MMF/Gothia/QuickQuid

[mjcuthy]

Hi All,

 

I wonder if anybody can help me. I had a loan with QuickQuid with repayments as follows:-

 

22nd September 2010 - £125

22nd October 2010 - £625

 

The total of this is £750 and for whatever reason wasn't paid. I have a default on my credit file from Gothia. I only found this when I was looking at my credit report to try and straighten it out to eventually purchase a house. As it showed Satisfied, I thought everything was settled. Over the last few years, I have paid off numerous accounts and just thought that this one has been complete. The default date on this shows as 29/09/2010, for the balance of £774.

 

Now I have recently had another default added to my credit file for £774. The default date on this is set at 22/10/2010. Initially it raised alarm bells as it was the same price, therefore I chased up MMF and they confirmed that they had purchased the original debt from Gothia and had added the default. I have been told that I can have 2 defaults for the same thing and therefore I just wanted to confirm that this was correct?

 

Also, I have contacted Gothia to see what I can do regarding the first default as its now got 2 different defaults (although one has an incorrect default date?) and they say that as they have satisfied theirs it makes no difference and MMF now have every right to enter a default?

 

I am confused with this, if anybody can offer me any help that would be greatly appreciated?

 

Thanks

[Bazooka Boo]

No you CANNOT have two defaults for the same debt.

 

What should happen is the name against the default will change to show the gopher chasing payment,

they CANNOT change the default date or the amount, just the name of the clown outfit chasing it.

 

Check the file again, and the origianl creditor should have removed their name, and replaced it with gullible gothia.

 

P.S. if your talking to the little boys and girls over the phone, and aren't recording the calls, then STOP!

 

Keep everything in writing/email only.

[citizenB]

As BB has said, they cannot add a new default - they can only update the original.

 

The "Satisfied" marker comes from the debt purchaser having bought the debt - so as far as the original creditor is concerned, they have been paid.

 

It might be worth making a complaint to the Information Commissioner regarding the statement made by MMF /Gothia in that they can add a 2nd default. It might be a good idea for the ICO to ask the companies to clarify their statement and also under what legislation they re making it?

[mjcuthy]

Hi All,

 

Thanks very much for your responses. I have now started this process with the following actions:-

 

1) Emailed Gothia requesing that the DN is removed from my credit file as there are 2 entries on my file which is unlawful. If they refuse, I will raise complaints as advised.

2) Emailed MMF advising that I would like to formally dispute the DN as they cannot add this entry as they have no power's to. I am going to call Experian now to double check but I am 99% sure that MMF have issues the DN as this has popped up as a seperate one to the origional DN that was there.

 

I will keep you updated

 

Thanks

[mjcuthy]

I have just had this reply from MMF:-

 

"Dear Mr ...,

 

Thank you for your email,

 

To clarify, we are not a lender. We purchased your account which was originally issued to you by QuickQuid and therefore legally own the account. As we are the legal owners of the account we also have the right to share data with the credit reference agencies. Any queries you have regarding the data shared by another company other than MMF would need to be raised directly with them.

 

As the balance of £... remains outstanding, the data we have shared regarding the account is therefore correct as this represents accurately the status of the account. As this account has been in default since October 2010, we have therefore registered a default to reflect the status of your account. QuickQuid will have therefore removed their default marker as they no longer hold the account. If you feel the debt was settled in full with QuickQuid, please can you provide proof of payment and I shall arrange for any necessary amendments to be made to your balance and also your credit record.

 

The original notice of default was issued by QuickQuid and as such we are not required to issue our own notice. I am sorry that we are unable to remove the default marker on your credit record for this account. Once the balance has been repaid in full we will update your credit record as satisfied.

 

I trust this clarifies our position."

 

Can anybody provide me with any help on this? As MMF have purchased the account, does that mean that they are legally allowed to raise a new default on my account? Or are they talking rubbish? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[renegadeimp]

They can't add a new default. Only update the original. If they've changed the entry date and amounts, then get complaining. Loudly.

[mjcuthy]

Are there any rules that I should state to this?

