Minicredit / Kapama / OPOS - Help Please

[hitheresir]

Hi there - hope everyone is well.

I am looking to get a mortgage soon, and I have a default on my credit file that dates back to Oct 2014 from Minicredit, which is now under the name of Kapama. It's incredibly frustrating as I'm stuck in the renting cycle as this is destroying an otherwise good and healthy credit history as far as I can see.

The story so far...

I foolishly took out 3 loans with Minicredit over the course of Oct 13 - May '14. Unfortunately, at the time I was unable to afford this loan yet despite providing this information to Minicredit they still approved me. I then get further into debt having to re-borrow to repay. On the final loan, I couldn't meet the extended payment + interest on time, so I wrote to Minicredit to arrange a reduced payment plan. Unfortunately, Minicredit were not the most trustworthy company and decided to go ahead and charge my debit card x 7 times and took the money anyway. The CEO's pa of Natwest later got involved and the bank charge-backed the money. I was really angry at this point.

Then Minicredit towards the tail end of 2014 ceased to trade. They were supposed to write in the post and also email to assign the debt to Kapama. I believe Kapama is a company owned by OPOS who also owned Minicredit. The terms of the wind down were pretty clear and explicit laid out by the FCA. I never received anything in either medium on the assignment. In the FCA guidance if this didnt happen in a certain time frame and in the above ways the debt would be obsolete and unenforceable.

Unfortunately early 2017 I checked my credit file to find that Equifax has a default notice placed in October 2014 by Minicredit, but now being upheld by Kapama. I have written to Kapama citing the lack of checks of creditworthiness originally by Minicredit, and also on the bank issue but they gave a final response saying they would do nothing. I then also wrote to both the ICO and the Financial Ombudsman. Kapama basically has washed their hands of any wrongdoing and say the debt is valid and pointing to Minicredit as the original company. The original loan was for £220. The amount defaulted on the credit file is £467 (made up of additional charges).

The ICO has written to me to say that they can see no wrongdoing since Kapama just the middle man and purchased the debt. The adjudicator and now Financial Ombudsman (since it was escalated) has now also made the decision that they cannot agree and get the default and credit entry removed or amended.

So my question is, what do I do next? Can anybody give me any guidance about next steps for taking this through the courts?

Does a debt collecting company not have some duty of care when purchasing and attempting to enforce a debt to actually check the account and the information around it is correct? I've still never seen a default notice provided by Minicredit or Kapama in any of the many correspondences, and neither received anything from either company around the re-assignment of debt either.

It just feels like Kapama think they can get away with this by hiding behind the original sister companies practices. I don't think this is right and I do believe that the court system is now the way to go.

Has anybody else been succesful in having a debt collection agent who pursues a bogus debt from a company that doesn't exist now wind their neck in? Would be good to hear from you....

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this fully.

[hitheresir]

Hello - just bumping this one.

Anybody have any advice about taking a debt collection company to court, to remove a default notice?

Thanks in advance.

[Amethyst]

Credit file records actions on the account and must be recorded accurately. Which in this case, in essence, is that you took a loan for £220 and failed to pay it back on time. Seems very unfair I know, but unless the data is proven to be inaccurate it won't be removed. You've already had that answer from the ICO and the FOS ? It's a Part 8 court action to force removal of data from your credit file and costs could be high if you lost.

If it helps at all, I was advised by my potential mortgage provider that if I get any defaults settled ( partially or fully ) then in 2 years the settlement etc will be taken into account when reviewing the credit file for mortgage purposes. Likely I'd still be stuck with a higher rate until they have fallen off completely though, but I refuse to go with a sub prime lender and my defaults were early 2016 so am stuffed till 2022 otherwise.

However none of mine were short term high cost loans, which I believe do have a higher impact on the credit file to begin with, and presumably after settlement they still have a bigger affect than standard credit cards/loans etc. If that is the only thing showing negatively on your file, you could get it settled off ( probably for a decent reduction ) so your file starts healing a bit sooner than waiting for it to fall off in October 2020.

