Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

In between all this, the FOS has also written back with the following:

You gotta love the love this part "I e-mailed Opus to state how disappointed I was that it had neither responded to my e-mail nor returned my calls and advised it of the consequences" - wonder what those will be?

Will they have to stand on The Naughty Step for a whole five minutes?

What I cannot quite understand is why you did not tell Lowells what you really think of them.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

see now?

[kilasuit]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

9 days is a lot when it's libel mate

My argument goes like this, they were quick to add it the same day they bought the "debt" disputed balance/account and so they should be able to remove it at the same speed, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Never-In-Doubt
my original email that I sent on 29th February went totally ignored


Probably because its only the beginning of February
__________________


see now?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Probably because its only the beginning of February

9 days is a lot when it's libel mate

My argument goes like this, they were quick to add it the same day they bought the "debt" disputed balance/account and so they should be able to remove it at the same speed, right?

[kilasuit]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

my original email that I sent on 29th February went totally ignored

Probably because its only the beginning of February

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

As promised here is an update....

I got an alert on Equifax and seen this, to my bemusement:



So I sent this off (on 29th Jan, 3 days after the default appeared)...

I write with reference to a recent Equifax alert whereby you have illegally entered information against me, that puts you in direct breach of varying legislation and in particular the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection (specifically sections 2.2 (f,g); 2.4 (b,e); 2.6 (a,c,d,e,f,g); 2.8 (i,k)) and the Data Protection Act 1998.

I have already agreed settlement with Opus regards this account and have been waiting for over 18 months to get this matter sorted, they actually agreed to a FOS settlement then messed me around so I revoked my acceptance, they then came back with a revised offer which clearly confirmed they would remove all data not sell the account to you vultures! Attached is a copy of the FOS settlement letter from Opus along with a screen print of your illegal CRA entries.

I hereby place you under strict order and within CPR Guidelines you may consider this email a letter before action. Unless you remove all data from the CRA's immediately, and no later than Monday 6th February at 17.30hrs, then I will issue a claim against you for the libellous data you are reporting as this entry is having a severe impact in my ability to obtain credit and the entry is not only unjustified but illegal in its entirety.

I have copied in the FOS Adjudicator that originally dealt with this matter.

I also expect a letter of apology and a suitable offer of compensation for this inconvenience. Failure to acknowledge your mistake and/or trying to wriggle out of consequential losses will simply result in my taking action against you for the retrospective damage. I suggest you seek recompense from Opus for selling you this duff account.

They never replied so I spoke to Paul (i.e. the best consumer debt solicitor this side of the mississippi) and decided to give them one last chance so last night I sent this off basically giving them until 4pm today (7th Feb) to rectify things:

As I have not heard from you in the past week, having sent plenty of proof suggesting that this erroneous and unlawful default be immediately removed, you've left me no alternative but to pass matters to my legal representatives to pursue more formal action; to incorporate substantial compensation for your reporting of libellous data after being told about the issue, with attached proof from the actual Financial Ombudsman - whom has been copied in to my original and this email, as has my solicitor.

I strongly suggest you consider your position as a formal complain to the Ombudsman will follow shortly which as you know, will then set you back a further £500 as a mediation fee which all FOS complaints do generate. I do feel what with the info originally sent and your contacts at Progressive/Opus that you've had ample time to deal with matters.

If by 4pm tomorrow, Tuesday 7th February I have not heard from you then a formal complaint will be raised to the Ombudsman regards this matter as each day that this illegal default remains on my credit file, means each day I am suffering by not being allowed my free rights to apply for new credit products as I know I will be declined.

I then thought I'd copy in their CEO (James Cornell) and I did this at 1pm today. I literally sent him a copy of everything - then guess what, surprise surprise at 15:54 (actually 6 minutes before my deadline) I received this:

Thank you for your e-mail of 7th February 2012 addressed to Mr James Cornell. I have been asked to respond on his behalf in my capacity of specialist complaint resolution officer.
I would like to apologise that it has been necessary for you to contact us regarding your concerns and I am grateful for the opportunity to address these.

My understanding of the complaint is that you believe we have erroneously recorded a default on your credit file as the account should not have been passed over to us. I note from your comments that you require the removal of this data as it is stopping you from obtaining any further credit.

Having reviewed the account, I can see that we have been notified by OPUS that they require the account to be returned to them. I am sorry that you feel we have adversely effected your credit file and that the account should not have been sold us, as this matter was being dealt with by the Financial Ombudsman Service(FOS).

In the event of purchasing an account, we have a duty and obligation to report the correct and accurate data with the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA’s). We apply our default on purchasing the account form the original client and it is our normal process to remove the default once the account has been returned to them. However, as our client have already agreed the account to be recoursed, I am happy to action the removal of the default with immediate effect. I would like to advise that this could take up to 24 hours to update and it is essential to view a fresh report in order to see this.

