Default Applied Unduly Late

[stevemLS]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

Others may think differently but stopping paying is rarely a good idea.

Whilst you might be right in that considerable further costs could be incurred, you may well find yourself lumbered with them.

[L1882]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

Well not costs from the FOS - those are strictly the liability of the company, and each case they look at (after your first, I think, 25) costs around £550.00, even if as the company the complaint isn't upheld.

At the end of the day all I actually want is for this company to accurately report on my accounts. I am paying, every month, and upholding my end of the agreement whilst they are not. I didn't even ask them for compensation at first. I have approached them, been reasonable and given them plenty of time to correct their failings yet this has been on going for over 6 months now and they still haven't resolved it. So what does a consumer do, what I've so often done in the past, roll over and let them tickle my belly or do I bare my teeth and, if needed, bite the buggers on the arse because if I don't go to court or don't stop paying and raise it with the FOS they will do nothing at all.

[stevemLS]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

Well not costs from the FOS - those are strictly the liability of the company, and each case they look at (after your first, I think, 25) costs around £550.00, even if as the company the complaint isn't upheld.

Yes, I was talking about court action which is what you were contemplating in post 11 and what I have been responding to.

The most extreme case I have been involved with is where the claimant wanted accurate information removing from their (medical) records. They ended up in a two day trial and a £70k costs bill at the end of it.

The FOS apply their principles of fairness rather than the ore rigid framework of statute and common law.

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

Others may think differently but stopping paying is rarely a good idea.

Whilst you might be right in that considerable further costs could be incurred, you may well find yourself lumbered with them.

Never a good idea to stop payments while a complaint is in process.

nem

[Debt Camel]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

I am not clear why you are considering court action.

Have you complained to the ICO? If you have, why did they reject your complaint?

You can also go to the Financial Ombudsman.

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

I am not clear why you are considering court action.

Have you complained to the ICO? If you have, why did they reject your complaint?

You can also go to the Financial Ombudsman.

A complaint is in progress.

nem

[L1882]

Re: Default Applied Unduly Late

I am not clear why you are considering court action.

Have you complained to the ICO? If you have, why did they reject your complaint?

You can also go to the Financial Ombudsman.

In answer to you first question, last time I checked I was well within my rights to use the courts rather than the toothless friend of business the ICO.