Inaccurate info on credit file

[MAGDA]

Anyone else, apart from Cym and me, in the same position with Lloyds? Let us know if you are. Sure there must be many, many more...

[millymollymoo]

same with Citi/cabot not getting anywhere fast

[MAGDA]

Well, finally got a full response to my complaint made to GE Money, re: incorrect info on my credit file, which as in the case of Beachcomber, started off showing that we are six payments in arrears, even though a default has previously been listed for the same account.

 

GE Money state that: " A default notice is valid for one year and because no payment has been made on your account since it was repurchased, unfortunately, the account has defaulted again. Even though the account has expired, there is still an outstanding balance which must be paid and so i confirm the default issued in 2009 was done so correctly.....In view of my findings, I am unable to uphold your complaint on this occasion as the information sent to the CRAs was correct."

 

Hmmmm... I think they have got this a little bit wrong:roll: Think I will have to take this further now with the ICO etc. Trouble is, just had court papers for an old m&s card, so currently busy sorting that.... always something isn't there.

 

Still, hopefully I'll get there in the end.

 

Has the info on your credit file now been removed once and for all, Beachy? Hope so!

 

Magda

[AndyOrch]

" A default notice is valid for one year " So they are saying you have 12 months to rectify a breach?

[MAGDA]

Maybe that's how things work in GE Land:| Obviously, it must be so if that's what they say...

 

They don't seem to understand that the account was defaulted, terminated and sold to Link Financial (with a default showing on our credit file) and then following unsuccessful litigation by Link, sold back to GE, who then defaulted it again and placed adverse info on our file stating that we are six payments in arrears and by now, have probably got another default showing.

 

Like banging your head against a wall, only more painful I imagine:-D

[the_shadow]

Cant help thinking the only thing thats going to rectify this is to take them to court for the misreporting citing the ICO default guidelines and adding a small amount of damages to keep it small claims, the ICO seems toothless and horridly slow and these firms are really taking the pith here

 

S.

[MAGDA]

Think you could be right. Will get my M&S court case out of the way, and in the meantime report GE to ICO etc. Then, if there is no progress, maybe time to think about the small claims court as you say.

[the_shadow]

Think you could be right. Will get my M&S court case out of the way, and in the meantime report GE to ICO etc. Then, if there is no progress, maybe time to think about the small claims court as you say.

 

Sounds sensible to me, ensure you give the ICO every bit of evidence you can find and point out the relevant sections in their guidelines you think GE are breeching.. in effect do most of there work for them and hopefully it'll speed them up a bit.

 

S.

[MAGDA]

in effect do most of there work for them

S.

 

Yes, perhaps I should invoice them afterwards:-)

[MAGDA]

Does anyone know if Lloyds routinely issued DNs back in 2004 if the account fell into arrears for several months. I'm pretty sure they would have, I seem to remember getting a DN from them, and then we agreed at some point to make token payments each month which we have done ever since. I now have proof that the GE account was already defaulted once, prior to being assigned to Link and then sold back to GE as I found an old credit file that clearly shows this. The identical account is now showing as 6 payments in arrears, heading for a default again, so that should be quite easy to sort with the ICO. The Lloyds one is a bit more complicated. They defaulted, we made token payments. Lloyds then cleared the arrears out of the blue and started to show us as being in arrears again, i.e., 1 payment late, 2 payments late and so on. I telephoned them several times and wrote to them asking what was going on and they said that as the account had never formally been passed to their debt recovery people:?: they could no longer accept our payments and that was why it was showing as being in arrears again. They issued a DN and in 2010 a default was placed on the credit file. Not sure how I'm going to prove this as Lloyds say it wasn't defaulted back in 2004, although it would have been, because it was in arrears and we weren't making the payments. Any ideas and does anyone remember what Lloyds policy was regarding issuing default notices? It is annoying that we defaulted on payments in 2004, but the default now showing on the credit file creates the impression that this was in 2010. Haven't even used that card since the end of 2003. Not sure if a SAR would prove very much as I doubt if they have anything going back as far as 2004 now, anyone know if that's the case. Sorry to ask so many questions:-)

 

Many thanks,

 

Magda

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

My understanding is that the placing of a default marker is dependent on the creditor's own internal procedures. It does not, for example, equate to the first missed payment or the issuing of a default notice. If a default marker was placed on a credit file the instant a payment was missed it would screw millions of people's credit files for years. It is up to the creditor what constitutes a default for the purposes of registration; it might, for example, mean six missed payments in which case it is quite possible a default marker might not be placed for years after the first default if an account has been bumping along at low levels of arrears. To suggest the likes of Lloyds place markers "out of spite" is well wide of the mark. It's all done electronically with no human intervention. Although that does of course still leave room for errors.

