Jump to content


Registered User

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Peterbard

  1. Re the above. Vanquis removed the marker the same day as my last post, no contact no apology yet again. That restores my 100% success rate. Bad news is that I will not be able to use this case, It would not be fair on the debtors, who are very elderly and have had enough, dont blame them. However at least they now have a clean CF.
  2. DX. I really think you should try and get your head around this. The buisiness, does not have to send a section 87 CCA part v default / chance to pay part v notice to register a default. The D on your credit file and on the calendar section which reports the state of the account with codes, for instance P D U to illustrate whether the account is now in default, that would be the D. This marker only shows that there has been a "Breakdown" in the contractual relationship and nothing more. Summary info, does in fact show accounts which are in default, as it effects your score. Nothing on you credit file effects enforcement, just your credit score.
  3. I am currently commencing a Harassment action against vanquis, concerning 2 vanquis accounts put on a DMP in 2011. I have previously managed to get both these account defaulted and then the default moved back to 2012. Despite both accounts maintain agreed payment, the company have falsified missed payments in order torepalce the account and add a d marker within two years of the current date. I recently had the Ombudsman advise them to remove an again re appearing D and pay £100. Two days later the D appears on the husbands account stating missed payment's. Coincidence? Three times they have PROMISED to keep the record clear on these accounts. Despite having to act on the last occasion they have not contacted the debtors with any explication. Forgive me but this needs sorting now, whatever it takes, they are taking the piss. It suits them to pretend the account is active, so they pretend it has not been defaulted, they even send statutory notices to enforce the belief, then when it comes they want to sell the account, they are stuck, so they have to invent some reason to default.
  4. Why are you rocking the boat? When vanquis sell these to arrow or whoever, they usually default the account and backdate to when the arrangement was made. I say usually, not always, that's where the trouble starts, when they do not backdate they default, then you have to remind them. peter We? Dx the credit rating is based on what the CRA think the creditors will make of the report. So if it affected the score, they must think the data is available to the prospective creditor. Simple logic.
  5. Dx would know, this. Once they were an easy win. The procedure would be to ask the creditor for a a copy of the Default notice and a notice of assignment, they would have had to be send both before selling the debt, or do a request under GDMPR and see what turns turns up. Fuel for a set-aside application.
  6. I suppose you could query the Default notice, perhaps if you were having your mail forwarded, you could contend you did not receive one. If you didn't send a DN they shouldn't have enforced. Ask them for a copy and when the Section 87 Default notice was sent. I dont know what the success rate for claiming no DN is these days on a set aside application?
  7. The situation is this. If the debt had a default recorded before a payment arrangement is made. And the creditor agrees to an arrangement, then a D. should not show on the file. However, if one month is missed the creditor is permitted to mark it with a D. What you have to argue is that this is unfair, especially if some other marker, had been applied in the interim. What you want is the marker on the account then for it to be backdated. A default or missed payment is always viewable to any prospective creditor, if it wasn't, there would be no point to having one.
  8. It should be, of course. There should also be mention of it on the information page.
  9. Where are you getting this from DX, it is completely opposite to the information I have from Experian. I would think a prospective creditor would want to know, say, how old a default is?
  10. Sorry to correct you dx but one of the main things a prospective creditor will examine is the credit history of the applicant. "https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/how-lenders-view-your-credit/
  11. If the bailiff has received the LO, they can charge the Compliance fee £75. If they are to continue, they have to send a NOA. Are you sure you have not received correspondence from them? if not you owe £75 if you have its £310
  12. I hope this wasn't your last word on this Paul, because there is Zero chance on either of the above. As far as I can see there have been no breaches of the DPA, and there was no such Judgement in Durkin. The English court could not make one, and damages were thrown out, unless you mean the derisory damages awarded by the Scottish Court. Good luck anyway.
  13. Hi UB I think you may be incorrect here. As far as i know, if the couple were legally Married all assets would be split 50/50, upon divorce. The thinking being that even though one party made the money, it may be that the other provided support for him/her to be able to do so. Think of a professional couple, where one agrees to look after the kids whilst the other works. Regards Peter