Once again, I would like to apologise for any distress this may have caused you, however, I feel the appropriate actions have now been taken to resolve the matter for you. In relation to your request for compensation, I am unable to agree that we have acted inappropriately in the handling of the account and at this moment in time, I will not be seeking to compensate any monies.

I would like to offer my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this matter has caused. I would also like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and as I believe we have now reached a fair resolution, I will be closing your complaint. If you do not consider this to be resolved and you have additional evidence or information that you would like us to consider, please come back to me and I will reopen your file. This does not affect your right of referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), once the complaint has passed the 8 week age limit, on 3rd April 2012.

Not content with this, I then replied as follows:

Lets start by establishing that the OFT do classify the term “debtor” to include someone who is being wrongly pursued for a debt; this is clear in the new OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection (s.1.12)

Section 2 of the guidance clearly states that you must treat debtors fairly and be transparent as defined within their core overarching principles of fair business practice; specifically quoted as

2.1. In the OFT's view, there are a number of overarching principles of consumer protection and fair business practice which apply to all debt recovery activities.
2.2. In general terms, businesses should:

• treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not

• be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading

It appears in both the above cases you have failed to carry out the most basic of due-diligence thus rendering my position totally worthless as in essence you jumped in with two feet and placed an illegal default against my name which should never have been added, regardless of the facts that you may or may not have been given by the original creditor.

The onus is clearly on you to do your own checks and ensure that you are indeed acting fairly, transparently and with the best interests of the debtor at heart – by simply purchasing a debt en-masse and thinking you have a god given right to go and default each account is a clear breach of no less than 14 of the OFT Guidelines and I shall rip each one of those apart and demonstrate how and why you’ve messed up.

I now refer you to section 3: Unfair or Improper Business Practices. Clearly the way you’ve handled my case just goes to show that you’ve also directly breached several parts within this section and instead of listing each, I will instead simply refer to the points so you can assess them yourself (for the benefit of doubt attached to this complaint is a current copy of the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection as amended Oct 2008) and see where you’ve gone wrong.

So, you purchased a debt from Opus and simply registered a default; I can safely presume that this was sometime around 26 January 2012 as that is the date I received the Equifax alert telling me a default was added. Today is the 7th February which means, based on the fact I did email you on 29th January (only 3 days later), it’s taken you a whole 9 days to act on something that should have been dealt with the same day as my email was received. The fact I had to copy in the FOS adjudicator, my solicitor and the CEO of Lowells – today – speaks volumes. Had I not emailed your CEO I doubt I would have had a response just 6 minutes before my second deadline of 4pm today which suggests you do actually read correspondence but tend not to act on it. So, as such can you please clarify in detail why my original email that I sent on 29th February went totally ignored and why it took an email to your CEO before getting any kind of response?

Ok, we’ve established that you purchased the debt towards the end of January, as such you felt it appropriate to just default me – you do realise an account could be one payment late, but usually it is three, before a lender sells the debt to a third party DCA and this similarly falls in line with the OFT Guidance, however the crux of this point is that a lender does not need to default a debtor until between 3-6 payments have been missed and therefore what if my account had only had one missed payment, I had received no s.87/s.88 (CCA1974) notification and then you’d defaulted me. Would you say that is acceptable and in line with the Consumer Credit Act, OFT Guidance or any other regulatory legislation? I know categorically that it does not and thus the fact your response stated that it is your common practice to issue a default is the first major breach, the others come as a result of this as the fact you conducted no additional checks as to the legitimacy of the debt and status of the account means you’ve actually done a lot more damage than had you simply wrote to me.

Oh, writing to me – do you think it mentions anywhere in the Debt Collection Guidance that you ought to notify a debtor of your intentions? Do you think it mentions anywhere in the CCA1974 that you need to issue a s.87 & s.88 notice before actually adding a default as surely I am entitled to a 14 day remedy period? Sorry, are you saying all this is nonsense and the fact you bulk-buy debts means you skip all legislation put in place to protect us to line your own pockets? Please, be so kind as to clarify this point as no matter what you do or say, you’ve done the damage now – you did not, as matter of fact, give me any remedy period and as such you’ve directly breached sections s.87 & s.88 of the Consumer Credit Act, you have also directly breached the licencing activity afforded to you by way of your CCL; you’ve directly disregarded guidance set in place by the regulator that is the OFT and you’ve blatantly ignored a direct command from the Financial Ombudsman Adjudicator whereby she told Opus to remove all derogatory data.

And then you have the gall to say to me “Once again, I would like to apologise for any distress this may have caused you, however, I feel the appropriate actions have now been taken to resolve the matter for you. In relation to your request for compensation, I am unable to agree that we have acted inappropriately in the handling of the account and at this moment in time, I will not be seeking to compensate any monies. ”

I am sorry but the fact you’ve fixed things ONLY as a result of my emailing your CEO and ONLY due to the fact I am too good to be messed around by idiots such as staff at Lowells (the Leeds Losers) means little and no, I am sorry you have not done anything other than reverse any damage you caused. That is not putting anything right whatsoever and offers no protection to similar consumers (note I now refute the word debtor, which I am NOT) whom you’ll treat the same way and thus I feel your very lame excuse and reasoning is just that, lame.

