Default removed, but then...

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Interesting.

I dont know as much as both of ye on this but my first thought when I read the OP's original post and connecting it to his thread that I was thinking exact same as graveytrain.

Its the wasp nest and big stick again. OP seemed to indicate early doors he was poking alot.

The OC here seems to be jumping through an awful lot of hoops on this one. Hoops that us meer mortals have a devil of a job to get most OC's even to jump through one.

The OC must have a reason to be doing all this and as has been said they don't normally go to such lengths to put their side in good order.

I hope not but if ever there was a time to stop poking my gut feeling would be its gone.

Are you saying the OP has chased this and tried to get something resolved....

If so, then ooops - I was not aware of any of this. Obviously you never argue defaults that are 4 years old, you'd leave it well alone but regardless, there can still only be one default entry which will remain as 2008; however it'd be good to know what he OP has done, so we can try and figure what the OC are doing and why they are keen to remedy a bad DN that is so old.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Right, seems it's linked here ---> allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - cardio's Diary

I am at a loss as to why a reclaim was put in when dealing with UE, this has actually caused you to go backwards as it appears they're removing the default, applying a credit then allowing you a period to rectify prior to re-defaulting, this is bad.

But all your own fault, sadly. You should never have pushed this, as soon as I confirmed it was UE you play on that. They can cancel the old default as invalid and leave it gone, then re-default you using a new date IF you accept this. You must write back and refuse the reclaim and also refuse the default amendment and stress that the default is already 4.5yrs old and whether they remedy s.87 & s.88 is up to them but the original default date of the account must remain as May 2008.

You need to try and back-peddle with things and undo the damage caused with this reclaim.

Whatever happens, you cannot let them extinguish the old default. If they do this and you agree they can then add another in a month or so when you don't pay the minimum payment due.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

You don't need to terminate an account to sell it on

It can be sold in partial assignment at any point, the OC can then instruct the DCA to take action and still remain the OC with the DCA acting as an agent.

I don't personally think s.87 is an issue here.

All we need to ensure is that the new default is not a newly registered default and instead, literally only replaces the bad one from 2008.

In this case the agreement was taken back the OC because the DN was not correctly issued(or that is what i read from the first post.

In order for a DCA to enforce, the agreement would have to be terminated on default, this would require a default notice.

Even in an an assignment in equity the creditor would have to issue a DN before demanding early repayment on the agreement.

As far as the registering of the default is concerned I agree the section 87 notice is not an issue, however the OP says he is not going to be able to remedy, the OC obviously intends to sell to a DCA, if he wishes to do this he will have to terminate the agreement.

He could terminate under a contractual term, if one exists, but that would incur all kinds of problems should the new owner wish to enforce.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

You don't need to terminate an account to sell it on

It can be sold in partial assignment at any point, the OC can then instruct the DCA to take action and still remain the OC with the DCA acting as an agent.

I should comment on this as i feel it is incorrect.

If an agreement is assigned even in equity the asignee would have to service the account.
If the new owner was a DCA he would only be equipt to chase amount due under the contract, not the contractual payments.
In order to do this the account would have to be terminated.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

I should comment on this as i feel it is incorrect.

If an agreement is assigned even in equity the asignee would have to service the account.
If the new owner was a DCA he would only be equipt to chase amount due under the contract, not the contractual payments.
In order to do this the account would have to be terminated.

Not quite.....

If the account is partially assigned then the assignee services on behalf of the OC and this could mean collecting payments for them. The fact a DCA is appointed to service a debt bears no relevance to the actual status of an account.

You are again bringing in formal methods of which the CRA entries do not apply.

A good example is Blair Oliver Scott who service HBOS debts or Metropolitan who service HSBC debts.

The fact they are owned by the bank means nothing, they can be assigned to collect the debt with the OC still in full control and in many cases they are chasing late payments long before any default.

Instead of relying on what could and should happen, we tend to stick to what does happen based on experience of the users here.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Not quite.....

If the account is partially assigned then the assignee services on behalf of the OC and this could mean collecting payments for them. The fact a DCA is appointed to service a debt bears no relevance to the actual status of an account.

You are again bringing in formal methods of which the CRA entries do not apply.

A good example is Blair Oliver Scott who service HBOS debts or Metropolitan who service HSBC debts.

The fact they are owned by the bank means nothing, they can be assigned to collect the debt with the OC still in full control and in many cases they are chasing late payments long before any default.

Instead of relying on what could and should happen, we tend to stick to what does happen based on experience of the users here.

I do base all my comments on experiences either personal or others i have been helping.

I think you are talking about chasing arrears on a live account, this would obviously not be terminated as the account would be live, however, whenever pre mature sums under an agreement are due the account must be terminated, if this is not the case the debtor would be contractually able to continue paying as per its terms.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

......If this is not the case the debtor would be contractually able to continue paying as per its terms.

Which is exactly the case here

Obviously assuming they really are giving him a chance to remedy, however I suggest he sticks to it and refuses all help and demand the original Default stands as at May 2008.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

The OC sold the account absolute to the DCA in 2010. However, I was still dealing with an issue over charges and fees with the OC. When I CCA'd the DCA they sent an application form which was not legible, and thus, after showing it Niddy, it was deemed UE. The DCA said it would apply to the OC for a 'better copy'...that has been the situationfor several weeks.

Meanwhile, the issue with the OC came to a head when they finally agreed a refund. After a brief period of dialogue, during which I cetegorically told them that applying the refund to the DCA was not acceptable to me, the OC stated that they would buy back 'part of the account'. In the end the OC have said they will buy back the whole account, maybe because the DCA has had enough of it ?

