Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

[Still Waving]

(Sorry for the typo - Affecting.)

Hi

Please can the legal experts read and comment on the Court of Appeal case of Grace & Anor v Black Horse 30/10/14?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1413.html

Apparently it means that unenforceable debt cannot appear on a credit file without a note to say that it is irremediably unenforceable, and the CRA's are not currently set up to facilitate that. (EDIT: I think that is debt which a court has ruled is UE.)


(I heard this from another forum beginning with C and ending with G.)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

We've already discussed this on a previous thread. No it doesn't quite mean that (yet) - however it seems in time that banks and CRA's will need to do that (ie state it's disputed and not just default you) otherwise people will put in claims for compensation based on this case.

Its entirely up to the banks & CRA's to comply. It's not a new "law".... If they don't then others will claim citing this case as precedent.

[Still Waving]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

Thanks for that Niddy. I missed that other thread.

[oscar]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

What about where Tomlin Orders exist where court proceedings have failed / been halted in favour of the debtor?

Assuming there is no obligation to update as such at the moment same as UE?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

There's no obligation period mate. CRA's are voluntary subscriptions by companies - and thus it's a risk they take by allowing their customers (the banks) to record defaults willy-nilly.

In essence you'd think this judgment would make them create guidelines (internal / partner etc) to avoid costly claims. But in mitigation it may not be viable or worthwhile do they're taking that risk.

It's between the CRA & banks to sort this one.

[gravytrain]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

There's no obligation period mate. CRA's are voluntary subscriptions by companies - and thus it's a risk they take by allowing their customers (the banks) to record defaults willy-nilly.

In essence you'd think this judgment would make them create guidelines (internal / partner etc) to avoid costly claims. But in mitigation it may not be viable or worthwhile do they're taking that risk.

It's between the CRA & banks to sort this one.

I wonder about the practicality of claims in this TBH. It would presumably be a claim under section 13 of the DPA and despite all the ho ha regarding Durkin etc. general losses have never been awarded for this kind of breach.. So we are looking at consequential loss, if and when the CRAs get their act together we wold be talking about the difference in a default with the Unenforceable marker and one without. Personally I cannot see a potential creditor making a distinction between the two when making a lending decision.

I think that in the mean time there may be a window for those unenforceable agreements with a default marker to make some kind of claim if they have suffered by the entry but there a lot of maybees, the judgment for instance mentioned that the default was registered after the agreement was declared unenforceable, this is also a possible defence for the data processor, as under the act they are only liable if they misinterpret the available data.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

Gravy - I concur. Totally agree.

It's, as I said, probably not viable for the banks / CRA's to change their systems and they'll likely risk a few thousand small losses in court each year. It's small fry compared with a £1m system rewrite surely?

Plus i doubt many will be daft enough to start a claim. It's v risky.

[oscar]

Re: Court of Appeal ruling effecting credit files (30/10/14)

Would it be equally as risky, (where a Tomlin order or similar exists in favour of the debtor) to write to the DCA / Bank requesting removal of the data, citing the ruling.