Help with Cabot

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

Sorry if this is a silly question but do creditors ever remove default markers even after a full and final settlement, I didn't think they could, and they would just mark the file as settled.

Could be wrong though

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

I have read about a few cases where DCA's have said they would remove defaults but then when the debtor looked they hadn't, it was just marked settled.
But of course I am not doubting you, I suppose it is a case of putting them in a position where they cannot renague on their bargain.

I just wonder about the legal position, i mean they have a statutory duty to record the payment history of the account, making a full and final does not alter the fact that the account was in default.

If it is the case that PPI had been missold and the the account should never have been in default, or the marker was placed in mistake as in Durkin then that is different.

[BBoo]

Re: Help with Cabot

If you read this letter,you will see why they may be encouraged to remove a default:

allaboutDEBT | Our Templates | Making Creditor Offers - Official F&F Offer for Default Removal

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

Oh I see sneaky

[helmsman]

Re: Help with Cabot

Oh I see sneaky

No. Its Brilliant

[Beefy1976]

Re: Help with Cabot

Thanks again for all the replies. I had seen that template but I am not certain what the following actually means.

'The alternative is for me to place the account formally into dispute and demand s.10 CCA (1974) is brought into play (cease & desist) whilst I reclaim all unlawful charges combined with all costs.'

I have tried Google but couldn't seem to find anything about s.10 cease and desist. Does anyone know what it actually means? I don't want to send the letter if it is not applicable in my case.

Cheers,
Beefy

[MrsD]

Re: Help with Cabot

it's a very rare occurrence

if you were in default, ie didn't pay the minimum payment in the time limits, you were in default, so they can report to the CRAs as a default, mostly end of

[BBoo]

Re: Help with Cabot

Thanks again for all the replies. I had seen that template but I am not certain what the following actually means.

'The alternative is for me to place the account formally into dispute and demand s.10 CCA (1974) is brought into play (cease & desist) whilst I reclaim all unlawful charges combined with all costs.'

I have tried Google but couldn't seem to find anything about s.10 cease and desist. Does anyone know what it actually means? I don't want to send the letter if it is not applicable in my case.

Cheers,
Beefy

The Cease and Desist letter is used to stop them taking any action now and in the future, or you will take legal action. S10 is as written.

[Beefy1976]

Re: Help with Cabot

The Cease and Desist letter is used to stop them taking any action now and in the future, or you will take legal action. S10 is as written.

Thanks for that. Would that be relevant in my case though? That's the bit I am failing to understand.

Cheers,
Beefy

[BBoo]

Re: Help with Cabot

IMO, it is unlikely any default would be removed in a F&F, though you may well get it marked as settled. The only way you would be likely to get the default removed entirely is if there was an error in the way it was placed on your CRF -eg- a defective DN.

I don't believe the CRA's can totally remove the default, as I imagine the ICO would probably have something to say about that.

Do you remember receiving a DN? Do you have a copy of it? If not, I'm beginning to think a SAR may be the best route to go in order to get all the information they have about your account.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

I agree that it is unlikely for the creditor to remove a marker once an account has been defaulted, however if people on here have had experiences otherwise then i am not going to say they are mistaken.

Regarding the section 87 default notice, my understanding is that this is more to do with commencing legal action that registering a default on your file.

The ico recommend that 28 days notice is given before registering a default but this is a different requirement. and only a guideline i think.

I do not think an incorrect section 87 DN will have any effect on the registering of a default on your file

[ken100464]

Re: Help with Cabot

Would tend to agree gravytrain.

It is supposed to be a factual record of how the account was run.

ICO would only be interested if there was incorrect data processing going on.

If someone gets into trouble then they cant start changing things because it suits the individual company or individual otherwise you would be able to buy and sell defaults like anything else.

Would think you would need to prove the data was incorrect. One that would come to mind would be something like a PPI ridden account where they have defaulted you and you then win it all back and more.

Your data has been processed wrongly due to the PPI element which no longer exists. So you are now being penalised into the future for something that has been corrected in real life.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

Would tend to agree gravytrain.

It is supposed to be a factual record of how the account was run.

ICO would only be interested if there was incorrect data processing going on.

If someone gets into trouble then they cant start changing things because it suits the individual company or individual otherwise you would be able to buy and sell defaults like anything else.

Would think you would need to prove the data was incorrect. One that would come to mind would be something like a PPI ridden account where they have defaulted you and you then win it all back and more.

Your data has been processed wrongly due to the PPI element which no longer exists. So you are now being penalised into the future for something that has been corrected in real life.

Yes this is what I am looking into at the moment regarding my default on a VT'd agreement.

An authority is Durkin and others, where it was held that damages could be claimed for an incorrectly placed default.

I am reading up on the relevant case law at the moment, but as you say it is all about proving that the account was not in default so the notice should not have been recorded.

[ken100464]

Re: Help with Cabot

Yes totally agree.

Dont think the industry has quite woken up to this yet.

Surprisingly we had a Halifax account which wouldnt default and I suspected it was because they were still getting dosh out of us.

But now after we have won our PPI claim I understand that a default would have been unsafe. So perhaps Halifax actually got it right knowing a PPI claim was probable.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help with Cabot

I wonder if anyone has gained compensation for damage done to credit record after mis-sold PPI under section 13 of the DPA.


13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.

(1)An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
(2)An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—
(a)the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
(b)the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.
(3)In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.


Would sub section 3 be a defense I wonder.