UE - Question

[Diasflac]

Re: UE - Question

Just be careful your not confusing 1 default marked as settled by the old owner, and a new one being registered by the new owner, as thats how it should look.

All were on, once the new ones were removed, I still had the original default still do actually just checked. Now I know they're not supposed to I feel better

[Diasflac]

Re: UE - Question

Then again the old one going from default to settled and a new default coming up would impact my credit score just as badly, its still an extra default. They could change the account and delete the old record and then add a new one... But they don't do that.

[vint1954]

Re: UE - Question

You've misunderstood what I meant, the original default I'm happy with. What is happening at the moment is when the original creditor passed the buck to a DCA they register an account on my CRA as defaulted, this creates 2 defaults for the same debt. When they got no luck and pass it again the same happens. At one point I had 4 defaults for my HFC loan, HFC, moorcroft scott call then motormile finance. My IP got them all removed except for the HFC one.

Outside of an IVA can they give me multiple defaults per debt? it would make my CRA look far worse.

They can only update the original default, not create a new one

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: UE - Question

I've previously explained all this is the defaults section but plainly you can only have one default per account. Normally the bank defaults you and then when they assign it the bank default becomes satisfied and they stop reporting. The new owner (dca) takes over the data controller role and thus creates a new entry using the exact same details from the now satisfied default originally left by the bank.

The default date and default amount should be the same. If for any reason you spot two live defaults for the same account just raise an online dispute with the CRA - tell them it's a duplicate of the original entry and to remove it. As data processor they need to ensure the info is accurate so they'll usually sort it easily enough.

That's the layman version of what "should" happen and how to deal with duplicated entries.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: UE - Question

I was wondering generally about this. If you do go down this method and they cannot pursue the debt. Can you demand defaults and missed payments, well, the whole agreement, be removed from your credit file?

Another question on this is when the credit agreement was online so there is no signature but a "digital" signature, how does this work?

1. As others have said; going down the UE path only means you're fighting the creditor for time to reach statute barred. They can (and will) harass you and they can (and do) default you. McGuffick v RBS was case law in favour of the bank that stated a lender has the right to report accurate details regardless of enforceability so in essence if you defaulted, they can notify the CRA's because its factual.

2. Online applications utilise tick-in-the-box. This is the Consumer Credit Act (Electronic Communications Order) 2004. Read about it here --> The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004

As its piss easy to copy and recreate a tick in the box, accounts are more likely to be enforceable (as everything is done online so no signature etc)

Make sense?

[Diasflac]

Re: UE - Question

1. As others have said; going down the UE path only means you're fighting the creditor for time to reach statute barred. They can (and will) harass you and they can (and do) default you. McGuffick v RBS was case law in favour of the bank that stated a lender has the right to report accurate details regardless of enforceability so in essence if you defaulted, they can notify the CRA's because its factual.

2. Online applications utilise tick-in-the-box. This is the Consumer Credit Act (Electronic Communications Order) 2004. Read about it here --> The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004

As its piss easy to copy and recreate a tick in the box, accounts are more likely to be enforceable (as everything is done online so no signature etc)

Make sense?

Thanks, so I am right to believe they cannot do anything except hound me and default me until the provide the correct agreement?

If the check box is so easy to add, has no one ever argued "how can you prove it was me that checked the box?". Probably a lost cause if it's in the CCA but it's a valid arguement as a company could add it later.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: UE - Question

Thanks, so I am right to believe they cannot do anything except hound me and default me until the provide the correct agreement?

If the check box is so easy to add, has no one ever argued "how can you prove it was me that checked the box?". Probably a lost cause if it's in the CCA but it's a valid arguement as a company could add it later.

1. Yep - that's the size of it

2. It's an additional provision to the Act and a company can verify whether it was signed online, plus they'd capture your IP etc and you'd need to lie in court (not wise)....

They cannot add a check box to all agreements cos if you applied over the phone they'd send an agreement to sign, if years later they provided a tick-in-the-box version you'd know this was false and would stand there and argue till you were blue in the face, that it was never applied for online. It is easy to prove it's you that checked it, without it you'd not be allowed to proceed to the submit application button. If you had an account then clearly you ticked the box (if that was the provision used by the bank at the time you did apply).

[Diasflac]

Re: UE - Question

1. Yep - that's the size of it

2. It's an additional provision to the Act and a company can verify whether it was signed online, plus they'd capture your IP etc and you'd need to lie in court (not wise)....

They cannot add a check box to all agreements cos if you applied over the phone they'd send an agreement to sign, if years later they provided a tick-in-the-box version you'd know this was false and would stand there and argue till you were blue in the face, that it was never applied for online. It is easy to prove it's you that checked it, without it you'd not be allowed to proceed to the submit application button. If you had an account then clearly you ticked the box (if that was the provision used by the bank at the time you did apply).

Then I have one last question in regards to mobile phones, I once took out a mobile phone over the phone, I never signed anything, never saw a copy of the contract. How could they enforce this? A verbal agreement being upheld? They sent their terms and conditions with the phone but never a copy of the contract.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: UE - Question

Then I have one last question in regards to mobile phones, I once took out a mobile phone over the phone, I never signed anything, never saw a copy of the contract. How could they enforce this? A verbal agreement being upheld? They sent their terms and conditions with the phone but never a copy of the contract.

Mobiles do not comply with Consumer Credit Act - it's not a CCA is it.

Its a mobile tariff contract. Request a CCA and the supplier will laugh it off and ignore you, or something like that

[Diasflac]

Re: UE - Question

Mobiles do not comply with Consumer Credit Act - it's not a CCA is it.

Its a mobile tariff contract. Request a CCA and the supplier will laugh it off and ignore you, or something like that

How can you deal with mobile phone debts? If I'm getting off topic just request me to make a new thread

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: UE - Question

How can you deal with mobile phone debts?

Ignore them or pay them. 2 options