O2 Put default on my credit file after 4yrs seeking help please!

[alfa1_steve]

Thank you for your reply pelham9

 

I just found it strange how the other credit marker from o2 has just disappeared into the abyss.

 

The reason i suppose i did have a doubt was because i was naive enough to think a company like o2 would not make such a horrendous mistake or error, but i know i did not take out the contract, i just had a little doubt which i think is normal considering the amount of time that has elapsed.

 

why do you think that o2 have picked up on this? As far as i am concerned they can read the forum if they want i have nothing to hide and spoke the truth.

 

I will agree with you about the sar but you never know a little gem might be lurking in there somewhere.

 

I think when career brake has started and i can spend time on the matter and ask for the following information a court date will be set and like i stated in previous post's i will take it all the way.

 

many thanks pelham9

[2Grumpy]

A SAR to your bank (to get all payment records, showing the Direct Debit payments, your balance for the period in question to show that DDs would not have been refused might also be useful.

 

Also make sure that you get the statement about the DD expiring from lack of use from the bank in writing.

 

That would show that O2 didn't request the money. It would also show that they weren't asking for payment at the time of the renewal, so if there wasn't an active contract, how did they renew it?

[pelham9]

BUZBY

 

There is no requirement for O2 to provide you with a contract, they can refer you to the current T&C's available on their website, which will cover your agreement,

 

Absolutely correct that the OP cannot use the provisions of the CCA to force O2 to provide the evidence that there was a written contract in place. However to default a contract and to demand money that they allege is owed O2 must prove the contract. The OP is denying the contract. O2 say that a contract was in place and that the OP used the phone subsequently.

 

Surely the easiest course for O2 is to produce either a written contract or the evidence that there was an oral phone contract If this goes to court they will have to do this at the outset, The fact that they do not do this at once makes me believe that have no evidence of a contract with the OP and they are relying on bluff and bluster.

 

alfa1_steve.

 

why do you think that o2 have picked up on this?

 

Throughout your posts there appears to be a niggle in your mind that it is just possible that you did make the upgrade phone call. Sometimes you say that you cannot remember doing it. In one of their emails they say 'I appreciate that you cannot remember....' This suggests to me and I am sure to them that your position is that you are not absolutely certain that the the phone call did not take place .

 

The best way to sort this and for your peacee of mind is to listen to their recording. Ask them for it. If they have it and there is a real possibility they do not it will prove that either it was you or someone else who made the call.

[buzby]

How can you ask for written evidence that is NOT required? I agree it is to the detriment of the consumer when firms can say it was an 'electronic/virtual' agreement and the consumer's payment record confirms it exists. However, that's the system, we're stuck with it, and the courts uphold it.

 

As for asking for 'recordings' not all calls are recorded, and any recording that exists is for their protection, not the consumers (who clearly should be recording their own calls anyway). Cynics may also say no firm is going to be stupid enough to voluntarily provide evidance that does not support their position, but when you think about it - it is a reasonable assumption.

[pelham9]

an

d the consumer's payment record confirms it exists.

 

In general you are right but I do not think that a judge would accept that a contract with the OP was in place if the only evidence is that O2 claim they hace a contract, have written to the OP without result and have received nothing from the OP when a direct debit mandate was in place to pay them.

 

In this situation there can be only three posibliteis.

 

a) The phone call was not made by anyone but O2's records are haywire - their reponse to the OP's initial phone calls suggests that this could well be the case

 

b) the phone call was made by an imposter.

 

c) the phone call was made by the OP.

 

 

Frankly I cannot see that any court would accept O2's version © until they can produce either the oral contract or

 

a) a payment record - a DD mandate in favour of O2 was in existence at the OP's bank and this was unused by O2

 

b) evidence that they communicated with the OP subsequent to the new contract's start and before the default marker was placed. Why on earth did not 02 phone the OP at some time - they are afterall a telephone provider and they unlike the OP have facilities to make recordings.

 

c) they claim usage of the phone and they must prove this.

[buzby]

You'll be shocked when you realise how little a network needs to provide to prove an 'electronic commerce' contract existed. You'll also be aware hat DDM's are no longer 'signed' and sent to the originating bank as proof that the payments are to be made, they'll pay out because the network SAYS they received your authority.

 

The proof is in the detail - how would the network know your bank details unless you had voluntarily provided them with it? And if they hadn't provided you with a phone/service, why would you have given them your details and then NOT complained that the amount had never been authorised and you wanted your money back? It is the very fact that they were given the details, and can prove that your bank made X payments on a range of dates, is all they need to invoke the contract - and I've heard this argument put forward so often, this is now the rule, not the exception!

