Experian Credit Report

[SOD'EM]

Can anyone give me some advice please?

 

Hi all, I have just accessed my credit report on line and found that there is a default on a loan from over 6 years ago. I may have done the wrong thing but I emailed them saying that the debt is now statute barred and unenforceable.I also asked them to remove that default from my records as it is stopping me from getting any credit whatsoever. I can't even open a simple bank account.

 

I received an email back saying that they had 28 days to respond and they would have to speak to a third party first. I presume the third party would be the creditor who they say is Thames Credit/Olympia. I have never had a loan from these but there was one from HFC.

 

I don't want them contacting anyone. Can they do this or must they remove the default from my file?

 

Thanks all.

[Allwood]

Thames Credit are the **** of the earth. They will stop at northing ie blackmail, falsifying documents, and Bullying to the extent that people committee suicide to end it all because of them, they are due to renew their license this year and if there is any justice in the world they will be kicked out. :-|

[Guest wino]

Thames Credit were sending me letters threatening court for a debt I honestly knew nothing about. I sent them a letter back with the £1 postal order asking them to basically 'prove it'. They returned the postal order and said they were not going to persue it any further. How many people would of just paid up? Before finding CAG I think I would of believed I owed the money and paid it.

[SOD'EM]

I am more worried about the default on my credit file. Even if Thames Credit could provide a copy of a CCA, I am sure that because it is over six years ago that the debt is unenforceable. I need to know where I stand though as I want this default removed from my credit file.

 

I am also worried that Experian now are to get in touch with Thames Credit and basically say "Here he is if you want him". I don't want them to do that.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience, letters and phone calls cannot hurt you. If anyone knows if I can get Experian to delete the file, I would be really grateful.

 

A big down to Thames Credit. Thats what I say.

[Filthy Monkey]

It sounds like Thames Credit have placed the default on your account in an effort to get you to pay up. However, even ignoring the fact that you have not serviced the debt in the last six years, as you have not received a default notice, they have no right to place this on your file. Personally, I would call them and ask them to provide you with information on the account. State that you know nothing about it, ask them to send you a copy the credit agreement and point out that, as no default notice was served on you, as per the the terms of the Consumer Credit Act, they have no basis for placing the default on the account. I had a similar situation with another of these companies recently and, following a simple call, the default was removed within 24hrs.

 

If you don't feel comnfortable doing this by phone, see below for a draft letter you could use (taken from a previous post by FreakyLeaky) :-

 

 

Thames Credit

Address details

 

Date: xxxxx

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

Account details taken from Experian

 

After recently obtaining a copy of my credit file from Experian I was concerned to note that your company has placed a "Default" notice against my account.

 

Further to this I have no recollection of ever receiving such a notice, and I therefore require you to substantiate this data at your earliest convenience.

1. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged agreement you refer to. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of the agreement under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77 (1) for fixed sum credit). Your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account. I enclose a £1 postal order in payment of the statutory fee, PO Serial Number *******

2. You must supply me with a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice

3. The deed of assignment from when the debt was purchased by Thames Credit

 

I would request that this data is provided to myself within the next 28 days, if you are unable to provide this data then I must insist that the Default notice is removed from my files as unsubstantiated.

Yours faithfully

[SOD'EM]

I have just received an email from Experian explaining that they are writing to Thames Credit on my behalf because they can't remove the default without their permission. I don't want them to contact anyone.

 

Does the 6 year rule apply from when the loan was taken out, or when the account went into default? Experian say they remove all records of default after 6 years from when the account defaulted. Thats December 2009.

 

I am pretty sure that Thames Credit will not be able to supply a true copy of my signed CCA, but if they did, could someone please tell me where I would stand.

 

Also, does the fact that I am bringing it up now show that I do acknowledge the debt?

[Filthy Monkey]

The six years rule applies to the date that the outstanding debt, i.e. the arrears, first accrued, not the date that the account was put into default. Assuming you last serviced the debt or acknowledged responsibility in writing more than six years ago, the debt will now be statute barred under the Limitations Act. Even if the supply you with a genuine, signed CCA, it will still be statute barred. If you start making payments towards it now, it will still be statute barred.

 

To get the default removed you really will need to write to Thames Credit, using the letter above, and ask them to supply you with the requested information. Do not sign the letter and, just to be clear, put in capitals at the top of the letter -

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DEBT

 

If they cannot provide a copy of the default notice, you have grounds for having it removed from your credit file.

[robin9342]

So basically, if you stop re-paying a debt, then ignore all correspondence from the creditor, then the DCA for 6 years, the debt becomes unenforceable? (assuming it does not go to court/CCJ etc) After which, you can ask the CRAs to remove the defaults and obtain a "clean" credit record?

[GreatWonder]

So basically, if you stop re-paying a debt, then ignore all correspondence from the creditor, then the DCA for 6 years, the debt becomes unenforceable? (assuming it does not go to court/CCJ etc) After which, you can ask the CRAs to remove the defaults and obtain a "clean" credit record?

 

 

No! A debt can only be considered 'statute barred' if you have had NO correspondence from the creditor (or DCA), if the creditor (or DCA) has had no acknowledgement / correspondence from you (in response to any of their enquiries) and NO payments have been made towards the debt.

 

Once you have started re-paying a debt, I would advise you to continue to do so subject to both parties agreeing you are liable for the amount owed of course!

 

I would certainly not recommend ignoring correspondence unless you are 100% sure the debt is not connected to you, your name or your property.