[hitheresir]

Thanks Amethyst.

What about the original loan being irresponsibly lent and Minicredit being struck off, the fraudlent payments and Natwest getting involved and then also the fact that the default notice hasn't ever been produced or sent, nor the assignemnt of debt duly followed in the FCA guidlines of Minicredit being wound down? Do you think I have no chance here of getting this removed. I really think that it's unenforceable.

Going down the Part 8 court path, do you have any advice / docs to read over on that?

Thank you.

[Amethyst]

I know, it is unfair, but the credit file doesn't have a lot to do with the consumer credit act, it is simply accurate data reporting.

I know Wonga did correct some peoples files after intervention by the FCA, but you've already complained to the company, to FOS and to the ICO about the default and the affordability ?

Have you sent a CCA request or Subject Access Request at all to Kapama/OPOS ? Presumably you have all the documentation for going through complaints with the ICO and the Ombudsman.

The difference in effect on your credit score between £467 and £220 showing on your credit file is negligible.

I believe the court fee would be around £308 for Part 8 ( specific action claim rather than moneyclaim ) so we used to include it in a claim for charges / compensation to get in as a Part 7 claim, but that I think ended up in a couple of claims losing in court and being hit for costs in quite a big way ( as I recall, it's quite a while since I've looked at the issue )

some cases for reading .... Durkin v PCWorld ( DSG Retail ) - Blackhorse v Grace - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society ( I'm sure there's others - pt2537 Diana M ?? )

Have a mooch through the Wrongful default forums anyway -http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/money-debt/cra-s-credit-reference-agencies/wrongful-defaults

If it was a fraudulent account, ID fraud, completely wrongful defaulting etc and the ICO and FOS had still found against you I'd likely be more positive, but there is no point giving false hope IMO.

Others will have different views to me of course

[pt2537]

I know, it is unfair, but the credit file doesn't have a lot to do with the consumer credit act, it is simply accurate data reporting.

I know Wonga did correct some peoples files after intervention by the FCA, but you've already complained to the company, to FOS and to the ICO about the default and the affordability ?

Have you sent a CCA request or Subject Access Request at all to Kapama/OPOS ? Presumably you have all the documentation for going through complaints with the ICO and the Ombudsman.

The difference in effect on your credit score between £467 and £220 showing on your credit file is negligible.

I believe the court fee would be around £308 for Part 8 ( specific action claim rather than moneyclaim ) so we used to include it in a claim for charges / compensation to get in as a Part 7 claim, but that I think ended up in a couple of claims losing in court and being hit for costs in quite a big way ( as I recall, it's quite a while since I've looked at the issue )

some cases for reading .... Durkin v PCWorld ( DSG Retail ) - Blackhorse v Grace - Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society ( I'm sure there's others - pt2537 Diana M ?? )

Have a mooch through the Wrongful default forums anyway -http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/money-debt/cra-s-credit-reference-agencies/wrongful-defaults

If it was a fraudulent account, ID fraud, completely wrongful defaulting etc and the ICO and FOS had still found against you I'd likely be more positive, but there is no point giving false hope IMO.

Others will have different views to me of course

Removing Defaults is a little easier thanks to the Grace v Blackhorse as the ruling emphasized the need for accurate reporting.

The Claim i think wouldnt be a part 8, its likely to be disputed and would be a part 7.

Personally id look at running it under s140A CCA 1974 as that gives the Court the power to do everything you need if theres a finding of unfairness.

S140 CCA can deal with many things, ive used it for overdrafts, loans, credit cards, harassment, etc and its good because it has a reverse burden of proof too

[Amethyst]

There you go..... Thanks Paul

[hitheresir]

Thanks both.

@PT2537, dropped you a direct message, did you receive it?

[pt2537]

yes mate, ive just replied.

[hitheresir]

Could you advise on the best steps to issue this Part 7?

Thanks.