 

Handset upgrades and their lengthing/restarting of minimum terms remain a bugbear as it still comes down to they do it this way all the time, and the customer has misunderstood. I'm sure they are right about this - but there will be times when this isn't the case, and the consumer has nowhere to substantiate his claim UNLESS re recorded the call himself and kept notes of the transaction for just such an event.

[pelham9]

You'll be shocked when you realise how little a network needs to provide to prove an 'electronic commerce' contract existed.

 

I am not at all shocked!

 

You do not appear to appreciate that O2 did not upgrade the contract that was in place when the alleged upgrade telephone conversation took place. On ther own admission they started a NEW contract. This is the contract shown and defaulted in the OP's CRA file. Indeed they have removed the CRA file for the old contract. O2 appear to insist that they cannot remove correct records but they have done so. The record should have been shown as settled when the contract was terminated on receipt of the final payment by direct debit - why remove it?

 

There is ample evidence for the existence of the old contract and of course the OP's personal and bank details were known to them. But this is of no moment because the OP is not disputing the existence of the old conttract. Indeed he says cancelled it in Oct 2006 and made the final payment in Feb 2007 by direct debit.

 

 

He does however deny the alleged upgrade phone call on the basis of which O2 claim to have started a new contract. They must prove this contract. His personal and bank details were already known to them so these details cannot go towards their proof.

 

They can only prove the contract by

 

either a recording of the alleged upgrade phone call or

 

a) payment record - thay have no payment record.

 

b) usage record - they claim usage but have not shown this to the OP.

 

NB that the old contract was not terminated until after the the alleged new contract started so there is a possibility that even if the OP used the phone the usage has been assigned to and paid for in the final payment for the old contract.

[buzby]

Sorry - what IS the issue here?

 

Do you think there is some distinction between a new contract and an 'upgrade'? If you do, then your argument falls at the first hurdle. The provision of a new handset starts a fresh contract agreement between the parties. It may even bear the same agreement number, but will have appended to it a numeric suffiix (/1, /2 etc) to differentiate them. All an upgrade provides to the consumer is offasionally better pricing than someone who is not currently sontracted to the network.

 

As for the record showing as 'settled' why? when a contract is concluded correctly, it ends. 'Settlement' is a term referred to they payment of an outstanding debt, so if there was no issue of adverse information on the first contract, it would still show as being part of the (good) credit info and held for the relevant period.

 

As for what O2 does in practice - and the reasons behind it, goodness knows. You'd need divine intervention to work that one out!

[pelham9]

Buzby.

 

As for the record showing as 'settled' why? when a contract is concluded correctly, it ends. 'Settlement' is a term referred to they payment of an outstanding debt, so if there was no issue of adverse information on the first contract, it would still show as being part of the (good) credit info and held for the relevant period.

 

 

The term settled is used in the CRA world to indicate that a contract has ended and that the customer has no liability under the contract and that any credit limit allowed by the account has terminated.

 

When a contract is terminated by the customer the owner of the CRA file (in this case O2) indicates that the contract has ended and that there is no ongoing liability by entering A/C settled xx/xx/xxxx. The account may have late payment markers against it but otherwise it has been run satisfactorily.

 

This term is also used when the the company terminates the contract because of default but the difference will then be that not only are there late payment markers but also a default marker. The customer may subsequently pay the whole sum owing or pay a settlement amount and the file would then show 'settled' but the default marker is not removed.

 

Now in the past I have been a stoozer - the practice of using credit card 0% balance transfers to obtain interest in a high interst savings account or offset mortgage. Sadly stoozing is now not a sensible proposition because of present interest rates and the introduction of a 2-3% charge for 0% balance transfers. However because total credit limit is an important factor in obtaining new credit cards all stoozers have to check CRA files and that 'settled' appears when a card is concelled at the end of a 0% period. I therefore have a large experience of the closure of accounts and how this is shown in CRA files and I assure you that the term settled is used for contracts which have been closed, ended, or terminated. The file remains after being settled for six years but cannot be updated by the owner of the file. As the CRA record shows the credit record of the customer in totality the company is not allowed to remove a file unless it is erroneous from the beginning. They can edit errors but not remove it. I might add that getting a settled marker on a closed account is often a problem simply because the company fails to update closed account files properly.

 

O2 had no business to remove the file for the OP's first contract which should remain and show settled until Feb 2013. They have done so - why? It has beern replaced recently by a file for the second contact and this shows a default marker and almost certainly a record of complete non payments. The removal of the first file seems to me to be an crude attempt to conceal this properly run cancelled and settled account. I believe that the OP has written to a CRA asking when and why the record was removed,

 

Do you think there is some distinction between a new contract and an 'upgrade'?

