2 defaults Egg and Vodaphone - Default hell!!

[jimfishybob]

However, I still maintain that there is no point in pursuing the CRA for default removals. You need to pursue the person who is sending the data to them in the first place.

 

Agreed. They have far less to lose either way.

[Ferru]

Thanks for your reply.

 

If someone were to take the CRA to court, and were to lose, it is likely they would end up with a massive legal bill, assuming the CRA get top barristers and solicitors to fight their corner?

 

Regards

 

Jeff

 

Well said, and hopefully one day we will be granted our day in court.

 

However, I still maintain that there is no point in pursuing the CRA for default removals. You need to pursue the person who is sending the data to them in the first place.

 

If on the other hand a person wants the CRA's to stop processing their data, then that will have to be court action. If it was to ever end up in Court and they lost, then their whole business model collapses.

 

I can see a CRA throwing mega bucks at this sort of action to defend their case.

[dayglo]

maybe. It all depends on the track your claim is allocated to, how well you present your argument and how well you manage your case.

 

That's part of the reason that I advise challenging the individual subscribers first.

[Guest Alison82]

I have a question …

 

Once I get all of my charges back from all my accounts I will close all of those accounts (mainly store cards and catalogues that I will never use again). Once I do this I do not want this information to be shown on my credit file as I would like to take out a mortgage in a year or so. I would like to know which would be my best option in getting this done.

 

1. Write to the relevant company and ask them to stop processing my data (will this remove the account from the CRA file?)

2. Or write to the CRA’s and state that I haven’t given them consent to store my data once the account is closed (will this remove the account from the CRA file?)

 

I am not planning on doing this for a few months yet until my claim timetable has ended, so I will have plenty of time to read up on this and familiarise myself with the regulations and process

 

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

 

Alison x

[dayglo]

Surly say's option 2 is the most efficient way and results in less letter writing if you have more than 3!

 

My experience is that the CRAs are harder to budge than the subscribers, I've had my limited success so far by badgering both although I have had to begin court action against the subscribers not the CRAs (yet!)

[Guest Alison82]

I've been reading what you all have been saying, and it seems that this may be hard to prove as consent is't needed and they think 6 years is a resonable time!!

 

Will it look odd to a creditor if I only had 3 accounts in credit accounts in 6 years? as I wasn't to get rid of all of the bad ones and keep the good ones that are to show that I can run my accounts efficenlty.

[dayglo]

and therin lies the issue.

 

defaults are bad news regardless of whether they are settled or not, although their impact on your score does diminish in time.

 

You are correct that a 'low' number of credit accounts relative to the population as a whole has a negative impact on your score, but this isn't as big an impact as a defaults or 'accounts in arrears'

 

My advice is to work hard to remove all negative accounts on your file, by negative i mean anything with more than a few '2' markers on it. the odd '1's here and there are ok.

 

Once that has been achieved, (3 months I reckon!) work hard on keeping up payments on time with existing accounts. Don't apply for any credit for about 6 months and then you should be ok.

[Guest Alison82]

Ok, thanks!!

[Guest willowb]

 

I am interested to know though, if you were to effectively take yourself out of the automated searches, theoretically you could be penalised by the searching company, as they would assume that you have something to hide - or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

A few people have brought this point back up but it has never really been answered fully (if I'm wrong then I'm sorry but I couldn't find any answers except that SB said that it hasn't affected him), seems like this needs to be answered before anyone thinks about doing it. I'd consider it but what implications for future mortgage applications etc would this have?

 

Can anyone be 100% sure that it wouldn't be damaging?

 

Wxx

[Tinkerbelle]

A few people have brought this point back up but it has never really been answered fully (if I'm wrong then I'm sorry but I couldn't find any answers except that SB said that it hasn't affected him), seems like this needs to be answered before anyone thinks about doing it. I'd consider it but what implications for future mortgage applications etc would this have?

 

Can anyone be 100% sure that it wouldn't be damaging?

 

Wxx

 

Where did he say that? He doesn't have a blanket ban on his Credit File, and as far as I'm aware no one on here has :grin:

[Guest willowb]

D'oh!!! I'll have to go searching through the whole lot again now to find what it was made me think that:(

 

Wxx

[royboy68]

Hi Tink. What I think they are getting at is this quote from Surleybond in post 20.