  14. Yes addam and you are right too worry. Firstly you have to appteciate that what is on your credit file has absolutely nothing to do with the requirements oftbe consumer credit act to send a default notice u der section .87 whether one of these has been issued or not has nothing to do with what it says on your file. Secondly and not wishing to upset anyone specifically. Whilst the form of the report issued to an inquiring creditor is different to what you see on your credit file. It does contain ALL the information that you see. I can tell you this first hand. sadly the DCACan and often do register a D on your file. If you enter into an agteed plan with the creditor then no default is recorded. However if, down the road you miss a payment they can. On one missed payment if you had two or more missed payments previously. Or three if you had no previous missed payments. This is why they tend not to default immediately.. it is a disgrace. You can fight it as being unfair. But really the law needs to be changed.
  15. Sorry Adam for not getting back to you earlier. I am afraid DX is wrong in this. If you are on a DMP, the new owner can, of course record missed payments and defaults on our credit file. It is also true that a debt purchaser, who has undertaken an assignment of the debt from the original creditor can issue a section 87 default notice, and proceed to court action. the latter is not something DCAs do often, but they certainly can. I suspect what DX means is they cannot issue two DN 87s. Which is true, but they can still enforce off the old one if it has not been remedied.
  16. Andy this is old news, I am afraid you are going to have a look at the GDPR Higher procedure for recording defaults on arrears or arrangements. I am afraid it is not so simple anymore. I am sorry but I am to busy to hold your hand through it, and I am told not to post legal explanation. OP Sorry. Perhaps that call to the ombudsman will clear it up for you.
  17. Wont work I am afraid, at least not in itself. Broadly, a creditor can record a D on a re arranged debt under certain circumstances. Yes I know, completely unfair, and needs challenging, in court desperately. I would make your complaint, and when you get the final response go to the FCA ombudsman, The number is freely available, you ring in the first instance and he will tell you what he needs. Generally, if you make a fuss they eventually cave in to avoid court action, but it requires perseverance and can take a while. I think i stated the situation elsewhere on this forum. @ London. The Section 87 notice is a requirement of the CCA, and has nothing to do with data recording. Although you should check if a warning of filing the debt was issued 28 days before it was placed on the record. @Andy A notice of correction is a mixed blessing to say the least. All they do is disrupt the initial search from a prospective lender, generally they do not proceed to to examining the account, if the search is "footprint free" the creditor cannot see it without registering the search.
  18. That would be me. Any signs of the response yet?
  19. Paul. The word expert is very subjective, we have seen a few "experts" on here. There are some on the team.
  20. Paul. I understand what you say, but this was a large judgement and 90% of the claim was thrown out, this issue was referred back to Sparkie and Black horse for out of court negotiations or for another court to decide if sanctions were appropriate. As said everything i have read both before and since agrees with the ICO quote above. Have their been ANY successful claims using the "precedent " since. it was 2014 after all. There was no costs awarded, no sanctions, and the claim was not picked up in the later GDPR. Look if you want to leave it in then do so, I dont think it will harm your case, it is just a distraction. I was asked for my opinion, that's it.
  21. Here is the result of a query made to the ICO in 2015. The ICO has considered the circumstances in which the credit reference agencies should be permitted to record details of unenforceable credit agreements. In doing so we have had particular regard not only to the clear legislative intent that the absence of a signature on a credit agreement should no longer be an absolute bar to enforcement, but also to the following factors; 1) The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor. 2) Where a liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount due has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable. 3) Responsible lending decisions are dependent upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts. Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable regulated agreement. It follows that where the existence of the agreement is not in doubt we consider it to be appropriate for information about the agreement, including any failure by the debtor to repay his or her debt to be recorded with the credit reference agencies. Where a 'debtor' disputes the existence of any credit agreement, enforceable or other wise we would ask to see evidence of the agreement and its terms. This might include evidence of the provision of the credit facility or of a history of payments made by the debtor.
  22. I think you said it Paul. The D should have only been registered after the debt was recalled. As far as the CRA is concerned, that is when the arrangement "broke down".
  23. No but it isn't additional either. As said, the fact that you cannot make missed payment markers on an OD is a good argument, nothing to do with sparkies case though
  • Create New...