I shall double check and post later. Many thanks.

Following on from this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?333360-Statute-Barred-amp-Defaults I've laid my hands on all three CRA reports now and there appears to be some anomalies between them. These relate to last payment dates and default dates. For example on two accounts the original creditor has issued a default, then updated the account to 'S' (Settled I assume) but sold the debt to Aktiv Krapital who have then done no update but issued a default(s) at a later date. I'm now comfortable with the terminology that explains how my debts are SB one month after last payment etc, and I appreciate will need to know concrete dates for those. However once I'm into the territory of the defaults dropping off can I legally contest two defaults for one debt, albeit with different account numbers / amounts. If I can prove they are one and the same? I should add being in Scotland I know they will be SB at 5 years, but on my report until 6. This always causes confusion as many helpful posters advise to check your CRA, and advise if they are not there they must be SB. So I'm not looking to remove the defaults early (unless I can!) just advice on the above. Many thanks

I think I'll SAR the one or two creditors, where I cannot be sure at all where the last payment was.

dx100uk - Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. How accurate are 'last payments' on CRA files? As I say I really don't want to even call any of them as they've pretty much left me alone for 3 years.

dadofholly - I could contact them, yes. However given I've not been hassled I'd like to keep my head under the radar whilst still being able to get the info needed. I have not to the best of my knowledge contacted any of them.

OK can someone please clarify? 1. SB outside Scotland is 6 years? 2. In Scotland it's 5 years? 3. Data drops off your credit file at 6 years? But......... What about SB debt in Scotland? If it is SB at 5 years then should the adverse data and default be removed from your file Or Does it stay on there until the 6 year point anyway? I hope that makes sense? Here is the problem I have. Most people are advised on the forum that if a debt is not on their CRA file then it is SB. I have several that should either be SB or are due to be. I need a sure fire way of knowing if they are indeed SB. I can't trust my memory and with CRA files only being as good as the companies providing the data I can't take them for granted either. Ideally I want to know 100% they are SB and get the adverse data removed ASAP. Hope that makes sense now?

dx100uk - I totally agree. The only problem I have is living in Scotland it's not as easy as checking the report and if it is indeed gone assuming its barred. I guess the only way is to SAR each creditor, but I'd rather keep my head down ;-)

I am in agreement with what's been said. I just wanted to query what I'd read on the other post. That aside once the 6 year S.B point is reached the default should drop off anyway, correct?

I spotted a thread yesterday (which I can now not find) relating to statute barred debt and defaults. I understand S.B means no payments or acknowledgment within 6 years (5 in Scotland) and that a default drops off regardless at the 6 year point. However, within the thread I read it appeared to suggest that if a debt is S.B before 6 years (in Scotland for example) then the DCA or owner of the debt can be asked to remove the default. Is this indeed the case?

No not at manky as them I will ignore I think.

I received a letter today from a DCA asking to confirm if I was the individual they have written to. The debt they are chasing is very close to being SB (Feb / Mar) Should I place in the ignore pile or start asking for a CCA?

My partner and I are starting to save for a house deposit. My credit is bad at the minute. It will all clear in 2013 however. My question relates to income. Could she apply with her as a sole applicant but declare I will be living there with my income thus giving more borrowing power? In all honesty we'll probably be saving until 2013 anyway given the deposits needed, but just wondered what the rules, or rather ways around them were

It looks like funds that should have gone in on that day didn't and as such the DD was returned so in effect it's neither the banks fault, nor that of Zebra the finance company. In that respect I'd expect to be levied with some sort of charge by someone, possibly. The more important question for me is whether £25.00 is deemed reasonable as a charge by Zebra? They seem to think that this is fine for two reasons. Firstly that's what it cost them in a returned DD, and secondly it's in the contract i.e CCA. In my mind I always thought that unreasonable contract stipulations were just that. The Government and OFT had basically stated, in lay terms, that the contract can have you effectively sign over your Granny, but if it falls out with the set guidelines then it's unethical, unlawful and not fair?

Hi All, Not sure if this is the correct forum but here goes! I have an account with a company called Zebra Finance. It allows me to pay for a football season ticket over the year, rather in one hit. For some reason my DD failed on Friday. I've yet to investigate. However Zebra have hit me with a £25 charge which to me seems excessive. What are the guidelines set out now for those collecting under the CCA and failed DDs?

Thanks. Here is hoping for the lucky route! Am I correct in stating that if the DCA add it as their debt now it has to reflect the original data, i.e default dates, last payments etc?

I've noticed today two accounts have been deleted from both of my credit files. Neither of these have reached the 6 year point. They were owned by the same OC, although one was allegedly sold to a DCA. Anyone any idea what has happened here?

Thanks to the Brig and 'Boo for the input

Well after receiving a few letters from 1st Crud including a '12 days until legal action' letter it's all gone quiet. Are they likely to be looking for a CCJ by default given I've not contacted them? I'm obviously holding out for the debt to become SB, but really don't want a CCJ...........

Ah OK, it sounded from an earlier post that their decision to stop IB was cut and shut for you. The way I am lead to believe this works is as follows; All those currently on IB will migrate to ESA. This will happen at their reassessment point for IB. If they have enough evidence they'll migrate you automatically, if not it's a medical. So what you've said is effectively the migration process. Those close to retirement age will be left alone on IB. I'm pretty sure on that and it's as you say. I'm sure you said earlier that your IB benefit money is due to stop. What brought you to that conclusion? Was it a fearful assumption? Believe me, I can relate to that! As far as I know nobody will have their IB benefit stopped until they have been through the process and a proper decision made.

So if I understand things correctly you may now be entitled to ESA? If this is the case will the Incap automatically stop? I'd have thought if there was any chance you'd be entitled to ESA they'd put you through the migration process?

But what is actually legally enforceable? My understanding is that reconstituted agreements are being accepted in court. However this only applies post 2007. Is quoting the Carey case just a bit of flannel?

Count, I'm assuming you've reached your natural review date for your incapacity claim? Normally with an incap claim it is given over a prescribed time. At the end you are either awarded automatically given the evidence they already have, or a review which ranges from a questionnaire to a full medical is arranged. Obviously the migration to ESA has many people very worried. However unless you are in one of the pilot cities / towns your migration to ESA should be on your review date. This was stated on a DWP internal document. I don't have it to hand but it is available via the public domain through Google. Assuming you've reached your review date they cannot just decide not to renew your claim. Otherwise some desk jockey who is not medically trained etc would effectively saying you are fit for work! Obviously if the evidence they have shows you are not, and are likely not to be then they despite sitting at desk etc are able to continue the claim. Assuming someone hasn't taken it upon themselves to just cancel the claim you should have been given a questionnaire and / or a medical. Did this happen? I know of many people who with assistance from local welfare services have successfully defended their claims and won back their benefits. Granted they were moved to ESA as that's just the system, but they did have their claim upheld. I appreciate this is something you may not wish to discuss but please feel free to PM me if you'd like to. I'm not experienced in debt at all really. However I have looked into the incap area a lot.

Thank you kindly.

Having confused myself silly I thought I'd just ask the question If an account was started prior to 2007 does there have to be an original, signed agreement for you to be pursued in court?

Thanks. I think I'll just keep my head down though