DEFAULT REMOVAL (advice needed & given)

[MCKENNARISE]

I find this all very interesting. Defaults are a nightmare. A person who has one pays dearly in interest charges. eg: a standard normal person can expect to pay 4.99% or so and a person with a default or two, maybe 5.99% plus.

 

On a £100,000 mortgage, interest only, the payments would be £415.83/month & £499.16/month. A difference of £85 per month.

 

Whats would be annoying is if it was put there incorrectly. Therefore i would welcome any advice on removal of them.

 

*PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THE FOLLOWING IF NEED BE!*

 

 

There seems to be 2 methods for removal:

 

Defaults have to be administered correctly, ie default notice served correctly. If not there is grounds for removal.

 

The other is, if a debt you defaulted on was made up solely of unlawful charges, you may also get it removed.

 

The following is my own suggestion, so probably wrong!

 

Lets use an example. A credit card with Limit of £1,000. Balance of £2,000.

You then get defaulted on this account for £2,000

 

Later you find out that 75%(£1,500) is charges, you get refunded.

 

You would think that its a duty of that bank to record information accurately. This default is not accurate, as it should not be £2,000 but actually £500 as the majority of it is unlawful charges. Could it be an argument that information not recorded properly should be removed.

 

Yours opinions are much appreciated on this subject.

 

ALSO IF YOU WISH TO KNOW MORE PLEASE POST A REPLY, AND KEEP THIS THREAD GOING. AS I AM AWARE LOTS OF US ARE EFFECTED BY DEFAULTS.

*REMEMBER, REMOVING THEM MAY ALSO SAVE YOU MONEY!!

[sproggi]

Sorry no help (no defaults or mortgage), but, If you managed to get your default removed and could prove that your higher rate of interest was only incurred because of this erroneous default, would that then entitle you to claim your losses e.g the £85 p.m, back from the company that recorded the default? After all, if the default was not in place, you would have got the cheaper rate of interest.

 

Sproggi

[elsinore]

Whats would be annoying is if it was put there incorrectly. Therefore i would welcome any advice on removal of them.

 

This link has some solid information

 

http://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/compliance/dataprotection_guidanceondefaults.pdf

 

Elsinore

[MCKENNARISE]

Useful link. Very hard to get my head round/ difficult to understand..

[HadEnough]

yep tough to understand, if anyone can put it in laymans terms(ei:thicko's) i for one would be grateful:)

[profhell]

OK .. in layman's terms, the ICO's response means the following:

 

1. The ICO specifies no limit on how long account information (e.g. defaults, payment history ...etc) should be kept.
   
2. Given that there is no statutory limit on the term of time information should be kept on the credit reference agencies' files, the ICO considers the self-imposed 6-year limit to be reasonable, and necessary for third parties (e.g. credit providers) to make informed and responsible lending decision
   
3. The ICO considers that if this information is considered prejudicial to someone obtaining credit, (e.g. a default resulting in a credit facility being denied), it does not necessarily follow that everyone is in this situation - their argument is based on the availability of alternative lending facilities to those with bad credit (e.g. sub-prime lenders, who will lend to people with some bad history)

I hope this makes it a little clearer for everyone, and now to an aside, to shoot those points down one by one (anyone care to instigate a legal challenge ?!):

 

1. On the issue of limit-less processing of information, the ICO's argument is valid; HOWEVER, there is nothing to prevent the industry, both credit reference agencies, their allies and their customers, from keeping the information indefinitely, which violates the data subject's (you, I, Mr/Mrs consumer-at-large) right to fair and legal processing of their personal information
   
2. The ICO is stating that they take a wide view on the "necessary" aspect of keeping information. This is also a point that can be turned around right back at the ICO and the CRAs: if it is open to interpretation, why is your's or my interpretation not good enough, particularly given that no court cases have been brought about to set a precedence ?
   
3. The point of non-prejudice is, in my view, the strongest legal argument point against the ICO's view and CRAs practice: sub-prime lenders DO NOT extend lending to everyone with a bad credit history; try 20% of the populous and you'd be about right. The shiny adverts of those cronies emphasise that they don't care about CCJs, Defaults, Arrears, IVA ...etc, which is totally false; all you have to do is try and find out for yourself. Moreover, adverse credit history does not include the demonic CIFAS flags, which are registered ENTIRELY under the discretion of the lender/CRA ...etc, with no legal route to challenge them or have them removed. Essentially, if a member of CIFAS "says" you are fraudsters. for whatever reason, their word is taken as gospel, and you WILL be denied credit if you have a CIFAS indicator on your file - in direct contradiction to CIFAS's own mission statement and intent. As such, the ICO cannot reasonably argue that the prejudice aspect doesn't exist for a large enough section of consumers.

People, when are we going to rise against the sheer abuse and infringement of our rights ? when are we, the consumer, going to mount a challenge big enough and loud enough to bring this to the forefront of constitutional, legal and political debate ?

 

Long live Big Brother ..

[un1boy]

OK .. in layman's terms, the Information Commissioners Office's response means the following:

1. The Information Commissioners Office specifies no limit on how long account information (e.g. defaults, payment history ...etc) should be kept.
   
