Well despite no formal response from Tesco the 6 late payment marker has been removed. Indeed the whole entry has been removed & my wife's credit score has roared into the 900s. A very happy ending with our mortgage now formally approved & all green on our credit files. Hopefully this officially ends our period of financial instability although we do get the occasional letter still chasing statute barred debt-bless "em. Donation made & thanks once again brigadier.

Tel: 0845 6004583 Fax: 01273 636484

LBG have been as good as their word. Defaults removed,compensation cheques received even interest refunded from over 3 years ago. Good news is that my credit score is now shown as " excellent" by Experian but the bad news is that due to the 6 payments late marker registered by Tesco it has had no effect on my wife's credit score. From what I can make out the effect of a 6 payments late marker for a 6 year period is even more damaging than a default as it creates two negative markers-a delinquent account and missed payments. In effect regular monthly payments over a protracted period has a far more detrimental consequence than paying nothing at all which is clearly not equitable. Hopefully Tesco will respond in similar fashion to LBG but I'm taking nothing for granted! Irrespective of the outcome with Tesco a donation will be made as soon as the cheques are cleared. Many thanks brigadier & hopefully I won't need any additional help.

Brigadier-I salute you. Just had a very positive verbal response to my letter promising an instant resolution including compensation. Another suitable donation to this site will be made upon receipt. I rolled my request up with a replica issue on my wife's accounts and seemingly both will be resolved very shortly. A huge thank you goes out to you. As I'm on a roll I've tackled a 6 payment later marker from Tesco on my wife's file which have been marked since 2004 despite no missing payments. No "arrangement to pay " marker or default but continuous 6 months late markers. I've written to the Data Controller on the basis it's unfair and inaccurate in accordance with the ICO guidance and asked for removal on the basis that if a default had been correctly marked as the payments were merely token then the default would have run off in 2011 at the latest. If this is resolved as quickly as the LBG issue that's both of us completely sorted. I'll update once the credit files are corrected.

Brigadier- I can't thank you enough. I will of course update this thread when I get a response.

Brigadier- if you could just give me a heads up on the main points I can knock a letter into shape as I really need to get this rolling asap. I don't suppose it will be sorted out very quickly by LBG if past correspondence is anything to go by. Many thanks .

Thanks Brigadier. Don't know whether it's relevant but the DN issued on 27/7/10 is defective as it does not refer to the OFT leaflet in accordance with Schedule 2 para 10a of the Default Regs. This may only come into play if they were to try to enforce in addition to not having the original agreement but I thought I'd better mention it. Appreciate your help.

Brigadier -been going through my papers once more. On my credit file they initially marked an arrangement 1/8/07-1/4/10 covering the token payments (although they were from 2004). Out of the blue I received a letter dated 9/2/10 advising me without notice that my concessionary repayment plan had expired & I now needed to revert to the contractual terms. I managed to get agreement to the £100 monthly payment & this was confirmed in writing on 19/5/10. In the meantime they transferred over £400 from my current account to cover the shortfall in the minimum payment but this was subsequently refunded to allow me to eat! Despite this "agreement" the account was transferred to Debt Recovery Unit & arrears notice, DN & a solicitor letter were issued prior to formal agreement to the £100 on 26/11/10. Unbeknown to me that is also the date that they registered the Default. I have made the payments ever since & there was no break between the token payment and the increased £100 payment. Looking at the ICO guidance I see it says the following: If a customer fails to return to contractual payments after an ‘arrangement to pay’ has expired, then the lender can file a default immediately, as long as this would not place the customer in a worse position than they would have been in, had they not made the arrangement Am I not in a far worse predicament due to the delay in registering the Default which even on their wrong date is some 3 years earlier? Appreciate your view on this & I wish they had dealt with this credit card the same way as with the overdraft as my woes would have been long gone!

Thanks Brigadier-much appreciated.

Thanks Brigadier. I made token payments of £10 on both my overdraft and credit card from mid 2004. This resulted in my overdraft being defaulted in 1/05 and judgment obtained later in 2005 so very much relationship broken down I would say. Court issued an Order for monthly payments of £100 as although the debt was well in excess of £20k my financial position was so difficult at the time that I was a hairs breadth from bankruptcy. LBG have never revised the monthly payments and as 6 years have now passed would have to apply to the Court for enforcement which would unlikely to be given bearing in mind I have not moved in 16 years and they knew about my improving financial circumstances but did nothing about it. Obviously default and CCJ have now dropped off my file. The credit card continued to be marked "satisfactory" on my credit file despite it being marked interest free and repaid at £10 per month. I don't recall a DN being issued in 2004 & in any event it certainly wasn't showing on my credit file. It would seem to be a difficult argument for LBG to carry off if they were to say that the "relationship" broke down at the point where I voluntarily offered to increase the monthly payments to £100 after 6 years of paying £10. The reason why I think the default was registered in late 2010 was it was only then that it was actually passed to their Consumer Debt Recovery Unit. However the different treatment for overdraft and credit card makes no logical sense. I am aware that to get a mortgage elsewhere I will need this default removed and utilising the 6 monrths from cause of action guidance would seem to be the way to go. The ongoing relationship with LBG has been extremely difficult as neither personally nor in business has any financial support being available but at the time I was just grateful that I was allowed to operate a Bank account. Unfortunately Banks have long memories and although they are happy to benefit from all the ancillary services that I pay for: life insurance,corporate Banking fees,home insurance etc I will forever be considered a bad credit risk in their eyes I'm afraid so it is time to move on. Is there a template late available to send to the Data Controller & as this is the only negative entry on my credit file which is stopping me getting a mortgage could I threaten to seek damages as in Durkin if it is not removed? Many thanks.

