by the court Court costs or other costs as allowed by the court; I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true