Mobile Phone Defaults

[mkandy]

This may be a silly question, but i'll ask it anyway.

I recently got my credit report from all 3 agencies, all were as i expected, except Equifax which had a default from a mobile company placed there about 4 years ago, something i dont even remember.

Now i know that mobile contracts are services, and not regulated by the CCA, but what does this mean in terms of my credit rating. If i wanted to get a loan for example, would this be rejected because of a £20 mobile phone default?

[buzby]

You'd need to ask the lender - each have their own criteria on what they deem insignificant data. But this isn't an issue of just Mobile Phone companies - you can be 'defaulted' by just about anyone, your Gas and Electricity utilities, and even Councils are being urged to participate by reporting those late with their Council Tax or other services.

There used to be a time when a CRA would only be an issue if you were taken to court then lost, having a CCJ against your name. Now, this is the least of your worries, as firms no longer rely on the justice system - it's much easier (and cheaper) to say you are overdue on a payment and wreck it that way.

[mkandy]

Thanks for the info. Just shocking realy.

Im pursuing down avenues to have it removed, in any case it dissapears next year, but i guess any lender scanning through a credit file will say 'ohh default' just as i have done.

[buzby]

Yup = there is always that risk. It is also manifestly unfair - which is why I don't deal with companies that work this way (and it is getting more difficult every time).

[mkandy]

Just a quick update regarding this outstanding default. There has been a bit of pushing and pulling between myself and the company today, with them, as expected sticking to their guns.

They originally told me they couldn't remove a default, because they're legally required to record it. When i asked specifically what the legal requirement was, i recieved a cryptic reply, quoting no law.

"As per the D.P.A Information Commissioners guidelines and the legal requirements of Equifax and Experian we are bound to load an accurate record of the payment history of an account"

I then dug a little deeper and requested information as to why a default continues to appear on my file when the account has been settled, 5 years ago infact. Now, at this point i thought they werent regulated by CCA 1974, but then got this...

"Under the s.78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77(1) for fixed sum credit)there is no requirement for us to provide a notice of default as we do not offer deferred payment terms and under the Terms and Conditions provided when you took out your contract (Use and Disclosure of Information section) details of the account will have to be loaded for the required six year from the date of the default"

So they're not regulated by the CCA (or are they?!), but are quoting it as the reason for recording a default notice, which isn't a default notice under CCA, but a breach of their contract (yeah, which is a default in their terms).

So, on from that I asked if i could have copies of the requests for repayments sent out to me, as they're obviously not required to send defaults. To which i got a screen print of a load of numbers.

I never recieved any letters to my knowledge but we will wait and see what they magic up for me!

[buzby]

As you can see, they really do make this up as they go along. The sad thing is they are repeatedly allowed to get away with it as after two or three exchanges someone else takes over and the whole thing goes round one more time. (BTDT).

You just have to decide whether it is worthwhile wasting your own valuable time when they pretty much can tell you anything and couch responses in such wide-ranging terms as to make you doubt your sanity. The only way to catch them is to steer them in a direction that paints them into a corner that the only solution is to comply with your request. It is worth the satisfaction, but isn't a quick-fix by any means.

[mkandy]

I'm conversing via email with them so i don't really mind spending a bit of time, if i suceed a can get a house a few months sooner, but it's more the principals of the case.

I know the tactic i want to use, but i wont divulge that on here until i get a few more responses back from them. I'm enjoying making them flick through Wikipedia though, to try and back up their ridiculous 'legal requirements'.

I feel sorry for people who have got these 'defaults' on their credit file for a long time to come. It sickens me to think that the consumer base can be treated like garbage by the justice system, purely because they're not big fancy companies with millions of pounds worth of clout behind them.

Vodafone in comparison were much easier than this company, all it took was two letters threatening litigation, and 'as a gesture of goodwill' it was gone. This company however, cannot remove defaults in the same way, more 'legal requirements'!

[buzby]

Keep us posted!

[mkandy]

Well...one team has had enough of my moaning, onwards and upwards on the complaints laddder

[mkandy]

Small update, got a phone call from the complaints department today which caught me slightly unawares, i'm not entirely sure what was agreed now either so i'm going to have to get in touch again.

I do remember the dude saying 'we cannot remove the default' though. I think they were going to change it to 'settled', as if it were a CCA default...which it isn't!!

[buzby]

This 'settled' aspect has nothing to do with copying a CCA default - it goes back to the actual legal position of a CCJ. When the debtor is paid after a CCJ action, the debt is marked as 'settled'. It is only the CRAs who are perpetrating this, secondly with CCA agreements and now any old debt recorded by them. It's also worth remembering that a CCA 'default' has no legal standing in its own right, but many firms are saving money by NOT going through the legal process because they know the 'default' will still wreck the customers credit file and at very little cost.

[mkandy]

Thanks for that mate, so essentially a few years ago CRA's were only contacted after a CCJ and a default recorded afterwards, then CCA defaults came, without the need for court, and following suit, service agreement defaults?

From a legal standpoint then, with these service defaults, what legal requirement, if any, do all these companies have to adhere to? Every one of them obviously waves the 'we have a legal requirement to record accurate credit data' which is fair, but do they have a legal requirement to record 'defaults'?

[buzby]

Almost right, a firm called Registry Trust was created to hold and process court judgements. The CRAs subscribe to this and all information is sucked into their database about every living UK person with a 'credit' file.

The CCJ information is simply part of the information collation the CRAs use. Now, 'legal standpoints' don't apply, as this is a "club" that firms join to share retail intelligence on their customers and potential customers, It isn't a legal database in the sense of Registry Trust. The CRAs database is not publicly available, you need to be a supplier of data in order to join (in most cases).

The legal requirement statement is a complete, utter and total fabrication. There is NO legal requirement for them to record this data. The only requirement they have is the Data Protection Act, in their processing of the data itself, and that's a totally different matter.

What weakens the case, is that most service companies and lenders include in their T&C that you agree to them disclosing your details to third parties, and it is this that makes the individual lose any argument against such processing.

[stikky62]

On the Information Comissioners Office (I.C.O) website, they say The Data Protection Act states that anyone who 'processes' personal information must comply with eight principles ~ one of which states the information must be Accurate and up to date. If this was settled 5 years ago they are clearly not complying with the Act. You should write to them saying how much distress this is causing you (important because it paves the way for a possible claim to damages) remind them of their obligations under the Act, and ask for it to be put right IMMEDIATELY.
If they refuse to amend the records put a complaint in to the I.C.O. (keep your written evidence- Information Commissioners Office will ask for it before looking into the complaint)

my 2p's worth because im going through the process at the moment

[buzby]

There's no breach. But explain why you think there is. Five years is not an unreasonable time, as the Information Commissioners Office have agreed that 6 years is OK, so with that in mind, a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office is a little premature.

[stikky62]

Hi Buzby

If the account was settled 5 years ago, it should say so. (Statisfied)
Yes, the default remains for 6 yrs from the date it was put there, but the main heading of that entry should say Satisfied ~ not in Default.

Thats what i was getting at.....or have i mis-read this thread?

[buzby]

The trouble is with the terminology - their 'default;' will remain on the file IRRESPECTIVE of whether it is showing as outstanding or satisfied, which is what I took the concern to be. If it has been paid off, and the firm agrees, then they should certainly update this fact, but there is no obligation that mandates they should (other than the information they supply should be accurate).

So I'd contend that there is little to be gained by having a default modified from outstanding to satisfied so long after the the original default was added to the account - it makes it look like it took 5 years to clear it. The automatic scoring used by some firms only note and score the default, not any underlying modification....