As regards the DN, this was not discussed with the OC..although there was an issue regarding them not using my correct address.The OC have picked up on this and for some reason, now, must feel vulnerable on this issue. They added they would remove the CRA entry..that presumably means they have withdrawn the DN.?

So my question was, where does that leave the account..is it live, is it defaulted...and further issues regarding what will their 'collections dept' letter say, when it comes ? What if they default again ?...will the refund settle the 'missed payments'...? and meanwhile, the CCA requests have not been satisfied, so it remains UE, or does it ?

If the OC have a strategy here, what is it, and what do they hope to achieve..

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Was the account still in arrears when the redress was made due to the PPI ?

Was it the case that after redress the account should not have been defaulted and this is why they removed the default marker ?

If so they should not reinstate the marker at all, it may be that they are now expecting you to make you normal contractual minimum payments.

If no section 87 default has been issued(or was invalid due to incorrect service or remedy sum) then the account must be live IMO.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Was the account still in arrears when the redress was made due to the PPI ?

Was it the case that after redress the account should not have been defaulted and this is why they removed the default marker ?
The refund of charges and interest (not PPI by the way)more than cover the arrears, although the OC pointedly said the refund would be applied to the outstanding balance...if that makes any difference.

If so they should not reinstate the marker at all, it may be that they are now expecting you to make you normal contractual minimum payments.
To do this I presume I could expect them to give me my card back I presume, otherwise, what is their legal justification for not doing so...

If no section 87 default has been issued(or was invalid due to incorrect service or remedy sum) then the account must be live IMO.

That is what I thought, but what happens from there...assuming that 4.5 years of CRA entry have followed from both a defective DN and as a result of £1,300 of admittted wrong charges..but meanwhile a CCA request has been totally ignored too...where is the signed copy of the agreement ??

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

When I receive the demand for payment from the collections dept, I will post up what it says.

I know Niddy is getting a bit annoyed with me, but I hope you will continue to help me, and maybe compose a reply when the time comes. The issue with the OC has been going on for years, and maybe I should have been clearer when I put this in my diary several weeks ago. The fact it has dovetailed into the DCA issue is mainly because the OC refused to pay me the refund directly.

It doesn't change the fact that the account is UE though, as neither the DCA nor the OC have satisfied the CCA request. Where is the signed agreement, which is exactly the same position I was in before the OC bought back the account.

I hope to have some support for the fact that the refund should remedy the arrears though, or already has..so unless I get the credit card back pronto, then can someone explain what the contractual position is with regards to that ?

If gravytrain is right, and the OC recognises the DN is remedied...how long before they should put everything back in place, as per the supposed agreement ...and if they don't ?

Sorry to be a pain, I have followed the guidance given on here, its just this refund has raised a few questions.. Not least, will a new DN set the 6 year clock running again......

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Hi

Ok let's try and go through the parts that matter, one by one.

1. The refund & charges covering arrears isn't that important unless the bank agree to recreate the account so its in a live status which they will do; by applying the reclaim monies but that doesn't mean they'll issue a card or give available spending. It'd become a repayment debt that simply gets repaid. (Using the 3% min payment or whatever - I don't mean demand full repayment - not unless you default/they terminate)...

2. A bank needs no justification not to issue a card. They can close an account at any time and request repayment. Think about it; when a card company sells up etc - they can stop the credit facility and make it repayment only at any time.

3. The CCA is not a full argument in itself. We'd have to push that so don't worry about that right now. If its your only default then obviously look to maintain payments. If not then don't worry too much at this stage (about the cca).

4. SB is not affected by THEM adding the reclaim as its kinda backdated to inception. Similarly the default at the CRA must see out its 6yrs now afterwhich it can never be defaulted again. The bank will try this trick from time to time to stop it going +6yrs of default / default removal.

5. I'm never annoyed

6. Gravy has a point about reversing things but we need to be clear - these are charges NOT ppi so the monies owed would not be affected by any reclaim (as if it were ppi) because those charges were retrospectively paid as a gesture if goodwill. Unless you can prove they outstripped the arrears then you can forget that - regardless they won't reissue a card.

To clarify, if you had calculated a grand of charges upto the date of default which showed an arrears value of anything LESS then they'd have to put things right (but no new card). If however the arrears exceed the reclaim of charges at the point of default then forget this avenue.

Make sense...?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

To end, do nothing and wait and see what happens over the next month!

We need to evaluate things later. Pointless guessing cos we don't have a clue right now what they're upto.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Thanks Niddy.

I can confirm that the interest, late payment fees and over limit fees that were charged before the OC issued the DN, amount to several hundred more than the arrears stated on the DN. I do understand that the payment due is calculated as a % of the balance, so maybe this is tricky ground. I can prove the amounts however as I have the statements from the time, and a copy now of the DN issued back then.

I should maybe add that at the time of the DN the OC had assured me of a 6 month reduced repayment plan, which I kept to...but after 3 months of this they defaulted me without telling me why they terminated the temporary payment plan. I have the letters from the time on file.

I know I've gone a bit for the OC, they really messed me up when all I needed was some support back then...they could, and should have helped me more..the fact they chose not to....well, as they say, don't get angry , get even...and £1,350 refund plus a bit of compensation makes me feel a bit better, I just hope I haven't loused everything else up ..

I will sit tight and see what happens....if nothing else, it's intruiging...

thank you

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Just a point worth remembering. They do not have to give you your card back if they re-instate your account(they can cancel your facility to draw down irrespective of default), personally I would not run the risk of falling into arrears again if the account has been put in the black so to speak, again personally I would want to know how much I still owed , when the minimum payment was expected and sum. (I am sure they would relish the opportunity to issue new legitimate charges to the account and re-issue a default).