Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Ahh now it all makes sense, this is a Creation Finance (Sygma Bank) finance agreement - they are a nightmare at the best of time so I fully appreciate the headache they're causing you - plus being French/Brummie, their take on the DPA is somewhat sketchy to say the least!

Yes indeedy!

Personally I think theyre worst than a nightmare - not sure how they think they can make their own rules up as they go along. Personally I think this is a straight forward issue, so should have clarity on the outcome sooner rather than later. If you giuys have any other advice please let me know.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Yes indeedy!

Personally I think theyre worst than a nightmare - not sure how they think they can make their own rules up as they go along. Personally I think this is a straight forward issue, so should have clarity on the outcome sooner rather than later. If you giuys have any other advice please let me know.

If you have formally complained to the ICO then see what they say, afterwards we'll clarify next steps for you - ie FOS etc but best to get the ICO's take on things first.

If they rule in your favour then you ought to go to FOS regards Sygma and get them done a wee bit more. If the ICO rule against you then still go to FOS and argue it there.

It's a hard one with few successes to base any likelihoods upon unfortunately....

[Riz]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Tactic I tend to use is to make myself such a nuisance that creditors get fed up and take the thing off just to get rid of me.

Sometimes works, anyway.

But yes, progress via the ICO/FOS etc.

[SXGuy]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

The thing im finding hard to understand is this.

If they are allowed to file a default when the debt is sold, then surely the date of default would still need to reflect a date no later than 6 months since the account fell in to arrears?

Regardless of whether they can or can not file a default after 6 months, the point surely still remains that the date would need to reflect the true date.

And if its been 6 years since that true date, then that data would have to be removed from the CRA??

When a debt is sold on and someone had already been given a default, the new creditor files their own default right? but the date is still the correct one. So this should be no different.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

No mate. Wrong end of the stick.

The default itself was registered at the point they defaulted. They kept the account live for 4-5 years. They didn't previously default the account so it's the first and original default.

[mgfboy]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

I suppose that lenders dont have to file a default at all, I have a Natwest card that they agreed they had lost the agreement in 2009. I haven't paid a penny since , they haven't defaulted me and it doesn't appear on my credit record either!!!!

They do send me a statement every so often, so one day they may change their mind

[SXGuy]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

No mate. Wrong end of the stick.

The default itself was registered at the point they defaulted. They kept the account live for 4-5 years. They didn't previously default the account so it's the first and original default.

I hear you, i just thought from what i had read that default dates should reflect when the account actually first defaulted, i.e between 3 to 6 missed payments.

for example, what if you missed 6 payments, then continued to repay after, and 5 years later you miss 1 payment and they then decide to default you, if im wrong then thats something surely unfair with the law.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

In the example above, the rules allow for this to happen. Yes.

If you miss a payment they can add a default at cra ONLY using a different date UNLESS they've formally defaulted under s.87/s.88 CCA1974 in which case the only date to load to the cra is the actual default date.

In essence "good practice" is the ICO Guidance i.e default within 3-6 months. In theory that's bollocks.

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

I hear you, i just thought from what i had read that default dates should reflect when the account actually first defaulted, i.e between 3 to 6 missed payments.

It should, as per the ICO guidance notes on filing defaults and if you fail to deal with their default notice.

for example, what if you missed 6 payments, then continued to repay after, and 5 years later you miss 1 payment and they then decide to default you, if im wrong then thats something surely unfair with the law.

They should only default you if you fail to deal with any default notice sent to you. If, in my case, you stopped paying 7 years ago and they never bothered to send a DN then only 'realise' 4 and 5 years later that the relationship has broken down then decide to default you then this would go against the ICO guidance. That type of action is grossly unfair and designed to be malicious.

[mgfboy]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

It should, as per the ICO guidance notes on filing defaults and if you fail to deal with their default notice.



They should only default you if you fail to deal with any default notice sent to you. If, in my case, you stopped paying 7 years ago and they never bothered to send a DN then only 'realise' 4 and 5 years later that the relationship has broken down then decide to default you then this would go against the ICO guidance. That type of action is grossly unfair and designed to be malicious.