[cymruambyth]

They were issuing them back then, I have quite a nice collection from 2003, all incorrect unless you live in my DJ's world.

[MAGDA]

My understanding is that the placing of a default marker is dependent on the creditor's own internal procedures. It does not, for example, equate to the first missed payment or the issuing of a default notice. If a default marker was placed on a credit file the instant a payment was missed it would screw millions of people's credit files for years. It is up to the creditor what constitutes a default for the purposes of registration; it might, for example, mean six missed payments in which case it is quite possible a default marker might not be placed for years after the first default if an account has been bumping along at low levels of arrears. To suggest the likes of Lloyds place markers "out of spite" is well wide of the mark. It's all done electronically with no human intervention. Although that does of course still leave room for errors.

 

Hi, thanks for your comments. However, you say that to place a default on someone's credit file as soon as they miss a payment would completely mess up their credit file, well, likewise, if the creditor waits for six or seven years after the default situation occurred to place a default of that persons file, I think the overall effect is equally, if not more, disastrous. It isn't a true reflection of that person's situation after all. For example, we had financial problems back in 2003/2004 which is when all of the defaults appeared on our credit file, accurately illustrating our financial situation at that time. Those defaults remained on our file for six years and only came off last year. We didn't object to these defaults because they were accurately showing that yes, we had problems in 2004ish and that was absolutely fair. However, Lloyds have been 'messing' about with lots of their customers accounts and this has resulted in defaults being placed six/seven years after the default actually occurred. I fail to see how that is fair or in any way accurate. I have spoken briefly to the ICO about this situation and they did say that to leave the placing of a default for this excessive length of time would be considered unfair. Whether that will be the case when I formally submit my complaint is another matter. I wonder if you would feel any differently about Lloyds if you had managed to make a 'fresh' start as far as your credit file was concerned and one of your creditors, let's say Lloyds, suddenly placed a default on your credit file seven years after the event - don't think you would be too pleased....

 

regards, Magda

[MAGDA]

They were issuing them back then, I have quite a nice collection from 2003, all incorrect unless you live in my DJ's world.

 

Thanks cym, thought that was the case. Lloyds deny ever issuing defaults - they claim this doesn't happen automatically and they often wait until years later when it is placed with their collections people. Odd, considering that I am pretty sure they were chasing the debt pretty much from the off and did issue a default notice.

 

regards, Magda

[AndyOrch]

The norm would be 2/3 missed payments if they left it any longer it would make a mockery of the CCA

CRAs and a failure to update the register which would not be true reflection or accurate.The ICO would

be none too pleased also.

 

Andy

[the_shadow]

My understanding is that the placing of a default marker is dependent on the creditor's own internal procedures. It does not, for example, equate to the first missed payment or the issuing of a default notice. If a default marker was placed on a credit file the instant a payment was missed it would screw millions of people's credit files for years. It is up to the creditor what constitutes a default for the purposes of registration; it might, for example, mean six missed payments in which case it is quite possible a default marker might not be placed for years after the first default if an account has been bumping along at low levels of arrears. To suggest the likes of Lloyds place markers "out of spite" is well wide of the mark. It's all done electronically with no human intervention. Although that does of course still leave room for errors.

 

The industry norm is for 3 missed repayments and then a default to be issued, after the expiry of the default notice period its applied to your record.

 

The ICO guidelines state a default should be marked no later than 6 months from the default incident, if the company involved could be shown to routinely mark the default after 3 missed repayments but in this instance had waited longer say for example a year or years then I dont think the ICO will be happy at all and would certainly class this as a recording of data that is not accurate or honest.

 

S.

[MAGDA]

Thanks Andy, just doesn't make sense, does it, to wait for seven years to place a default of someone's credit file. I'm sure Lloyds will come up with lots of reasons why they acted in a perfectly reasonable manner, but will see what the ICO has to say. At least the GE Money one is a bit more clear cut because I have proof the same account has already shown as a default on my credit file starting in 2004.

 

Magda

[MAGDA]

The industry norm is for 3 missed repayments and then a default to be issued, after the expiry of the default notice period its applied to your record.

 

The ICO guidelines state a default should be marked no later than 6 months from the default incident, if the company involved could be shown to routinely mark the default after 3 missed repayments but in this instance had waited longer say for example a year or years then I dont think the ICO will be happy at all and would certainly class this as a recording of data that is not accurate or honest.

 

S.

