Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

[Riz]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

If you can get a sensible response out of them, I would say best to continue with the ICO for now.

If they do what they should then they should look at it from the perspective of the info on your file being an accurate reflection of the account conduct and status, and being up to to date, in accorance with the principles in the DPA.

Their "guidelines" are their own take on what thsoe priciples mean for recording defaults, so if anyone is doing to take proper regard to them, then it's them.

Not saying they always do their job as we think they should, but at least if you can get a decison in your favour from them, then you'll stand a better chance of getting a removal actioned or upheld.

"Allegedly" the ICO is doing a re-write of the default guidelines. Can only but hope they make them a bit clear and internally consistent, but not holding my breath.

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

If you can get a sensible response out of them, I would say best to continue with the ICO for now.

If they do what they should then they should look at it from the perspective of the info on your file being an accurate reflection of the account conduct and status, and being up to to date, in accorance with the principles in the DPA.

Their "guidelines" are their own take on what thsoe priciples mean for recording defaults, so if anyone is doing to take proper regard to them, then it's them.

Not saying they always do their job as we think they should, but at least if you can get a decison in your favour from them, then you'll stand a better chance of getting a removal actioned or upheld.

"Allegedly" the ICO is doing a re-write of the default guidelines. Can only but hope they make them a bit clear and internally consistent, but not holding my breath.

Thanks, gonna keep my fingers crossed on this one. Will let you know the outcome.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Rizzle - and rumour has it the rewrite will encompass ue debts and irredeemably confirmed ue debts.

Coincidence maybe? We all know creditors are abusing the DPA based on them utilising the last tool available to them - a default with the cra.

Maybe just maybe the ico can see this as well...? Or they'll go against us an affirm the farcical current stance of "do what you want"

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

DBY - agree with rizzle. Best carry on with ico and leave FOS for now but you only have 6mth from date of final response of bank.

If no ico response by month 5 come back to us and we'll guide you on FOS complaint. Ideally the ico will back you then you go to FOS (within 6mths) and show the ico confirmation letter as back-up thus allowing consideration of compo from sygma

Usually £150-£300 for such a misdemeanour

[oscar]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Rizzle - and rumour has it the rewrite will encompass ue debts and irredeemably confirmed ue debts.

Coincidence maybe? We all know creditors are abusing the DPA based on them utilising the last tool available to them - a default with the cra.

Maybe just maybe the ico can see this as well...? Or they'll go against us an affirm the farcical current stance of "do what you want"

Would that nullify McGuffick - and would it be retrospective?

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

DBY - agree with rizzle. Best carry on with ico and leave FOS for now but you only have 6mth from date of final response of bank.

If no ico response by month 5 come back to us and we'll guide you on FOS complaint. Ideally the ico will back you then you go to FOS (within 6mths) and show the ico confirmation letter as back-up thus allowing consideration of compo from sygma

Usually £150-£300 for such a misdemeanour

Spoke with the ICO today, lady looked through the notes, she said i should have a response within 30 days, reckons my case isnt that complex. Anyways watch this space!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Would that nullify McGuffick - and would it be retrospective?

No because it's guidance not legislative or statute

[oscar]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

No because it's guidance not legislative or statute

So another case of "its only guidelines and we can do what the fuck we want"

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

You got it matey

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

So another case of "its only guidelines and we can do what the fuck we want"

Just an update - both defaults as of this morning have been removed from all 3 CRA's - although i have nothing in writing yet from the ICO or Creation to confirm this, I suspect the latter decided to remove.
Its worth noting that in cases such as this it is worth referring to both CPUTR 2008 and the DPA 1988 to see if the company in question has breached any of the regulations.

[Riz]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

Good news.

Hopefully that disappearance is permanent.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

My opinion is also that this tactic IS deliberate and malicious due to a slightly different slant I am seeing being applied to those on 'long-term' DMP's.

I have now seen many people who have been on DMP's for 6-8 years, who, on getting close to paying off their debt, THEN get defaults registered, screwing up their credit files for a further 6 years.

As has been mentioned in this thread, 'guidelines' mean nothing.

This is just another example where we really are not seen as 'customers' any more and there is no such thing as a bank & customer relationship. The banks are now playing nasty, especially since the consumer revolt over bank charges and PPI.

For me this only reinforces the advise of ensuring creditors default you BEFORE you agree a payment plan if you decide to do a DMP.

The issue I have with CRA's is that this information is now being used more and more by employers to assess job candidates. When there is very little recourse, (or requirement for expensive legal action), against creditors applying the 'guidelines' as they wish, getting recompense for adverse entries is difficult for the 'lay' person.

I think the CRA's should be the next 'industry' that consumer focus should turn to apply change.

Just my tuppence worth!

SnV

[DBY]

Re: Defaults Registered 4 & 5 years following account deliquency

My opinion is also that this tactic IS deliberate and malicious due to a slightly different slant I am seeing being applied to those on 'long-term' DMP's.

I have now seen many people who have been on DMP's for 6-8 years, who, on getting close to paying off their debt, THEN get defaults registered, screwing up their credit files for a further 6 years.

As has been mentioned in this thread, 'guidelines' mean nothing.

The guidelines are in some respects a reflection of the DPA 1988 which is of course law. Any such action by creditors that go against the guidelines and that are obviously malicious in their nature should be reported to the ICO with relevant details taken from the DPA as back up. You may even be able to extract details from CPUTR2008 in addition to bolster a case.
Essentially the more you throw at them the better.

This is just another example where we really are not seen as 'customers' any more and there is no such thing as a bank & customer relationship. The banks are now playing nasty, especially since the consumer revolt over bank charges and PPI.

Banks and other financial organisations are only there to make money - they dont give two hoots about anyone and this is infact reflected in their own inpersonal 'customer' service.

For me this only reinforces the advise of ensuring creditors default you BEFORE you agree a payment plan if you decide to do a DMP.

Great idea - get it in writing.

The issue I have with CRA's is that this information is now being used more and more by employers to assess job candidates. When there is very little recourse, (or requirement for expensive legal action), against creditors applying the 'guidelines' as they wish, getting recompense for adverse entries is difficult for the 'lay' person.

I think the CRA's should be the next 'industry' that consumer focus should turn to apply change.

Just my tuppence worth!

SnV

If you can prove that you have been distressed by their actions and have been at a disadvantage, which by all accounts is misleading and unfair to you based on inccurate data being filed on your CRF then you have every right to take them to court and sue for damages.

Can you elaborate more on your situation?