2. Given that there is no statutory limit on the term of time information should be kept on the credit reference agencies' files, the Information Commissioners Office considers the self-imposed 6-year limit to be reasonable, and necessary for third parties (e.g. credit providers) to make informed and responsible lending decision
   
3. The Information Commissioners Office considers that if this information is considered prejudicial to someone obtaining credit, (e.g. a default resulting in a credit facility being denied), it does not necessarily follow that everyone is in this situation - their argument is based on the availability of alternative lending facilities to those with bad credit (e.g. sub-prime lenders, who will lend to people with some bad history)

I hope this makes it a little clearer for everyone, and now to an aside, to shoot those points down one by one (anyone care to instigate a legal challenge ?!):

1. On the issue of limit-less processing of information, the Information Commissioners Office's argument is valid; HOWEVER, there is nothing to prevent the industry, both credit reference agencies, their allies and their customers, from keeping the information indefinitely, which violates the data subject's (you, I, Mr/Mrs consumer-at-large) right to fair and legal processing of their personal information
   
2. The Information Commissioners Office is stating that they take a wide view on the "necessary" aspect of keeping information. This is also a point that can be turned around right back at the Information Commissioners Office and the CRAs: if it is open to interpretation, why is your's or my interpretation not good enough, particularly given that no court cases have been brought about to set a precedence ?
   
3. The point of non-prejudice is, in my view, the strongest legal argument point against the Information Commissioners Office's view and CRAs practice: sub-prime lenders DO NOT extend lending to everyone with a bad credit history; try 20% of the populous and you'd be about right. The shiny adverts of those cronies emphasise that they don't care about CCJs, Defaults, Arrears, IVA ...etc, which is totally false; all you have to do is try and find out for yourself. Moreover, adverse credit history does not include the demonic CIFAS flags, which are registered ENTIRELY under the discretion of the lender/CRA ...etc, with no legal route to challenge them or have them removed. Essentially, if a member of CIFAS "says" you are fraudsters. for whatever reason, their word is taken as gospel, and you WILL be denied credit if you have a CIFAS indicator on your file - in direct contradiction to CIFAS's own mission statement and intent. As such, the Information Commissioners Office cannot reasonably argue that the prejudice aspect doesn't exist for a large enough section of consumers.

People, when are we going to rise against the sheer abuse and infringement of our rights ? when are we, the consumer, going to mount a challenge big enough and loud enough to bring this to the forefront of constitutional, legal and political debate ?

 

Long live Big Brother ..

 

I agree with everything u say. I will be entering an N1 to a big soon for not sesnding me a default notice and not being able to provide a copy of it to prove it conforms to section 87 (i think that's the right seciton) of the act....watch this space.

 

I also have a meeting with my MP soon to discuss all this.

[profhell]

Go un1boy and the best of luck.

[un1boy]

Go un1boy and the best of luck.

 

Thanks.

[un1boy]

OK .. in layman's terms, the Information Commissioners Office's response means the following:

1. The Information Commissioners Office specifies no limit on how long account information (e.g. defaults, payment history ...etc) should be kept.
   
2. Given that there is no statutory limit on the term of time information should be kept on the credit reference agencies' files, the Information Commissioners Office considers the self-imposed 6-year limit to be reasonable, and necessary for third parties (e.g. credit providers) to make informed and responsible lending decision
   
3. The Information Commissioners Office considers that if this information is considered prejudicial to someone obtaining credit, (e.g. a default resulting in a credit facility being denied), it does not necessarily follow that everyone is in this situation - their argument is based on the availability of alternative lending facilities to those with bad credit (e.g. sub-prime lenders, who will lend to people with some bad history)

I hope this makes it a little clearer for everyone, and now to an aside, to shoot those points down one by one (anyone care to instigate a legal challenge ?!):

1. On the issue of limit-less processing of information, the Information Commissioners Office's argument is valid; HOWEVER, there is nothing to prevent the industry, both credit reference agencies, their allies and their customers, from keeping the information indefinitely, which violates the data subject's (you, I, Mr/Mrs consumer-at-large) right to fair and legal processing of their personal information
   
2. The Information Commissioners Office is stating that they take a wide view on the "necessary" aspect of keeping information. This is also a point that can be turned around right back at the Information Commissioners Office and the CRAs: if it is open to interpretation, why is your's or my interpretation not good enough, particularly given that no court cases have been brought about to set a precedence ?
   
3. The point of non-prejudice is, in my view, the strongest legal argument point against the Information Commissioners Office's view and CRAs practice: sub-prime lenders DO NOT extend lending to everyone with a bad credit history; try 20% of the populous and you'd be about right. The shiny adverts of those cronies emphasise that they don't care about CCJs, Defaults, Arrears, IVA ...etc, which is totally false; all you have to do is try and find out for yourself. Moreover, adverse credit history does not include the demonic CIFAS flags, which are registered ENTIRELY under the discretion of the lender/CRA ...etc, with no legal route to challenge them or have them removed. Essentially, if a member of CIFAS "says" you are fraudsters. for whatever reason, their word is taken as gospel, and you WILL be denied credit if you have a CIFAS indicator on your file - in direct contradiction to CIFAS's own mission statement and intent. As such, the Information Commissioners Office cannot reasonably argue that the prejudice aspect doesn't exist for a large enough section of consumers.

People, when are we going to rise against the sheer abuse and infringement of our rights ? when are we, the consumer, going to mount a challenge big enough and loud enough to bring this to the forefront of constitutional, legal and political debate ?

 

Long live Big Brother ..

 

Something else I meant to mention earlier is that ultimately it is up to a Judge to decide how long they process data. A Judge does not have to take the "guidelines" issued by the ICO in to account according to what a Judge said in another Cagger's case (Dayglo vs Vodafone I believe).