Apologies for the length of email in advance. In 2004 I found myself in very difficult financial circumstances due to business failure. Since that time I have managed to turn my life around and am now on a sound financial footing once more. As documented on here I had a couple of run ins with Robinson Way which were successfully defended in no small part to the assistance provided on here. Prior to my financial woes I had a fairly substantial mortgage which I always managed to pay and have done so for over 10 years without fail. I am now looking to move home and now the problems have started once more. My mortgage,old private overdraft and credit card are all with the Lloyds Banking Group. The overdraft was CCJ'd in 2005 and I didn't defend. Since that time I have paid £100 each month as directed by the Court and have never missed a payment. There is still £18k outstanding but I am aware that LBG would struggle to enforce as more than 6 years have passed since judgment. Initially in 2004 I paid only token payments on the credit card of £10 per month & these "payment plans" were regularly rolled over until mid 2010. At this point as my circumstances had improved appreciably I offered to up the payments to £100 per month & this was accepted in writing and I have never missed a payment. Unfortunately despite this all having being agreed LBG issued a DN & followed it up with a solicitors letter in late 2010. The upshot of this is that i now have a Default registered in 11/10 for over £20k relating to a debt that actually defaulted in 2004. The punch line is that LBG are insisting that these debts amounting to £40k are repaid in full and in return they will rollover the mortgage onto the new property which provides far more security so it's a win/win for them. For my part I have endeavoured to settle both accounts at around 50% but have been rebuffed presumably as they are aware of my improved financial standing (they also have by business account). I did a s78 request and they were unable to locate the original agreement for the credit card. My feeling is that they need my goodwill to cooperate with them and they should make a commercial decision so that all parties can move on & I think they are being unreasonable. Rather than make increased offers to repay the very old and potentially legally unenforceable debt I think I should now go elsewhere with my mortgage and business & go on the attack regarding the very late registration of the credit card Default which is the only blemish on my credit report with everything else either settled or having fallen off. If this is a good plan I'd welcome advice on the wording required for getting the default removed which presumably requires me to fire off a letter to LBG. Many thanks.

... so you can sign the Consent Order and tht's the end of it or you can hold out for your costs. Most people in your position would just sign it and heave a sigh of relief. Basically they've used the Bankruptcy procedures as a collection tool and this backfires in just the same way as the CCJ route if they are unable to supply the correct documentation. Well done!

The point here is how can you issue a "compliant" notice after the debt has been transferred to a debt purchaser and proceedings issued. Amex v Brandon does not comment and as far as I know there is no case law that covers this point. Anyway it's all water under the bridge and you guys were brilliant in giving me the confidence to fight RW all the way so of academic interest only!

An interesting and, in my case happily theoretical, question. My case demonstrated very clearly that a res judicata defence is an absolute defence after a full Trial. A discontinuance would have brought CPR 38.7 into play and so I would have brought forward the argument that a reissued DN would have been disingenuous as it was clear from their previous actions that there was no enduring agreement (in my eyes). Unfortunately there is equally strong opinion on here which argues that as an agreement cannot legally be terminated on the back of a defective DN then any defect can be subsequently remedied. That is Donkeyb's interpretation I believe. Personally I can see how that would work for a NoA but I would certainly argue strongly that with a DN it would be virtually impossible to replicate the "last chance" opportunity to the creditor that it is meant to provide. As you say rather than a discontinuance if RW had simply reissued the DN then CPR 38.7 would not have come into play. However the ability to do this would depend on the exact wording of the PoC. My understanding is that if the original PoC referred to the original DN then a disconinuance would be necessary. My case was won on the basis that RW were unable to prove that a DN had been sent by the OC & the DJ was not concerned that the template provided was defective on a number of counts. Therefore I'm firmly of the opinion that if RW had simply issued their own DN that with this particular DJ I would have lost at the original Trial.

What Order has the DJ issued? Sorry I was under the impression that this had got to the Trial stage.