Agree completely. I wonder if they will login to people's banks to pay off their debts when people cancel CPA's as a way around it. The shocking thing about this is if someone suffers genuine fraud, not from Wonga, they might not be able to get their money back if they admit giving their bank details out.

They're apparently using this service: http://www.decisionlogic.com/ServiceInfo.aspx It says it's completely secure but, of course, there's no way of knowing. Any one of their employees could empty your account and presumably you'd have no recourse to the bank because you revealed your login details. For one of the more respectable payday loan companies I find this dreadful behaviour...

Wonga are now asking people to provide their online banking details under certain circumstances!! There's an existing discussion on this subject on MSE here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4748807 - hope it's okay to post this link. Please remove if not and accept my apologies. It was confirmed by Wonga and the MSE Forum Team here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62970450&postcount=66 (same thread as above). I think this is highly irresponsible of Wonga and encourages really bad practices. I'm actually in disbelief that they're so stupid as to ask for online banking details. Has anyone else heard about this?

I've re read the OP and I still can't tell whether Santander only wanted him to take it back into an authorised overdraft, or if they wanted the whole lot back. If they only wanted the account to go back into an authorised overdraft, freezing it would make no sense. If they asked for the entire overdraft back, then again, the default is valid.

I'm not disputing that freezing the account and refusing further payments is both unlawful and unethical, and there's definitely a basis for complaint there. I don't see how that affects the validity of the default though. Had the payments been allowed to continue at a reduced rate, a default would still have been issued.

The OP said he took out PDLs and paid them back early because he thought they would improve his credit history.

They accepted reduced payments for 6 months and then added a default. Does this sound familiar? "21 An ‘arrangement to pay’ This involves a temporary, short-term (up to six months) arrangement where the lender agrees to accept reduced payments." http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/sector_guides/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.ashx It seems quite clear to me it was an arrangement to pay!

They should have put an 'arrangement to pay' on your file and not missed payments, but an arrangement to pay is usually viewed worse anyway. The default is valid and it doesn't sound like there are grounds for removal. Santander lends money to millions of people; they don't have the time to manually consider every application for credit, it's mainly automated. The main duty of care falls with the borrower to ensure affordability.

Doesn't surprise me. I've no doubt a judge will side with some PDL companies even if their charges are excessive, but ones that behave like Tooth Fairy? I don't think a judge will take too kindly to their business model. Fake bailiffs, harassment, excessive charges and no affordability checks when handling out loans.

Have you ever heard of TFF taking anybody to court? I certainly haven't! If it was a more reputable PDL company I probably wouldn't have said that

The ICO guidance is actually rather unclear and contradictory about this. On the one hand it says that you shouldn't be put in a worse position than someone who had made no effort to pay, but on the other hand it says that if normal payments do not resume after six months of an arrangement to pay, they can default you without further warning. This means that you will have a default that will be on your credit files for six months longer than somebody who made no effort to pay. I would say that puts you in a worse position.

Getting defaults removed is very difficult and it seems like this one was justified. I don't think you'll get anywhere with this. Also, your entire objective is somewhat flawed as payday loans are considered negative by most lenders. In other words if you need a squeaky clean credit report, even if this is shown as satisfied, then it may be frowned upon by your potential employer. A lot of people have been denied mortgages because of payday loans, even ones paid back in full and early / on time. Also, what do you propose they replace the default with? They can't show your account as "up to date" the entire time as that isn't the case, so they'd probably just replace it with a string of missed payments or something.

Ditch Harrington Brooks immediately. ---> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3753819&highlight=harrington No good. They're almost as bad as the PDL companies.

Do not pay these idiots £660. They wouldn't be able to get that from you in court.

Just pay them whatever you can afford, whether they accept it or not. If they return your payments (which they won't), then you have a valid complaint that they're making it impossible for you to pay off your debt.