Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, my initial view is that @unclebulgaria67 is probably right and that because it was a magistrate's warrant, it would be the energy company that would have been in control of the situation directly. Unfortunately this will be much more difficult to deal with then dealing directly with Marston but anyway if you give us your details as requested, we can at least get Outlook from that direction as well. I'm also wondering about the position of your landlord in this. As you have taken up a tenancy in a particular property then I would have thought that one of the terms of the tenancy would be that you should be entitled to quiet enjoyment. Although the landlord may say that it is not their fault and it is down to the previous tenant, at the end of the day you have a contract with the landlord who has certain responsibilities. I think we may consider involving the landlord in this as well. You say that there have been letters addressed to the previous tenant. What have you done with those?
    • Yes please. We have certain direct access to Marston and we may be able to get someone to look at this at a senior level. Please email us as requested with your own contact details and name of previous tenant.   We can't guarantee any particular result but we can promise you that it will be looked at.
    • they say in letter dated 20/01/20 that the agreement was terminated on 30 July 2017 and cannot be terminated twice, so your VT request is invalid. startline issued termination or Default notices on the following dates: letter: 30/03/2017 termination notice  liable for payment: arreaers to date : £365.38 the balance of: £10,586.50 total: £10,951.88 7 days notice else ROG+sums outstanding. ....................... Letter: 11/12/2017 Default Notice nature of breach: instalments of £211.73 due 30th each month. action to remedy: payment of arrears £449.23 by 30-12-17 other info: payments to date: £5226.91 outstanding: £9351.89 less rebate: £2251.41 Amount Due: £7100.48 if you act before 30-12-17 and have paid £7056.90 you can VT. ............ Letter: 27-07-2018 Default Notice refs a dn dated:31/05/2016 - there is no such DN in an SAR return. nature of breach: instalments of £211.73 on 30th each month. action to remedy: payment of arrears £226.73 by 15-08-2018 other info: on or after date 27-07-2018 we shall terminate,withdraw possesion and recoversums due upon termination. total paid: £6250.91 outstanding: £7647.28 less rebate: £1590.47 Amount Due: £6065.81 if you act before 15-08-18 and have paid £7056.90 you can VT. ........................  letter: 01-10-2018 termination notice  liable for payment: arreaers to date : £325.06 the balance of: £6079.75 total: £6404.81 7 days notice else ROG+sums outstanding. ……………………...     NEW ORDER STATEMENTS.pdf Doc1.pdf
    • thank you.   have you had issues paying credit before you took any of these out?   i'e were you keeping a good handle upon your credit file and it wasn't shot with any defaults or payment markers during the period when you applied and were successful in getting any of this additional credit?   my thoughts are ...should the above not be the case and your credit worthiness was good... so couldn't p'haps introduce some irresponsible lending complaints in association to them … it might be an idea to give all your creditors the heads up that times are hard and you wish them to help you, as they are duty bound to do, by freezing interest and any penalty fees to allow you to ride out this present financial hardship till things improve ...   how does that sound...   dx  
  • Our picks


United Utilities, Equifax default for old address after 8 years, ICO say ok

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1407 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Please does anyone have any advice on this?


The facts as they have been reported to me:


Mr X leaves the property in 2008.

Mrs X remains at the property and there is a verbal agreement

that she will transfer the utility bills to her name.

Mr X still legally owns the property until it is repossesed by the bank in 2010.


In 2015 Mr X obtains a copy of his Equifax credit report and discovers that United Utilities have registered a default dated March 2015.


Unitied Utilities will not remove the default as they say Mr X did not notify them he had moved/was no longer responsible for the water charges at the property.


The ICO have today sent this response:


Dear Mr X,


I write further to my email of 19 February.


Based on the evidence provided, I consider that it is likely that United Utilities has complied with its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in this case.


I feel it may be useful to explain that a default on a credit file means that an organisation considers the relationship between itself and the individual to have broken down.


United Utilities has explained that whilst the last payment was made in 2007,

they had been attempting to chase the debt and a default notice was only issued in February 2015

when collections activity was deemed exhausted

and the relationship was deemed broken down.


United Utilities has explained that the credit for £268.88 was a false credit

and has confirmed that that the default date of 14 March 2015

and default balance of £3093 were accurate

and up to date at the time it was shared with Equifax.



United Utilities has explained that they acted on the information available to them

as you did not inform them that you had ceased being responsible for charges at xxxxxxxxxxxxx until May 2015.


I understand that while the default will remain,

United Utilities will request amendments to your credit file to reflect the subsequent information received by you.


I appreciate you may be disappointed by this,

but I hope the information provided above explains the reasons for our decision.


Yours sincerely,


Adele Roper

Lead Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

01625 545 774


Is there anything to stop a company registering a default from so long ago, or would there be if an agreement was regulated by the CCA? Is there any point Mr X arguing that he did not take out a credit agreement with United Utilities? I believe that utilities companies have only recently been allowed to 'share' data with credit reference agencies, so it's not something Mr X would have agreed to/been aware of upon opening the account.


Thanks for reading.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

utter cobblers and the ICO clearly doesnt understand about when a default applies from.

tell them you want to appeal the decision to a higher levelas you should not be held responsible for the water co's inability to understand that the repossession of the property and the bank taking it back is enough to show that the relationship had broken down and that UU were aware of all of this at that time because it is in their other obligations to the new consumer at that address.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a document which shows united utilities remove charges which are statute barred after 6 years. If the last payment and thats the critical point, was 2007 then its statute barred from the relevant month in 2013





I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.




GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled


Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments guys.


United Utilities has since telephoned to say they will be removing the default completely. I don't know the reason behind this. I can only guess it got passed to a dept with an ounce of discretion/reasonableness. Not impressed with the ICO response at all - seems they are willing to let companies report defaults on historical accounts indeterminately, with no regard to the difficulties this can cause to consumers who thought their debt problems were behind them (and/or those who had no idea of an alledged debt from an old address).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...