It could be argued that most defaults that are placed by lenders are malicious in their intent, when an account is unenforceable.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Ok let's not forget a default at the credit agency is NOT a default as served under s.87/88 CCA. With that in mind you have to realise a lender can choose whether to add any data with a CRA or to leave no trace. It's their prerogative. So if they formally defaulted you by serving a s.88 DN then you'd have that date (the remedy date) as the date of default registered with the cra. The lender cannot at this point alter the default date.

However, if you last paid in jan 2007 and then ignored the bank, they "technically" have until jan 2013 to register a default marker with the credit agency. If they add a default and then formally default you under s.87/88 at a later date; tough. One default per account.

So if you have a copy or any proof they added a default entry in the past (then removed or altered it) with cra or served a formal DN then yes you can fight this otherwise the lender can use the oldest excuse going "it took us 5yrs to trace the debtor" or they can say "our automated systems missed it" - both are examples where the ICO will find against you.

The FOS on the other hand look at the overall picture and if you can convince them (not by throwing terms and statute at them) that the lender abused their position then that's a whole new ball game. The FOS can demand removal of adverse entries - the ico cannot (the ico make recommendation for change)!

Hope you understand I am 100% on your side and think the systems a pile of pish but I'm familiar with the process and the legislation thus I'm being honest and trying to stop you wasting time if indeed this is a wasted argument.

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

However, if you last paid in jan 2007 and then ignored the bank, they "technically" have until jan 2013 to register a default marker with the credit agency. If they add a default and then formally default you under s.87/88 at a later date; tough. One default per account.

Are you sure thats true? Doesnt ring right to me....
If you last paid in Jan 2007 and didnt make any further payments, then the 'bank' should follow the ICO guidelines and default your credit file within 6 months. This is clear guidance as set out by the ICO, as below.

11 Time framework

Although there will be some flexibility in the definition of a breakdown, we believe there should be general rules for the minimum period of arrears which should exist before a default can be filed. Equally there should be a maximum period after which, if anything is to be recorded with a credit reference agency, a default must be filed. The following are in line with the practices currently adopted by most lenders.

1. Accounts should not be routinely filed as being in default where full payments or those due under a rescheduled agreement are fewer than three consecutive months in arrears.

1. Accounts should normally be filed as being in default where those payments due have not been received for six months.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

^^^ I know what they "should" do. I'm telling you that they don't do though.

Go to consumer complaints - niddy v HSBC. I lost this exact fight with FOS. A week ago I got the verdict and not being big headed I ran rings round the little bastards and quoted statute after statute and STILL they said the bank can do what the feck they want. No shit. Read that and be shocked to the core.

Then you'll see why I'm saying this. Yea you may win if you waste £10k dragging it through civil courts but you may also lose. Thus we apply common knowledge, not a guide created for banks to refer to.

The ico guidance paper is just that; guidelines. It's not statute nor legislation.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

ps I'm 1,000,000% sure it's true. Fact.

[mgfboy]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Are you sure thats true? Doesn't ring right to me....
If you last paid in Jan 2007 and didn't make any further payments, then the 'bank' should follow the ICO guidelines and default your credit file within 6 months. This is clear guidance as set out by the ICO, as below.

11 Time framework

Although there will be some flexibility in the definition of a breakdown, we believe there should be general rules for the minimum period of arrears which should exist before a default can be filed. Equally there should be a maximum period after which, if anything is to be recorded with a credit reference agency, a default must be filed. The following are in line with the practises currently adopted by most lenders.

1. Accounts should not be routinely filed as being in default where full payments or those due under a rescheduled agreement are fewer than three consecutive months in arrears.

1. Accounts should normally be filed as being in default where those payments due have not been received for six months.

I agree with Niddy from personal experience , ICO guidelines are just that guidelines and are not enforceable either way. It's a bit like the Banking/Lending Code when push comes to shove it has no power as there is no sanctions that can be applied and nobody to action them if there was!!!!