 

Its obvious that they have entered a new default, they have confirmed this to me. Furthermore, the default date is different to the original default, although only by a month to be fair.

 

Any advice on what I should do next?

[mjcuthy]

I have replied to MMF with the following:-

 

"Hi Matt,

 

Many thanks for your response.

 

I would have to firmly disagree with the statements below. As you say you are now the legal owner of the account, it would be your duty to update the CRA’s only. Therefore, you can legally change the name of the creditor to that of yourselves, however you cannot change the date of entry, report a new entry of any of the other details that are reported to the credit reference agency.

 

All of these have been carried out by MMF, as follows:-

 

• The default date is different to that from the original default

• The default balance is different to the original default

• MMF has entered its own default alongside the original default

 

As you can see from the above, this default notice is unlawful. I would also question how a default of £774 has changed to a default of £1,274 and would question the additional charges that have been added to this default balance, as I would assume that these would also be unlawful.

 

As stated previously, without a reasonable solution being found immediately, I will be forced to take strong action in the shape of the following:-

 

• I will be requesting all details that you hold for me including the Notice of Assignment and Assignment of Deeds which are required for this debt to be enforceable.

• I will be raising a formal complaint with the ICO in relation to this matter.

 

I would appreciate your urgent response and resolution to this matter.

 

Kind Regards"

[renegadeimp]

Stop talking to the stupid man wage idiots at mmf and send a formal complaint to the CEO of mmf.

[mjcuthy]

Ok i will draft up a formal complaint

[mjcuthy]

Thanks for the advice !

 

I made a complaint to the CEO of Gothia Ltd (now Arvato Financial Solutions UK & Ireland) and thankfully they have now agreed to clear all records from my credit report so that's a start.

 

The other email has been sent to the Complaints department at MMF and I have also escalated to the CEO at MMF so hopefully we will find a solution. If I don't hear back from them, I will be sending them a nice request for the Deeds of Assignment

 

Thanks for all the advice

[Bazooka Boo]

You won't get the ''deeds of assignment''. request that and they'll laugh.

 

If you don't hear back from them then the correct approach would be to issue them with a letter before action,

giving them time to rectify the incorrect data on your file, if/when they don't issue them with a claim for damages via the small claims track

and sue them for defamation.

[Ali172]

You won't get the ''deeds of assignment''. request that and they'll laugh.

 

If you don't hear back from them then the correct approach would be to issue them with a letter before action,

giving them time to rectify the incorrect data on your file, if/when they don't issue them with a claim for damages via the small claims track

and sue them for defamation.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree.

 

Your claim is not for defamation because the other party is not making a statement which is seriously damaging your character.

 

Your correct claim would be for breaches of the Data Protection Act.

 

Additionally you have grounds to complain to the Information Commissioner.

 

In any event defamation claims cannot be commenced in the County Court - it is a High Court claim.

[fkofilee]

I'm sorry but I disagree.

 

Your claim is not for defamation because the other party is not making a statement which is seriously damaging your character.

 

Your correct claim would be for breaches of the Data Protection Act.

 

Additionally you have grounds to complain to the Information Commissioner.

 

In any event defamation claims cannot be commenced in the County Court - it is a High Court claim.

 

No no no no! FOTLM again!

 

That will get you nowhere and into trouble! Some of us are MMF veterans, me included.

Have they sent you a statement of charges?

 

Ignore Ali172 like a plague...

[dx100uk]

can we drop the FOTL twaddle please gentlemen.

 

 

dx

[citizenB]

The only issue you can raise here is that the original creditor placed the original default marker. After that, it can only be updated, despite who owns the debt, the original default Date CANNOT be changed.

 

You would raise this issue with the Information Commissioner.

 

You will not obtain the "Deed of Assignment" (although some courts have been known to order these produced in court) You should have been advised by the new owner or the original creditor that the account had been sold by way of a "Notice of Assignment".

[citizenB]

Before you go issuing claims for defamation of Character - you might want to read up on Richard Durkin

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420961-Richard-Durkin-wins-Supreme-Court-appeal-–-beware-lenders!&highlight=Durkin

 

Which eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.