Default removed, but then...

[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 They added they would remove the CRA entry..that presumably means they have withdrawn the DN.?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..

[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.

[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...

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...

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

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...

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...

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.