It's a few years since I was in trouble with debts, and on a much more even keel these days. Or to put it another way, all my previous woes have long since dropped off the bottom of my credit history (ie 6 years).

Recently in applying for financial products (mainly mortgages), I noticed they ask the expected questions about bankruptcy, credit defaults and even simply making special arrangements with a creditor. So far so obvious.

What bothered me was they ask if you have "ever" had/done any of these. To which my answer would be "not in the past 6 years" if I were being truthful, and I believe is the extent of their entitlement to information.

But I really don't want to get into that, so I've just lied and said no.

What bothers me is of course that I'm then signing a legal document which contains a lie, and that if I were to refuse to answer the question, I wouldn't get the mortgage.

I wonder if they are allowed to ask that question in the first place, or if you can still be penalised for refusing to answer it fully?

If its over 6 years its irrelevant anyway so your okay to state "not in the past 6 years" or even no........have you ever been or made Bankrupt ?

Andy

Is there a law that says a credit default is "spent" the same way some criminal convictions are? Or that a lender cannot ask about it?

I've never heard of such a law. 6 years makes debt statute barred in most cases but as regularly advised on here it doesn't extinguish the debt.

So I can't think of any reason why a lender isn't entitled to ask and take it into account if they want to. Whether it's fair to take it into account indefinitely is another matter.

Question is why do they ask...if the information is readily available..they wouldn't ask ?

That information is not available unless I tell them – which is kind of my point. As it’s not information which is allowed to appear on a credit report, my honest answer would have to be “not in the past 6 years”.

I wonder if they’re allowed to refuse me if I refuse to disclose information to which they aren’t entitled? Sounds like you guys don’t know either

No, I’ve never been made bankrupt and settled almost all of my debt, several by agreement (partial), and one by getting it written off due to them admitting to not having my original credit agreement.

CAG was of immense help to me at that time.

Thing is how could you prove they refused on information that you did not disclose...and they dont access to disprove otherwise ?

Safest to just lie then

I don't know the answer to your question,

but just add that it's not really correct that credit defaults over 6 years are "not allowed" to appear on credit reports, or that lenders "aren't entitled" to have the information, which implies there's a law or regulation which prohibits it.

AFAIK there is no law or regulation which would prevent credit reports going back more than 6 years (happy to be proved wrong about that if any of the experts here know better).

6 years is just the period the industry has chosen as its cut-off date (which may or may not be linked to the statute barred period).

The difference matters only in that if credit reports were legally prohibited from going back more than 6 years you could legitimately refuse to answer a question that went back indefinitely (as is the case with 'spent' criminal convictions)

. But if there is no legal prohibition there's probably no legal reason why a lender couldn't go back more than 6 years if they wanted to.

Unless a regulator or someone has deemed that an unfair lending practice, which is possible.

The CRAs refer to it as the " Six Year Rule ".. the Statute of limitations....a fixed period after the occurrence of the events that gave rise to the cause of action.... thats the Law that governs credit reporting in line with the ICO.

there is another credit search company that lenders use and it will damned well appear on their lists.

As Ethel says the idea of the 6 years limitations Act was to give people a fresh start knowing that they wont be harassed in the future should their circumstances change.

this means you cant be sued for a debt, not that the debt has disappeared entirely.

Credit reference agencies dont report for the same reason, they know that they are limited so dont want to upset the powers that be over ubnfair processing and reporting of data or they may well be put out of business by the govt.

all that doesnt mean that anyone HAS to lend you money, they will judge risk by many methods or at least are supposed to

Lie on a form though and not only will you not get the loans you may well end up in court.

Statutes of Limitation go back centuries but the modern explanation of their purpose is "...

the aim of the statutes of limitation is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims,

to protect settled interests from being disturbed,

to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on" [Court of Appeal 2008].

But they are as ericsbrother says only to do with taking enforcement action in the courts.

They say nothing about reporting information or holding information so I don't see how they are relevant to OP's dilemma.

I can't find anything on ICO website that says lenders can't ask about debts more then 6 years old, but if it's there and I've missed it I'd appreciate a link.

After 5 yrs if you were resident in scotland its extinguished gone dead parrot

In E&W after 6 yrs enforcement cannot be taken or mentioned in letters

The debt exists and you can be asked for payment

You can equally ask them to go away

Under conc fca rules if you send our sb letter they must cease all comms