Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

I wonder what Santander has put on my CRA

I take the point that there should be no change retrospectively on the debtor's CRA file (i.e. I did default before going to court to be told by the judge it was UE and I didn't have to pay); but surely there must be 'something' added at the account end status (settled? satisfied?) to reflect the debtor's statutory right not to pay, because I'm not sure that's the same thing as behaving badly financially-speaking.

The logic behind this is right even if the ICO see it in a more practical way

I agree with what you're saying and also think that an UE account should have it's own status but it doesn't; we stick to simple principles and in this case as a payment was missed there will be a default - think of it as being the banks last weapon to hurt you.

However the data must be accurate and a 'true reflection' of the account conduct. In your case the original default would remain, the balance would remain (as it's still outstanding but the lender cannot enforce or pursue it) - it's not settled, nor is it satisfied - it was deemed UE via a judge. Though you need to think back to basics, was it defaulted? yes. Ergo, they are reporting accurate status of account.

I'm not arguing because I want to, it's because I understand the process and want for you lot to also understand it.

[Paul.]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

As a matter of law the debtor does not have to pay!! House of Lords said as much. I've run the argument successfully already myself so I know it works

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

As a matter of law the debtor does not have to pay!! House of Lords said as much. I've run the argument successfully already myself so I know it works

Not disputing that mate, the fact is - was it defaulted? yes. Thus was it ever in arrears to create a default? yes. Thus is it accurate data? yes.

End of.

Sorry but that's the way it is, I am not arguing about the balance or the end result but the default entry and amount owing as at the time of status change would be reflected on your credit file.

I have run this argument with ICO on numerous occasion but to no avail. Look at my HSBC fight, they are doing the exact same thing but the killer for them - I had a valid dispute and was not defaulted or in fact in any arrears at the time I raised the dispute. They then went and defaulted me - it is this I am going to sue HSBC over regardless of the FOS ruling (when it ever arrives).....

[Paul.]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

No it is not accurate data. I went to court got an order saying UE this stopped paying as I was entitled to. They then defaulted me. Inaccurate data.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

No it is not accurate data. I went to court got an order saying UE this stopped paying as I was entitled to. They then defaulted me. Inaccurate data.

In that situation yes, I agree but not what we're talking about in context to this thread.

In your situation they had to default you within 3 months of the first payment being late and before 6 months. If you then went to court and got a debt declared UE and the lender THEN added derogatory data you'd be speaking to the judge to get a statement confirming all cra data should be removed, without it the entry will stay.

Ok, as the legal brain here - is your default still there? Are you fighting a losing battle in your campaign to rid the default? The regulators will ask the same as me, for a letter from the judge confirming removal. Without this, they will decline and tell you to check with the lender.

That's the way it is mate, as I say I do not agree but I do understand the processes.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

So following on from these discussions,is the way forward to write to DCA and point out the error of their ways and add a notice of correctness?

Finally, how can you check exactly when the original default was added? CRA from 2004 shows account several months in arrears, but not defaulted and current CRA check shows account defaulted but not from when.somewhere in there the account was originally registered as defaulted probably over 6 years ago.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

So following on from these discussions,is the way forward to write to DCA and point out the error of their ways and add a notice of correctness?

Finally, how can you check exactly when the original default was added? CRA from 2004 shows account several months in arrears, but not defaulted and current CRA check shows account defaulted but not from when.somewhere in there the account was originally registered as defaulted probably over 6 years ago.

You need to write to them and remind them this was defaulted in 2003 and tell them (the CRA) to remove the duplicated entry.

If you have a copy of the default notice issued, this will help as you can then prove to the CRA's that it was defaulted back then so should not be appearing on your file some 9 years later!!!

No NOC - this is not a NOC, it's threatening the CRA to remove incorrect and quite unlawful data before you'll sue for libel (that usually works if they refuse - at this stage just ask them to remove it as the default ran it's course from 2003-2009)

You don't contact the DCA - just the CRA's.

To prove the historical default would mean asking hubby if he ever applied for his file between the default period, if he has never seen the default entry on his file then was it ever there? Thing is they can default you (s.87/s.88 CCA) but not update CRA's until years later, so long as it utilises the original default date and does not repeat historical expired (+6yrs) data...

Make sense?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

To prove the historical default would mean asking hubby if he ever applied for his file between the default period, if he has never seen the default entry on his file then was it ever there? Thing is they can default you (s.87/s.88 CCA) but not update CRA's until years later, so long as it utilises the original default date and does not repeat historical expired (+6yrs) data...

Make sense?

Still a bit of an ostrich, so only information is the stuff listed that I obtained.

Can you please clarify ....... I have original DNs which demonstrate that account defaulted in 2003; however if the entry wasn't made until eg 2007 or even not entered by the OC just by the DCA in 2008/9, which date counts for the 6 years? Does this make sense?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

Still a bit of an ostrich, so only information is the stuff listed that I obtained.

Can you please clarify ....... I have original DNs which demonstrate that account defaulted in 2003; however if the entry wasn't made until eg 2007 or even not entered by the OC just by the DCA in 2008/9, which date counts for the 6 years? Does this make sense?

The date of the default in 2003 is the only date they can register the default with the CRA's - if they forgot to then tough - they do not have carte blanche to go and add it 10 years later, for instance.

So facts of the matter are - you defaulted in 2003 and have proof so you write to the cra's and demand removal based on it being expired in 2009. Simply say, the lender had no right to duplicate the default entry and remind them it's a breach of DPA to report unlawful and inaccurate data.

Send a copy of the default notice which confirms 2003 as the default date - and do not mention court as this is irrelevant....

Better...?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

Fantastic. Everything was defaulted in 2003/4 (apart from my court case) and I have the DNs. I think it could be worth doing a few checks and sending copies etc.

[PlanB]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

Thank you Niddy. That's the first time I've actually understood this point

I've been worried that Barclaycard still hasn't registered any Defaults with the CRAs even though DNs were issued in July 2009. So from what you say I'm now half-way through cleaning up my credit file when I thought that process wouldn't even start until Barclaycard marked my file when they felt like it.

What a nice way to start my day

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

Thank you Niddy. That's the first time I've actually understood this point

I've been worried that Barclaycard still hasn't registered any Defaults with the CRAs even though DNs were issued in July 2009. So from what you say I'm now half-way through cleaning up my credit file when I thought that process wouldn't even start until Barclaycard marked my file when they felt like it.

What a nice way to start my day

Yes exactly, as the DN was 2009 that was the DN date - the bank can't now go and add an entry with Equifax saying defaulted in 2012, or you'd go to the CRA and say 'bollocks - see for yourself, looksie - 2009' - remove it or see you in court! They'll then remove it

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

I worked for the CRA's remember

I understood that you were formerly a swivel servant?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Defaults After Court Case Dismissed

However the data must be accurate and a 'true reflection' of the account conduct. In your case the original default would remain, the balance would remain (as it's still outstanding but the lender cannot enforce or pursue it) - it's not settled, nor is it satisfied - it was deemed UE via a judge. Though you need to think back to basics, was it defaulted? yes. Ergo, they are reporting accurate status of account.

I'm not arguing because I want to, it's because I understand the process and want for you lot to also understand it.

At what point would you say a debt farming parasite should cease to put a default marker on an alleged debt which had become statute barred?