Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

10 years of incorrect reporting to CRA's by EE

Recommended Posts

Hello Caggers,


I've been trying for years to get an old EE account wiped off my credit file.

It was opened in 2013 and almost immediately defaulted but was shown as "Payment Arrangement" ever since.

I contacted EE by telephone in 2022 and was advised it had not been wiped because there was still £69 owing, I paid it and thought it would correct once the CRA's updated their reporting cycle. However, it has still not been removed.

I made a formal complaint on 27/03/2024 and have had contact with the executive team who advised that  "EE account ......... has now been deleted from the Credit File as it failed to close as it was reporting the payment arrangement set up despite, as advised this failing which should have resulted in a further default showing. 

Please be advised the deletions we have completed take 24 hours to update if a paid service is used to view the Credit File. If the customer uses one of the free services to view the Credit File, the recordings update in 24 hours but the changes can take up to 30 days to be visible on a new copy of the Credit File.

I have requested compensation and been advised by EE that another team are looking into this. That was almost 2 weeks ago and there has been no contact since, despite me chasing it.

I do not want to go to court and would rather settle this amicably. However,I have been advised that I might have a claim for aggravated damages due to the length of time the incorrect reporting has been on my file and the fact that I told EE about this issue and paid the demanded outstanding amount of £69 almost 18 months ago.

Should I just wait for EE to reply or should I start building my case against them?

Is their statement admissible as evidence of their blame or do I need to dig a bit more?

I made a DSAR which was initially rejected as having no data found yet.

I trawled my e-mails from 2013 and found the account number and mobile number, I'm now awaiting the result of my 2nd attempt at DSAR.

I have very little in the way of proof of actual loss except a mortgage refusal e-mail from HBOS in 2015.

I have also had high interest loans and credit over the last 10 years but again cannot directly attribute this to this one specific error.

There were other items on my credit file that could also have contributed to a low credit score too and I'm not out to cash in on anything.

I want to make sure I don't end up shooting myself in the foot for any obvious reason and would appreciate any help from anyone who has had similar experience with breaches of DPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to 10 years of incorrect reporting to CRA's by EE

paying a debt off does not remove it from your credit file.

if you paid the bal in 2022 whatever they've marked it with, it won't normally drop off until 6yrs from that date.

we're not at that date yet.

now if the AP markers hurt you is another matter, but typically NO they don't and you indicate no firm financial evidence they did.

i'm not sure under what 'rules' what compensation or redress you think they owe you?

ok they as well as you have wrongly concluded as its paid it should be removed.

i will gather as the last 'movement' on the account was 2022 that's why the 3 CRA providers have not removed it. 

now EE could request that is done, but as far as i'm aware there's no remit that dictates the 3 CRa providers must.






please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply, DX!

I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score.

I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014.

It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA.

Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE.

If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE.

More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA.

In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems.

The account was then being reported twice.

Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021.

I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the fuller story now...

sadly on most assumptions you are wrong.

i cant see you going anywhere with this .

the file can appear twice on your file, but doesn't hurt you twice.

OC's are not obliged to default a debt before sale (though if they dont - it renders the debt useless to a debt buyer) .

thus Lowell just left it and in 2021 their entry fell off due to 6yrs of no reporting.

lowell didn't 'write it off' its an automated CRA File process .

The old EE entry was held on your file because of the AP markers, they are a real bugbear to any account and if its never defaulted can cause an account to show for 12yrs on cra files regardless to any balance or not.

in your case its sadly somewhat immaterial that EE erroneously used AP, it appears it didn't actually harm you.

you cleared the EE entry bal by paying £69 in 2022, that wouldn't have changed anything really. the AP markers held it on your file.

so either EE now remove it or you await it's natural drop off 6yrs from the last AP mark.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks once again dx!

Your advice is greatly appreciated. I think you forgot the bit where you say "In future contact CAG first." At least I would have saved £69 but I've learned a lesson way more valuable and that's not to ignore a debt just hoping it will go away after 6 years.

Here's hoping as a gesture of good will they actually remove it. Although theoretically they could also put a satisfied default on my file as well. The irony is that I only found out because I wanted another contract with EE. They told me I'd never get another EE contract with the AP markers on my file until it was paid off, so that's why I thought it would be resolved.

Interestingly Lowell put up a proper fight after their account dropped off the CRA but you're correct. It wasn't written off! They ended up agreeing in writing "to no longer enforce the debt"

Link to post
Share on other sites

lowells was statute barred!

if the OC still owns a debt and you owe them, it's not SB'd in their books you cant get around that sadly 

the £69 payment was nothing to do with the scam debt they acquired (£PCM costs till end of contract) 

i cant see why you cant demand EE remove it , if they dont.

its the least they can do for their error.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...