 

In this situation yes and O2 have confirmed it by email to the OP. Their treatment of the CRA records also confirms - the CRA record shows that the contract was started in January 2007 at the time of the alleged upgrade telephone call and the record of the existing contract has been deleted.

 

The OP cancelled the first contract in Oct 2006 and paid a final bill by DD in Feb 2007. A second contract was started by O2 in Jan 2007 after an alleged phone call to upgrade the existing contract. There was no existing contract so it makes sense that a NEW contract was started. Presumably because the old contract was cancelled along with the DD mandate on O2's system no use was made of the DD mandate for the new contract.

 

I have no explanation of the upgrade telephone call. Certainly if the OP could listen to a recording there should be little further difficulty. If it is not the OP's voice then it is a case of identity theft. I doubt myself that there was any such phone call and that O2 staff are engaged in a cover up. I think only a CPR request will make O2 reveal the true situation.

[buzby]

This is the CRAs playing with the English langiage again - and worth challenging on this point alone.

 

In their haste to ape Court proceedures they latched on to the term 'default' which has a precise meaning, but for their usage, it means that action (or inaction) by the customer has put his account 'in default of the agreed terms' - NOT that there is a court-registered Default outstanding. The same goes for 'settled' this means the debt or dispute has been resolved. In relaity the contract is 'concluded;, and their love of using court terminology to validate their industry is worthy of investigation.

 

Priot to 1990, all consumers had to worry about was CCJ's - with CRA's stating that accounts had a 'default', meant lenders too the terms to mean the SAME, which is a scandal.

 

For example on how far this abuse of the langiage has gone on - are you aware of the difference between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' - or do they mean the same thing?

[pelham9]

Buzby

 

I agree with you especially with your remarks on CRA defaults. They are put on files by creditors and DCAs who are the sole judges. Even when they are clearly erroneous it is extremely difficult to get them removed.

[alfa1_steve]

Hi All!

 

Big Thanks to Pelham9 and Buzby

 

There has been a few e-mails sent back and fourth between myself and o2.

 

The final e-mail however had the information which i wanted:

 

O2 have no signed contract

 

O2 do not have the original default letters (true copys)

 

O2 cannot provide me with a signature receipt for the telephone upgrade

 

O2 do not have the upgrade telephone conversation recordered

 

O2 are currently investigating why the first contract on my cra was removed

 

 

So monday morning the ball will start to role with regards to court can any one provide any advise or assistance in this area, i have seen the adverts on the site for legal packs etc.

 

I would again like to say the biggest thankyou to all who have commented but a special thank you to Pelham9 and buzby.

[locutus]

Hi All!

 

Big Thanks to Pelham9 and Buzby

 

There has been a few e-mails sent back and fourth between myself and o2.

 

The final e-mail however had the information which i wanted:

 

O2 have no signed contract

 

O2 do not have the original default letters (true copys)

 

O2 cannot provide me with a signature receipt for the telephone upgrade

 

O2 do not have the upgrade telephone conversation recordered

these 2 points are the ones that will be most helpful to you I feel

 

O2 are currently investigating why the first contract on my cra was removed

 

 

So monday morning the ball will start to role with regards to court can any one provide any advise or assistance in this area, i have seen the adverts on the site for legal packs etc.

 

I would again like to say the biggest thankyou to all who have commented but a special thank you to Pelham9 and buzby. A click of the scales will show your appreciation

 

I'm sure someone will post soon and give you some guidance on how to procede

[buzby]

O2 have no signed contract

 

O2 do not have the original default letters (true copys)

 

O2 cannot provide me with a signature receipt for the telephone upgrade

 

O2 do not have the upgrade telephone conversation recordered

 

Let's get the bad news out of the way.

 

(1) This is not a CCA regulated agreement, so no requirement for a formal Default Notice not a requirement for a true copy (I've already explained this earlier).

 

(2) If by this you mean they have no proof that you signed for the package containing the handset, then the complaint is that you have not recieved the goods as required under the contract and they should supply them (it does not invalidate hte contract).

 

(3) They don't have to have the conversation recorded. It is there for THEIR protection (not yours) and it would be accepted by a court that their online notes reflect the items discussed as part of the negotiations, with no requirement for a recording or actual transcription.

 

You need to have a clear view what you want to achieve. There's little point looking to score against percieved chinks in their business processes - incompetence is allowed. Try to find some common ground that you both can live with, even it it isn;t you walking away scot free from the contract. However if you didn;t enter into a contract, this becomes fraud, and a much more serious state of affairs.