Lending Stream / PRA Group

[andi2003uk]

Hi all, I'm on a quest to clean up my Experian report and have two entries for the same debt which I need some advice with.
They are Lending Stream & PRA Group.

The entries read as follows:

Lending Stream:
Account Started: 28/01/2011; Default Balance: £788; Current Balance: £0
Default Date: 21/11/2011; Last Updated: 15/06/2014;
Default Satisfaction Date: 13/02/2014




PRA Group: **This Debt relates to the above Lending Stream Entry**
Account Started: 28/01/2011; Default Balance: £808; Current Balance: £808;
Default Date: 05/01/2012; Last Updated: 02/11/2014


I'm a little annoyed / disappointed with this as I lodged a complaint with Experian stating that the details were incorrect:


1) Duplicate Entry - both Lending Stream & PRA Group report the same debt, yet Notice of assignment from LS to PRA is dated 20/02/2014 (assigned 30/12/2013).
2) Incorrect Balances quoted - Loan amount £350, total payable as per CCA £693. LS stated £788, PRA state £808.50, this includes: LS Arrears Letter Fee £12, Default Letter Fee £10 & a debt collection fee of £40 (PRA state they do not / have not charged a fee - see attached)
3) Incorrect Default Dates - LS Default Notice is dated 02/05/2011, LS entry on CRA is 21/11/2011, PRA entry on CRA 05/01/2012


I've emailed (and had a read receipt) PRA back regarding this but no reply, just their letters stating I still owe £808.50


Am I correct in saying based upon the credit agreement and the PDL rules that came into effect the balance should be no more than £630 (double the original amount) and that the info I outlined above is correct..


Sorry for the long post t's kind of a one last push to get the CRA's clear.
Oh nearly forgot a payment of £95 was deducted from my account which reduced the balance with LS as well as the £10 SAR fee was deducted from balance with
PRA.

LS_&_PRA_Letter.pdf

[nightwatch]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

SaltnVinegar is our man for this job. I will see if he is able to take a look for you, but I am sure someone will be able to point you in the right direction.
you are correct in that you should only have one account listed as defaultd with the CRA's maybe LS should of removed theirs when they sold it to PRA.

best wishes NW

[andi2003uk]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

Many thanks.
Which organisation would it be to goto?
ICO or FCA especially as it shows there is also no redress on the amounts from credit agreement to default to DCA, or would it be a case of contacting the original creditor again and stating everything explained above?

[nightwatch]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

you could always start a complaint with The CRA stating that they are the same debt but PRA have put a different default date and are refusing to communicate with you.
As this is an unfair report you are asking the CRA to contact PRA to correct date of default and amount owed at time of default;
other wise you may be forced to seek legal advice and as they(CRA) are recording wrong information, they will also be held responsable for not checking the data is correct,

LS default should drop off end of this year, so even if they remove that one. PRA need to alter theirs

[andi2003uk]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

I have already contacted the CRA and both LS and PRA have told them the records are correct.
So now i am screwed.

[nightwatch]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

Maybe maybe not, let me ask about for you

[andi2003uk]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

I was thinking should I contact the FSO / FCA relating to this?
As not only is it miss reporting but the values are also against the 100% limit imposed on PDL's

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

Hi sorry for not seeing this. It seems you're getting in a flap here rather unnecessarily. I'll try & explain so you can understand the processes better.

First, a default notice served under s.87/88 CCA is NOT the same as a default that's registered with the CRA's - in essence assuming we're talking the CRA's first, the account will default between 3-6 months after the first missed payment. This is good practice, agreed by all and part of regulation with the FCA / DPA etc. The reason is to allow you an opportunity to remedy an oversight without being penalised for 6 years with a default entry registered against you. So it's agreed that a lender won't add a default entry to your credit file until at least 3 months, but no later than 6 months since your last 'contractual' payment. It's to help you. Not hinder you. Usually you'll notice entries like [1], [2] etc before the default appears.

Now, moving on to the actual default notice you got through the post that's a contractual obligation before they can demand full repayment & has absolutely nothing to do with your credit file. It's the formal process a lender MUST go through before demanding full repayment. This can occur a month and a day after your first missed payment. So technically, if you last paid on 1st January and missed February, they could formally serve default papers on 2nd March. They could not, however add a default entry against your credit file. It's too soon.

Hopefully the above answers the dates issue?

Ok, so the entries that are recorded with the credit agency - there SHOULD be two entries, first the original creditors entry and then the DCA's entry, which should tally with the original creditors. The original creditor (OC) will mark their entry as satisfied (as they've sold it) and the date there should now be ignored. It's irrelevant really. The new owner - ie the DCA - will now add a duplicate entry under their name and the balance may differ from the formal s.87/88 notice because fees could be applied (if allowed in agreement) so the differing values are also acceptable.

So long as the account start date & default dates tally, then it's a correct entry. The OC entry must also be marked "satisfied". The problem is you're arguing that technically the default dates are wrong - one shows 11/2011 and the other 01/2012. That's your ONLY valid argument. Easy to resolve by doing this:

raise a dispute with the CRA and say "I wish to dispute the duplicate DCA entries data. The Original Creditor correctly marked the account as in default with effect from 21/11/2011 yet the duplicate Debt Collector entry shows an exaggerated date of 05/01/2012 which is quite clearly incorrect being the Original Creditor did in fact issue the default marker to start with. Please amend the entry to reflect the correct date as the DCA isn't cooperating."

They'll then sort it. If not let me know.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

I was thinking should I contact the FSO / FCA relating to this?
As not only is it miss reporting but the values are also against the 100% limit imposed on PDL's

Dont do anything yet. See my post above!

You must first formally complain to the DCA before the FOS can intervene but this issue is for the CRA to resolve - see what they say then I'll help you formalise it with the DCA to allow FOS involvement & remedy.

You need to try & relax a bit. You've got it all so wrong & would end up looking daft if you complained as you originally presumed. Trust me - this is my area of expertise. Lol

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lending Stream / PRA Group

For reference - read the top couple of threads in this section and you'll understand better -> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/f...hp?38-Defaults

especially this -> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...87-s88-CCA1974