 

Quote

"All I will say is that having removed two accounts that were in default, and then removing all historic accounts completely, has not affected my ability to get credit, and have just taken out two more phone accounts. However, that should also be viewed in the context that I also have a lot of the other 'plus' factors that are taken into account when credit scoring applications, namely marital status, 2 dependants, job type, length of employment, salary band, time at residence, homeowner, etc. All these, and more, are used in the overall score calculation"

 

Surely this reads that he has put the ban on automatic searches into place yet still was able to get 2 accounts that would usualy involve getting searched via the CRAs

[Guest willowb]

Yipppeeeee! praise the Lord for Roy :>)

 

 

Wxx

[Tinkerbelle]

Hi Tink. What I think they are getting at is this quote from Surleybond in post 20.

 

Quote

"All I will say is that having removed two accounts that were in default, and then removing all historic accounts completely, has not affected my ability to get credit, and have just taken out two more phone accounts. However, that should also be viewed in the context that I also have a lot of the other 'plus' factors that are taken into account when credit scoring applications, namely marital status, 2 dependants, job type, length of employment, salary band, time at residence, homeowner, etc. All these, and more, are used in the overall score calculation"

 

Surely this reads that he has put the ban on automatic searches into place yet still was able to get 2 accounts that would usualy involve getting searched via the CRAs

 

No. What he said is that he removed two specific types of entries from his credit file.

 

Historical accounts, as in accounts that are no longer used, and defaulted accounts.

[royboy68]

I agree with what you say Tink. I can see how Willow could read it the way she has. As we always get told (read and read again) I did around 4 times with that statement coming to the same conclusion as Willow until the penny dropped and figured out that historical data could be removed without having the blanket automatic proceesing ban in place.

[Guest willowb]

So, no one has done it then!

[royboy68]

Not as far as i have seen Willow. The problem i could see with doing this is that if the automated ban was in place and a search was made it would exclude any info that isnt in the public domain. So assume that you hive a high score (which probably wouldnt be excluded) then the company would probably grant the credit, however if the score was medium and they needed to check why and the info wasnt there then logicaly they would assume that you have something to hide and would either refuse or contact you for more information.

The second option would probably be out of the question for 2 reasons being firstly most searches are only concerned with the actual score as they are automated and secondly the staff probably havnt got enough interlect to process the information thats put in front of them as I have found out to my cost.

[Guest willowb]

Thanks for that roy:) Yes, I understand now, I think I'll stick to my plan and tackle the banks themselves.

 

wxx

[Tinkerbelle]

Also see this post, where it says

I still allow the CRAs to process my ongoing contracts....

[dayglo]

Thanks for that roy:) Yes, I understand now, I think I'll stick to my plan and tackle the banks themselves.

 

wxx

 

good plan.

[Rosemary]

I've had an interesting comment from GE Money:

 

"Ge Money disagrees with your interpretation of section 12 of the Act. It is only when a decision is made by automated processing that you are permitted to make an application for this decision to be reconsidered manually. This section applies where credit decisions are made at the point of application. if you have been declined for credit and the lender concerned confirms that the decision was made via an automated process, then you have the right to appeal against this decision and request that you application be manually reviewed".

 

Huh??????????

[Rosemary]

Boot and a *bump*

 

Anyone have any ideas on this (see above)?

[Tinkerbelle]

Boot and a *bump*

 

Anyone have any ideas on this (see above)?

 

What they have said is correct.

 

Send a S.10 Notice. Not a S.10/S.12.

[Stuart_in_the_red]

having a problem with Natwest, I asked them for a copy of my credit agreement with them for a credit card which they have supplied (I think, it is an application for credit?) and also a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice.

They have sent me a standard letter generated from there system because they say this is how they hand out default notices. because of this, they are unable to supply me with a copy of the original default notice as these are not kept.

They said that they feel that they are not in breach of section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act, I think they are but am looking for some clarification before sending them another letter, any help would be very much appreciated.

Also, does anyone know where I can see a copy of the act? Been searching but with no joy!

Stuart

[Tinkerbelle]

having a problem with NatWest, I asked them for a copy of my credit agreement with them for a credit card which they have supplied (I think, it is an application for credit?) and also a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice.

 

They have sent me a standard letter generated from there system because they say this is how they hand out default notices. because of this, they are unable to supply me with a copy of the original default notice as these are not kept.

 

They said that they feel that they are not in breach of section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act, I think they are but am looking for some clarification before sending them another letter, any help would be very much appreciated.

 

Also, does anyone know where I can see a copy of the act? Been searching but with no joy!

 

Stuart

 

Have you had a look in the Library?