This is snudgerchops fault.

[weebell]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Hi Everyone,

Letter below received from Apex in relation to BOS. CCA request was sent recorded 03/03/2012. Letter received from them was dated 06 March 2012. (Diary updated).

Thank you for your letter, in which you have requested all documentation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) with regards to your above noted account.

We cab confirm that your request is being processed and your account will be placed on hold pending its fulfilment.

We will write to you again with an update of our progress or on completion of the required documentation being supplied in line with the Act.

Quite a basic letter I think. So, if they don't reply within the 14 days of my original letter I guess I will need to fire off another letter?

Thanks

Weebell

[snudgerchops]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

the reply I used was also based on equifax thus I did the payment table layout and used the [D] marker etc!

Ok, the confusion was because of the difference between the two CRA'S.

Equifax, had all the details of the account as mentioned previously.

Experian, had no information on the account at all.

Thanks.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

[weebell]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Just so you know OH is on his way back from Edinburgh, he had an interview this afternoon, so will prob be tomorrow.

Hope this is alright. (I just don't get a lot of this). I'm ok with insering smiley's though!!!!

Ta Much

Weebell

[weebell]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

the reply I used was also based on equifax thus I did the payment table layout and used the [D] marker etc!

I'm a bit confused, sorry. Will get OH to have look.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Thanks Niddy and Cleverclogs.

Just to confuse matters:- the CRA report I was talking about was from Equifax, I checked with Experian today and there is no mention of this account anywhere on my file?

Niddy - I will CCA them as you have suggested.

Thanks again.

the reply I used was also based on equifax thus I did the payment table layout and used the [D] marker etc!

[weebell]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Thanks Niddy and Cleverclogs.

Just to confuse matters:- the CRA report I was talking about was from Equifax, I checked with Experian today and there is no mention of this account anywhere on my file?

Niddy - I will CCA them as you have suggested.

Thanks again.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Here you go - see the attached document for full details!

Straight from the Indolent Commissioner's Office, no less!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Here you go - see the attached document for full details!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

If an account is shewn as "settled", can a default marker be lawfully put on that account at a later date?

Yes because what shows on the CRA files is only a status code to indicate accuracy of events so if you think of the logical error which is:

You owe £5k and basically stop paying; the lender chases you for repayment over months 1-3 and thus mark your credit file accordingly [1]; [2]; [3] but then they decide to totally assign it to say Lowells.

Ok, so at this point your credit file may look something like:

[3] [2] [1] [0] [0] [0]

However, they've assigned it so this means they ought to settle it so the actual correct view would read as follows:

[S] [3] [2] [1] [0] [0] [0]

Then, Lowells come along and in true DCA style, default the account from date they purchased it (rightly or wrongly) thus meaning the account may well change to read as follows:

[D] [3] [2] [1] [0] [0] [0]

BUT this will only be temporary until such time they formally default utilising s.87 / s.88 in which case the entry should be changed to read:

[D] [6] [5] [4] [3] [2] [1] [0] [0] [0]

The [D] should be the actual official default date as per the s.88 request but the confusing thing is the CRA entry does not need to match the actual default date as a lender can class the account as 'in default' at any point they feel the relationship has broken down so really the credit file will always be static until such time as the lender or DCA formally defaults you (in line with OFT Guidelines on default issuance) at which point the default date will be static and should never change.

Hope this makes sense....?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

If an account is shewn as "settled", can a default marker be lawfully put on that account at a later date?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

For both accounts it is worth sending a CCA Request off, no harm whatsoever in doing this. If anything keep to the payments you're already making whilst you go through it....

The Egg card, well most Egg stuff was sold to Barclays and usually when the debt has been absorbed as a bad debt it is marked settled on your CRA so this should tell you that barclays have already claimed this as a business loss and any offer now would be seen as a profit to them, or they could simply have sold it (and the assigned rights) to a DCA who are yet to add the true defaulted status but in any case that doesn't matter so long as there is a bright red [D] on view (this is a good thing as once you get the default, it drops off your credit file quicker)!

Regards the overdraft, similarly, read that thread as linked above and send the CCA for bank accounts - see what they send back (if anything)!

[PriorityOne]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Sorry, forgot to say they offered me a settlement figure of £2800 over a year ago. Make any difference at all? Thanks.

If they've offered you a settlement figure, then it's a very good reason to CCA them... as this is often a sign that they have nothing to enforce, are fed up collecting token payments..... and want their hands on a lump sum before you realise they've bought a duff account.

Hope I'm right...

[Deepie]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

LOL. Really appreciate your comments but I'm confused now as there are different opinions about whether to do this or not.

Some are saying it's better just to leave it at £5 per month and not upset them.

Confused.

No harm in doing a....>......CCA Request lets see what they send back.......

[weebell]

Re: This is snudgerchops fault.

Unless your income increased fivefold, why did you agree to pay five times as much as you were originally paying?

It would probably be worthwhile finding out if it can be enforced and, if it cannot, telling Freds to whistle Dixie through any three bodily orifices of their choice if they want payments to continue.

LOL. Really appreciate your comments but I'm confused now as there are different opinions about whether to do this or not.

Some are saying it's better just to leave it at £5 per month and not upset them.

Confused.