I wrote to you back on 29th January attaching proof of everything so really I had done all the work for you. I would have been well within my rights to leave the data there for longer and thus claim a greater amount from you due to the libellous remarks added to the CRA’s. Unfortunately for Lowells I am a bit better than that and send you enough evidence to remove the illegal data the same day – why then has it taken almost two weeks?

I suggest you reconsider you compensation plan as I will not drop this, I think you’ll see from a simple erroneous default you’ve now opened a whole can of worms and similarly, I am not just your average consumer. I actually own one of the largest and most successful consumer debt related forums in the UK. I have a very long thread about this whole farce starting with Citi long before Opus had any involvement – now I have added the details of this complaint and I strongly suggest you take a few moments to read it as you’ll then see I do know my stuff and I will make you pay, whether that is direct to me or in fines/mediation fees – I don’t care but you will pay for the way you have treated me.

A simple gesture of goodwill and apology for your actions will be enough to make me walk away – ignorance and excuses will result in a formal complaint being raised with the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Office of fair Trading, the Ministry of Justice and Trading Standards.

I am also very popular and friendly with the larger TV consumer programmes, something you’re all too familiar with – think back to the whistle-blower at your own very offices – well I am actually friends with this producer – I am sure he’d love this story of you tried to bully the owner of one of the best debt resources in the United Kingdom. Are you sure you want this publicity?

I think it’s fair that I do give you a couple of days to respond so if I have not heard back from you by Thursday February 09th at 17.30hrs then the formal complaints as mentioned above will be forthcoming along with a detailed charge for my costs incurred – bear in mind I am a higher rate tax payer and my hourly rate is rather large to say the least. To date I have spent over 4 hours dealing with you, 4 wasted hours I hasten to add.

Do not try and fob me off, do not try and take the piss and do not think you’re dealing with an amateur here, you’re not.

I expect a full apology and suitable offer of recompense before Thursday at 17.30hrs.

The thread that you can read about this is here: http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1861

Yes, I am serious – 100% serious.

In between all this, the FOS has also written back with the following:

Earlier today I e-mailed Opus to state how disappointed I was that it had neither responded to my e-mail nor returned my calls and advised it of the consequences. I also asked it what it was prepared to do to put matters right.

However, as you did with Lowell, I copied in two executives for whom I had obtained e-mail addresses. I have already had a reply from one of them apologising for the delay and asking for 48 hours to urgently investigate the matter.One positive, even though Opus has not responded to me, it has at least recalled the account which is one step in the right direction.

You gotta love the love this part "I e-mailed Opus to state how disappointed I was that it had neither responded to my e-mail nor returned my calls and advised it of the consequences" - wonder what those will be?

Anyway, I'll update again as and when I hear back from these Leeds Losers

[5corpio]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

<--- keeps on thinking of lovells (building firm).........as Lowells

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Sting in the tale - Opus sold this to Lowells who defaulted me.....

Ooops.

I have now issued Lowells a legal threat to remove the default by 4pm today - guess what? 15:56pm I get an email from their CEO's office confirming removal - it should never have got that far.

I am fuming. I have, as such, refused Opus offer again and went back to the FOS as they really need a slap for this now. Its disgusting.

As for Lowells, don't get me started on them - I'll update things later but suffice to say I am not a happy bunny right now, even though they have said they'll remove the default within 24hrs.

More later! Can this soap opera bring any more twists? Watch this space

[5corpio]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

well done matey.......excellent work

[di30]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Excellent work and fantastic news Niddy, Congratulations!

[jen_br]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Good Job Nids

[IF]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Is that thar a "noddy" I see?

It is and it looks like Noddy needs a wee!!

[helmsman]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Ok well from the last update it seems they're speaking my language now...

New offer received and provisionally accepted (so long as this default and all late entries are removed before end of year);

1. Opus agree to pay me £350 directly for my "distress"
2. Opus agree to pay £350 off the account balance for interest from last October to current date
3. Opus agree to freeze interest for the duration of contract
4. Opus agree to leave my credit file as all up to date etc
5. Opus accept a £100 monthly standing order for 16 months after which the balance will be cleared and I am free of these wankers.

I thought that was a result, based on the last poxy offer

I'll photocopy cheque etc as and when it arrives

Dear Mr Niddy,
Have a very merry christmas
Love
OPUS

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

Is that thar a "noddy" I see?

[garlok]

Re: Niddy vs Opus (ex CitiCard)

I can see you are cruising for a bruising CC l l l

regards
Garlok