[robin9342]

OK, thanks.

[Filthy Monkey]

No! A debt can only be considered 'statute barred' if you have had NO correspondence from the creditor (or DCA)

 

GreatWonder, I'm not sure where you got this information from, but it is not correct. Correspondence from the creditor or DCA is irrelevant. They can write to you until the ink in their printers runs dry, but where simple (unsecured) contracts are concerned, if they haven't taken legal action to recover the debt within six years of the date it was first accrued and the debtor has not reset the clock by servicing the debt, it becomes statute barred. Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1980 - Time limit for actions founded on simple contracs, states -

 

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

 

Even if a judgement has been granted, this is only valid for six years. Section 24 of the Act states that -

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

Once the debt becomes Statute Barred it cannot be legally enforced. If you are sure that the debt is yours, there may be a moral obligation to repay it, but that is a personal choice and not really within the scope of this website.

[robin9342]

So, you are saying the answer to my question is, in fact, yes? Makes sense, because I have some unserviced debts approaching 6 years and the DCAs have suddenly started writing again.

[Filthy Monkey]

Well, yes, I suppose you could. However, if you stop paying you can expect adverse credit to be recorded against you by the main credit reference agencies, making it more difficult to obtain credit in future and, if the client is sensible enough to use the court to enforce the debt, a CCJ will be recorded against you for up to six years, giving far greater powers to recover the money. Cleaning up your record once the debt is Statute Barred is not necessarily as simple as writing to the CRAs and asking them to remove the information. This has been widely discussed in other threads, so I would suggest doing a search to find out more.

 

Quite simply, if you owe the money and can afford to pay it, you should. If not, you should come to some arrangement with the original creditor to make reduced payements until such time as you can afford to revert to the original agreement. Obviously, though, if they add unfair penalties and charges to the account the rules change...

[robin9342]

Thank you. I'm not too worried about my credit rating at the moment; its not particularly good!

[GreatWonder]

Sorry if I was not accurate with my previous post.

 

However, simply ignoring correspondence from DCA's (the less wise may regard this as a go-ahead to throw all unidentified post straight in the recycling bin) could have disastrous consequences could it not?

 

Correct me once again if i'm wrong but I'm sure i've read on these very forums of unsecured debts going to certain DCA's who have successfully initiated charging orders on properties and before that there are bailiffs to consider.

 

I would personally worry that there would be plenty more than 'adverse credit' to worry about. That is what I was more importantly trying to stress.

 

And quite correct about leaving moral aspects away from the forum, but on a quick personal note it does fascinate me how an individual can enjoy spending (sometimes large) sums of money then turn on the source of the money saying they've blatantly had a good time on the accepted terms (penalty charges and excessive APR's / unfair terms aside) but a few admin errors and you can swivel instead of having it back.

 

Guess the thought only enters my head as I've never had the guts to do it myself. No offence intended.

[Filthy Monkey]

However, simply ignoring correspondence from DCA's (the less wise may regard this as a go-ahead to throw all unidentified post straight in the recycling bin) could have disastrous consequences could it not?

 

Correct me once again if i'm wrong but I'm sure i've read on these very forums of unsecured debts going to certain DCA's who have successfully initiated charging orders on properties and before that there are bailiffs to consider.

 

It could certainly lead to serious problems, but the DCA's and creditors have no real power in themselves. They must apply to the courts to have any action legally enforced, an action which generally makes people sit up and take notice of their responsibilities. They cannot arrange charging orders or bailiff visits without court backing.

 

And quite correct about leaving moral aspects away from the forum, but on a quick personal note it does fascinate me how an individual can enjoy spending (sometimes large) sums of money then turn on the source of the money saying they've blatantly had a good time on the accepted terms (penalty charges and excessive APR's / unfair terms aside) but a few admin errors and you can swivel instead of having it back.

 

I completely agree. People should face up to their responsibilities and I would never advocate using loopholes in the law to avoid repaying debt, but there are other things to consider. However, lenders also have a responsibility towards their clients, through responsbile lending and fair management of their accounts. In many cases, lenders are just as guilty of causing financial problems as the borrowers are!

 

Oh, and no offence taken

[robin9342]

I wasn't advocating avoiding paying ones debts, my question was more "what if..."

If I had the money, I would repay my creditors. However, as I am currently on benefits, that is not possible at the moment. Without specifying figures, its also very unlikely that any creditor would accept the couple of pounds a week that I could offer.

 

Morals is an interesting one. If you found a loophole that meant you paid less tax, would you use it? If you found an error on your PCN which meant you didn't have to pay it even though you blatantly parked illegally, would you still pay it? If Tesco gave you too much change, would you go back in the shop and give it back? If you found £20 on the street would you hand it in at the police station? The list goes on...

[robin9342]

However, lenders also have a responsibility towards their clients, through responsbile lending and fair management of their accounts. In many cases, lenders are just as guilty of causing financial problems as the borrowers are!

Interesting point. In my case, a credit card company gave me a card with a £3000 limit even though I stated I was unemployed on the application form.

(not trying to excuse myself, just giving an example)

[Filthy Monkey]

Out of curiosity, did they try to sell you PPI?

[robin9342]

It was a few years ago now, but I seem to recall the application form had a tick box on it for that purpose. Not that I ticked it because being unemployed would mean I was not eligible for PPI.

[Filthy Monkey]

...and of course, no financial institution would ever attempt to sell it to you whilst unemployed, because that would be mis-selling!