 

 

Hi Shadow, many thanks for the info. I didn't object to the original defaults showing on our credit file - we had defaulted and they were entitled to reflect this on our file, but this far down the line, as you say, I'm sure it wouldn't be classed as either accurate or honest as it creates the impression that we defaulted on the account in 2010, whereas the card hasn't even been used since 2003/04, which is when the default did happen. From what Cym says, it was very much the case that Lloyds did routinely issue DN's at the point of default, although they now deny this.

 

Will get my complaint off to the ICO now (keep meaning to get around to it!) re: Lloyds and GE Money and hopefully may be able to resolve this.

 

many thanks again, Magda

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

The industry norm is for 3 missed repayments and then a default to be issued, after the expiry of the default notice period its applied to your record.

 

The ICO guidelines state a default should be marked no later than 6 months from the default incident, if the company involved could be shown to routinely mark the default after 3 missed repayments but in this instance had waited longer say for example a year or years then I dont think the ICO will be happy at all and would certainly class this as a recording of data that is not accurate or honest.

 

S.

 

But what's a "default incident"? If it is getting to 3 missed payments, then it is entirely feasible that a person could miss a payment but not get registered as a defaulter for several years because they kept the account in arrears, but less than 3 instalments, until missing that third instalment years later. I have no idea what the trigger is for Lloyds but it could well be the OP, whilst in arrears, did not hit it until years later.

[AndyOrch]

The Creditor wouldn't let you keep it in arrears though, they would freeze the account until the shortfall was paid, and penalise with late payment charges,

once it to equated to 3 missed payments a default would be issued and registered.

 

Andy

[the_shadow]

But what's a "default incident"? If it is getting to 3 missed payments, then it is entirely feasible that a person could miss a payment but not get registered as a defaulter for several years because they kept the account in arrears, but less than 3 instalments, until missing that third instalment years later. I have no idea what the trigger is for Lloyds but it could well be the OP, whilst in arrears, did not hit it until years later.

 

A creditor does not keep the account with a *any arrears* in my experience I was just using the 3 months missed repayments as that is the norm on this site for people who havent had responses to s78 and stopped paying due to this.... its not in there interests to allow ANY arrears of deviations in contract terms as their securitized loans have set targets and amounts to collect each month or they face a downgrade in the credit level of that security vehicle.

 

What happens is you get told you are in arrears and asked to make up the shortfall alongside the next normal payment, if you dont then a default is issued and if not satisfied an entry placed on the CRA records.

 

S.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

It is very common for long term arrears situations to exist consensually; for example where a temporary change in circumstances causes, say, 2 months arrears to accrue which results in an arrangement to clear those arrears over 12 months.

[the_shadow]

It is very common for long term arrears situations to exist consensually; for example where a temporary change in circumstances causes, say, 2 months arrears to accrue which results in an arrangement to clear those arrears over 12 months.

 

In those circumstances then an arrangement to pay flag should be placed on the credit file and if a default is to be issues it should be issued at the start or very close to it of the arrangement, the ICO guidelines are quite clear that a person who is making an attempt to repay his debt should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to someone who just doesnt pay and picks up the default straight away... thats stated clearly in the ICO default guidelines.

 

S.

[AndyOrch]

It is very common for long term arrears situations to exist consensually; for example where a temporary change in circumstances causes, say, 2 months arrears to accrue which results in an arrangement to clear those arrears over 12 months.

 

 

Assuming they would allow an arrangement.

 

 

Andy

[MAGDA]

I was actually several months in arrears, as we were unable to pay the contractual payment. I then contacted Lloyds, although prior to this we had obviously received the usual letters chasing the debt and pretty sure we also did receive a DN at that time. I then contacted Lloyds and agreed to pay a reduced (very reduced) amount each month, which they accepted. This arrangement continued up until 2009 without any problem, when at this point, Lloyds suddenly said they were clearing all of the arrears on the account (by now, this amounted to five years of missed payments, as we had only been paying a few pounds each month) to give us a 'fresh' start. They did this with a lot of customers around this time. The balance obviously still remained the same, i.e, in excess of £9,000, so clearing the arrears didn't benefit me at all, as I still could only pay the reduced amount, which Lloyds were fully aware of. As a result, Lloyds then said that I had 'new' arrears accruing, and although I continued to make the reduced payments every month, they were showing us as being 4 payments late, and so on, on our credit file. They then issued a second DN. This resulted in a default being registered in 2010. I fail to see how this is fair and many thanks to Shadow and Andy for explaining this. The fact remains that the default occured in 2004 and a payment arrangement was then entered into, but thanks to Lloyds and their recent tactics, I now have the default showing from 2010. Will be interested to see what the ICO make of this because Lloyds are refusing to sort this out.

 

regards, Magda