Thanks again for the info. Will get it all sorted and posted over the weekend. Postal order and recorded delivery. Looking forward to this one, also have an earlier (1990/1991) mortgage with Halifax to look into, or is this one just too far back to try.

Thanks DX100uk, One more question on the SAR. The mortgage was with TSB before it was taken over by Lloyds, hence not sure who gets it now, especially as TSB are once again separate from Lloyds. Do I send to local branch or head office? Confused!!!

Hello Caggers, hope you are all well. I know I had a single premium ppi added to a couple of mortgages I've had over the years, problem is I cannot find any account details whatsoever. After a few house moves I think they have just got thrown out or burnt, I can remember the lenders names though. The last mortgage was paid off in 1998 and the previous mortgage was paid when I sold up in 1992. It's going back a while I know, but is it possible to get a claim in for either of these or is it just too late now? Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

We passed the information on to the ombudsman and Santander dropped all claims and removed the default. No compensation from them but at least the credit file is now clean. I have to say the ombudsman in this case was very quick and very helpful.

So long as I don't mention the amount I'm ok. Needless to say I am happy with the result.

At last case resolved. Due to a confidentiality clause I cannot go into detail but I can say that the defaults have been removed and damages paid.

Still on-going but very much in hand. Will post result if allowed when fully sorted. I have a very good brief on to this now and I understand we may even be using your barrister Durkin if it should come to court.

Thanks Slick132. When you have to go to the likes of Provident with interest of 100% plus then the amounts add up. I think the Durkin case is of major significance and sets a precedent for future cases that involve duty of care, in that companies should take all steps to insure that the information they supply to CRA's is accurate and fair, and if they do not then they are in breach and the courts should offer damages of £8k plus interest for injury to credit.

Further to the above Lowell are fully aware and have been for at least 12 months that the account was disputed and since January 2014 were fully aware that the debt did not exist, therefore they have failed in their duty of care to me by continuing to update the CRA with false information causing considerable damage/injury to my credit worthiness.

Hi Slick and thanks for the reply. I have had to resort to expensive loans rather than those offered at lower rates. Regarding the Durkin case the judge said that DSG/HFC had a duty of care to the consumer and must report only accurate information to credit reference agencies. In failing to do so an award of £8k was made plus interest to be agreed between the parties for injury to Mr Durkins credit. Surely a precedent has now been set and any further claim for wrongful/inaccurate information being shared with CRA's would be set at £8k plus any further damages so long as the case can be proven. Or am I reading this judgement wrongly?

Two weeks have passed and not a dicky bird from them. In light of the supreme court ruling of Richard Durkin I am of the mind to send a lba and seek compensation for their failure to comply with the DPA. Can someone help me with this??

Hi and welcome to the forum. Were you given notice by Vodaphone that a default was going to be added before they actually put one on? There are certain procedures that must be followed by companies processing data. I too am but a novice on this area and I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along to help soon.

In light of the supreme court ruling on Richard Durkin's case I think the DCA's are going to be getting a little worried. I have tried to get Lowell to enter into dialogue concerning my case but as yet have had no response. I think it might be time to issue proceedings against them for the incorrect processing of data and adding defaults to my credit file even after proving that no such debt existed. Not sure if anyone can point me in the right direction on this.

Excellent news for you Durkin, it is about time that these low life companies took responsibility for the damage they cause to peoples lives with their actions. I am a little way behind you with a similar case having proved in court that I had no debt with a company yet they are still updating defaults on the credit file. Once again congratulations and best wishes to you.

Thanks for that, I will write a simple letter to them and see how it goes. I have all the proof in writing already that the default is incorrect and that the alleged debt never existed.

Hi Caggers, Following on from the success of the discontinuance of Dryden's/Lowell/Vanquis in this thread it has come to my notice that Lowell are still updating my credit file with what I believe is false information. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?389205-Northampton-CCBC-claim-form-Lowell-Drydens-Fairfax-Vanquis***Claim-Discontinued*** After checking the credit file today it appears that Lowell are still updating the credit reference agencies with false and incorrect info. As I have pointed out before the default should never have been added in the first place as there was no debt left due to Vanquis when the account was closed. The problems arose because Vanquis failed to add payments made by me to my account, I have since proved I made these payments via bank statements to Lowell and their solicitors Drydens, hence them no longer continuing with the case. I am not sure how to play this as I think some sort of compo should be forthcoming not only for their incompetence and foot dragging but also the incorrect default data given to the credit reference agencies which have had a detrimental affect on my obtaining credit. if anyone can point me in the right direction on how to go about sorting this I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Hi Caggers, I'm still looking for some advice on this, after checking the credit file today it appears that Lowell are still updating the default. As I have pointed out before the default should never have been added in the first place as there was no debt left due to Vanquis when the account was closed. The problems arose because Vanquis failed to add payments made by me to my account, I have since proved I made these payments via bank statements to Lowell and their solicitors Drydens, hence them no longer continuing with the case. So if anyone can point me in the right direction on how to go about sorting this I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

