Default removed, but then...

[cardiac arrest]

My OC has removed a CRA entry dating back to 2008 as they admit it was sent to the wrong address. This has been on my file for 4.5 years.
They have also said they have bought the account back from a DCA to do this, and will issue a new default if I do not settle with them.

The question is, given I can not afford to settle, if they issue a new default (on the same account) will it have the original date or will it start again...ie another 6 years ? Also, which regs apply to this as they were updated in 2006 (or was it 2008) I believe (the account is 2002).

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

It'll apply from the date of original default, so 4.5yrs ago.

There are no 'regs' per se, it is ICO guidelines that suggest when a default is registered (between 3-6 months of missed payment) but as there was an error with servicing, this affects any UE claim and / or court action but will have no effect on the CRA entry which will still be removed in 1.5yrs....

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Is this a credit card?
I am supplied that they removed the CRA record at all to be honest, although having to buy back the account from the DCA, if it has not been correctly terminated, is standard practice.

The requirement to a send notice before placing a marker on the account is part of the ICO guidelines and the banking code, which says that 28 days notice should be given before a marker is placed, but these are only guidelines.

When replaced the date should represent the time that the account entered the default condition, which in this case would be the earlier date IMO.

Have you had a new statement of the debt now owed under the agreement, the problem is that if the account was not correctly terminated they may attempt to charge contractual interest for the intervening period

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

^^^ There is no Banking Code - it's defunct as are their old GUIDELINES.... the ONLY requirement is issued via ICO Guidelines, as already stated. Guidelines are not rules. It's now managed by the FSA and the new body is the Lending Standards Board (LSB)

There is no hard and fast rule as to adding defaults. Technically the lender can issue one a day after you miss a payment, but usually they should follow process and issue a [1]-[6] marker prior to posting a default - but that said, they can if they want to, add a default at any time.

the ICO will never ask them to remove it based on the notification value as there is no legislation that states they need to inform you.

There is with respect to the actual defaulting of the account, as you correctly point out above, they should remedy any DN in line with s.87 / s.88 CCA1974.

To Cardiac

However this is purely the CRA element and the answer to the original question remains, the date will still be the original default date. The lender may try and remedy it with the issuance of a new one but in that respect the original default date must stand as far as reporting of the account goes as you have already seen 4.5yrs of it.

If by remedying the bad DN they try and set a new one up using the remedy date, let us know and we'll try and help you get the CRA's to resolve it. Take a screen print of the original entry so you have proof.

[Riz]

Re: Default removed, but then...

ICO guidelines are guidelines, not rules.

Saying that, they are the ICO interpretation of what is fair under the DPA.

If you take it to court of your own back then they would be 'persuasive'.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

ICO guidelines are guidelines, not rules.

Saying that, they are the ICO interpretation of what is fair under the DPA.

If you take it to court of your own back then they would be 'persuasive'.

I do love that word, 'persuasive' - like the FOS decisions as well, but really it's a joke and there should be some form of rule to follow. After all, in Europe they abide by rules and not guidelines.... feckin joke!

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

^^^ There is no Banking Code - it's defunct as are their old GUIDELINES.... the ONLY requirement is issued via ICO Guidelines, as already stated. Guidelines are not rules. It's now managed by the FSA and the new body is the Lending Standards Board (LSB)

There is no hard and fast rule as to adding defaults. Technically the lender can issue one a day after you miss a payment, but usually they should follow process and issue a [1]-[6] marker prior to posting a default - but that said, they can if they want to, add a default at any time.

the ICO will never ask them to remove it based on the notification value as there is no legislation that states they need to inform you.

There is with respect to the actual defaulting of the account, as you correctly point out above, they should remedy any DN in line with s.87 / s.88 CCA1974.

I believe I said that these are only guidelines, I also still believe that the guidelines suggest a period of 28 days warning before they issue a marker, this as I also said was a requisite of the banking code which as you say is now defunct, however the warning period is still seen to be good practice.

Unless there are updates that i have not seen, in which case , could you please link me to them.

To Cardiac

Yes the default date should be the earlier one, although if this is a credit card they will need to issue a new DN under section 87 before they terminate and commence proceedings in court, this should not alter the default date on your file.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

however the warning period is still seen to be good practice.

That's the issue mate, means nothing and nobody pays attention as guidelines are not binding.

I'm not being pernickerty but the credit card or s.87 matters little in this scenario. There are NO rules as to what to do with respect to reporting default data to third parties - none, anywhere.

Only guidelines.

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

That's the issue mate, means nothing and nobody pays attention as guidelines are not binding.

I'm not being pernickerty but the credit card or s.87 matters little in this scenario. There are NO rules as to what to do with respect to reporting default data to third parties - none, anywhere.

Only guidelines.

This is true regarding the recording of the entry but the section 87 notice may be of some matter if the OC is gong to enforce I think.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

This is true regarding the recording of the entry but the section 87 notice may be of some matter if the OC is gong to enforce I think.

Good god please don't think like that - we don't like enforcement

Lets hope they are just rectifying things, cos they realise they are at fault and not cos they're going to try and enforce

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Given that these are only guidelines,as I said earlier I am surprised that the marker was removed anyway, what I wonder would be the reason in this case ?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Given that these are only guidelines,as I said earlier I am surprised that the marker was removed anyway, what I wonder would be the reason in this case ?

Maybe they actually want to rectify their errors.....

Nah, that's very unlikely

[gravytrain]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Good god please don't think like that - we don't like enforcement

Lets hope they are just rectifying things, cos they realise they are at fault and not cos they're going to try and enforce

Yes of course, although they would have to terminate the account before selling it on, and for that they would also be required to issue a section 87 notice.

[ken100464]

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 dont 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.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default removed, but then...

Yes of course, although they would have to terminate the account before selling it on, and for that they would also be required to issue a section 87 notice.

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.