Removing a 3 default?

[buzby]

Yes, you'd be wrong. Your agreement was NOT regulated by the CCA, this was simply a service contract so not 'Notice of Default' is required. You were simply defaulted because you didn't pay your bill - something they can do easily. See the 'sticky' (above) on Mobile Phones and the CCA.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed-broadband/70464-mobile-phone-companies-consumer.html

[buzby]

This is one of the most useful 'get outs' that still remains useful to consumers who want to clear their files, the problem is when a firm (mobile phone network) employ enough people who simply say to Experian that the debt exists and/or was valid. The CRA won't seek clarification or 'proof' that the debt existed, just the work of the firm making the original complaint. Now, with 3UK and their Indian Call Centres, this becomes as much of an issue (for them) in the same way UK customer's don't get satisfactory communications. CRAs are pretty much in the same situation, and if their enquiries are not resolved, the disputed files are cleared because the network is not prepared to assert that their data is correct.

 

Not an ideal situation you'll agree - especially for those firms who just want to be vindictive - but at least there is hope!

[buzby]

I'm a little confused - Equifax would have no idea that the debt listed originally was unjustified, only 3UK could ascertain this - so the next step from having it correctly shown as 'settled' is to get 3UK to remove it as the only reason it was there was because of their billing error. No?

[buzby]

Is there any documentation you have from 3UK that admits to their original error? CRAs would accept this in the absence of a formal response on the cause of the problem.

 

Alternatively, you could write by RD to 3UK admin HQ in Glasgow and try and force a response that way.

[buzby]

I'd suggest to Experian that as the network has not had the courtesy to explain or confirm the data within 28 days, you require them to remove the data immediately. Failing this you'll complain to the ICO about the retention of misleading data, and reserve the right to take them to court for promulgating misleading information.

[buzby]

Great news. It's hard work, but worth the effort especially since ALL consumers need to ensure the 'information' supplied to the CRA's is accurate.

[buzby]

Actually, I'm more concerned that they didn't remove the original default, but made it 'satisfied'. Experience has shown that these carry the same weight of damnation, so I think they're trying to be weasel-like in their dealings with you. (The payment record is a different issue). I'd pursue them that the removal of a default was agreed, and their action does not amount to this.

[buzby]

No harm - but they very seldom take the action themselves (preferring their client to update the information directly).