The default marker was added by Lowell after they purchased an alleged debt from Vanquis. I was able to prove that there was no debt in the first place and the whole thing was a complete mistake. I had no contact from Vanquis or Lowell from the ending of the account in 2011 right up until court papers were issued in April/May 2013. It was then that I started to look into things and found the default marker. There were also payments made by me that had not been credited to my account, there were some odd transactions added some six months after I had ceased using Vanquis and Lowell also added in to the court bundle that I had made a payment to them via a debt collection agency in April 2013 which was a complete lie. So to recap there was no debt left with Vanquis and therefore the account should never have been sold to anyone. So the question I have is this, can I get some recourse from Lowell/Vanquis for their mistakes and the problems caused by their adding a default?

Thanks Andy, Regarding the default notice, there is no reason for it to have been put on in the first place. There was never any debt residue owing to Vanquis in the first place.

UPDATE: I managed to get everything together and sent in by 20th January and waited. After going through all my bank statements I noted that a number of payments had not been credited to my Vanquis account also there were a number of transactions which seemed a little odd and even dare I say made up to make the numbers add together. I was quite looking forward to my next court appearance but Drydens have pulled the rug out and issued a notice of discontinuance. I have a question for Andyorch; As there have been defaults added to my credit file how do I go about getting these removed? I had intended to ask to court to deal with it as part of the judgement but as the claim has been dropped I can no longer do this. Any default will have a detrimental effect on a person and if one is added in haste and incorrectly surely there must be some recourse.

I have had a search through the forum for the correct terminology to use in my witness statement regarding 'Credit Card charges/penalties to no avail. Going to need a pointer on this I'm afraid. I had saved many links on CAG for various letters/templates but when I click on them now I am refused access hence asking for advice.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will be along soon to help. When was the last time you had contact or acknowledged the debt? The reason I ask is that you mention the year 2007 was the last time you had contact with them in your post and it just maybe statute barred.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE I HOPE 2014 IS GOOD TO YOU ALL. UPDATE New court date is 20th Feb and my WS to be in by 20th Jan. I have gone through all bank statements and credit card card statements and have everything on that score sorted, payments made on time, no debt leftover apart from their penalty charges. There are also a few payments I have made to Vanquis that do not show up on the Lowell WS list that they sent to me, but I have proof from bank statements that these payments have been made. It appears that the total that Lowell are claiming equates to purely credit card charges/late payment charges, Lowell charges etc. but quite how they got it to over £800 is beyond me. Am I correct in thinking that these charges are still deemed 'penalties' and are easily reclaimable? and if this is so how do I put tis into my defence/WS.

Hi Andy, The judge, even before I had an opportunity to speak, made it clear that the very late WS and disclosure by the claimant made it very difficult for me to put up any sort of defence. He also mentioned the fact that they had been late in the past with DQ and fees made it quite clear that it will not be tolerated any further and that an adjournment would be the best course of action. He explained that he could not hear the case today because the only paperwork he had to make a decision on was that supplied by the claimant and because of the lateness it would only be fair to allow me time to prepare my defence. He then went on to explain how I should prepare my witness statement, which in it's most basic form was to copy the WS format from the claimant and go through each part and make a reply, all the time making it clear that every statement I make must be backed up by evidence. The DJ explained that the burden of proof is not that of a criminal trial it just needs to be enough to cast enough doubt on the claimants claim as to make it impossible for him to find in there favour. The claimants agent requested costs but that was given short shrift by the judge and refused. PS There was also mention that I had made a payment this year via a debt collection company, I absolutely denied any payment had been made and responded that if there is that sort of error on the paperwork from the claimant I would need to check everything they had sent rather than take it at face value. He agreed. He asked if I was aware of how to go about finding the info needed from my bank and Vanquis and said don't let these institutions overcharge for the info. The DJ then read from a law book on the actual charge allowed for a SAR. So that is where we are at the moment, SAR gone off today to Vanquis and I'll see if the breakdown of figures they have put in the court papers/WS match up. I have my doubts somehow.

UPDATE: Case adjourned and Judge sympathetic to our situation but not happy with claimant dragging feet all through process. Judge also very friendly and extremely helpful even to the point of directing us as to what to do next. Feeling relieved after what was a first time for me in court, not as daunting as I thought it might be.