Vanquils I am confused

[Peterbard]

Vanquis credit card taken out together with loads of other credit in 2009.

2011 His bubble bursts and he has to sort his short term credit out as they are mostly in arrear or will be.

Takes out a DMP with Pay plan, and they take over all these commitments, he just pays the one instalment to them.

 

Last year well into getting his life together and most of the CC are paid nearly up.

Strangely he start receiving notice's of arrears from Vanquis.

It appears that there is over a grand still to be paid.

 

Next thing they pop a default on his credit file, which by this time is almost clear.

 

I ring Vanquis who tell me that the account has only just been defaulted and the section 87 must be in the post.

She seems to think the last six years or so the debt had been under an arrangement with them and had never been defaulted or terminated.

They have just done so and hence the activity.

 

This is rubbish of course

I wonder if anyone has had anything similar from them.

[AndyOrch]

Is the DMP still running ?

[dx100uk]

ah the notorious AP markers that never go away.

lots of threads here on those.

did he enter into the DMP before 2014 ICO guidelines changes?

if so they used to say he must be defaulted within 3-6mts 

we've had quite a few successes in getting a default date corrected.

[Peterbard]

Thank Andy DX

Yes its been re negotiated and there are about six creditors all CCs. All small amounts, except this.

None show on his report, except this which had never been mentioned before as a default, then appeared recently as a D,  The others dropped off some years ago..

He stared the DMP in 2011

 

[dx100uk]

Creditors cant see the cal section

So the summary says AP or it blank?

[Peterbard]

5 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

Creditors cant see the cal section

So the summary says AP or it blank?

Neither, it as if the account as never been with anyone else and has just been defaulted/ It is marked D.

From what the lady from Vanquish said. The account had never been defaulted in 2011, even though it has been with Pay plan for eight years together with his other cards. So they decided to default it last month. She wouldn't say why, just that it was within their rights to do so.

There is no way they can say this was an active account in that period. He had no card no credit facility of any kind, they were receiving a pro rata payment from pay plan.

[dx100uk]

so the word default is in its status summary field and there is a defaulted date ?

 

[AndyOrch]

https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/dmp-and-credit-score.aspx

Its rather irritating when creditors default when they like and not actually at the time of the breach.......rather than follow the ICO Guidelines on recording default data and really makes a mockery of the Statute of Limitations Act 

[Peterbard]

Hi this is very similar to my thread. Please feel free too have a look.

 

 

On ‎09‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 17:27, shellbells1982 said:

CQ update/report the account to the CRA's 

They report failed payments so its totally harming my credit score 

Yes I think so too, in the case I have, they have stated that this is the first default on the account(last moth)but the account has been with pay plan since 2011.

We have to remember that the notice sent prior to recording a default is different to a section 87 default notice which permits the termination of the agreement. Although they are generally contained in the same document.

 

The point being that the definition of DEFAULT as far as the I COis concerned is the breakdown of the agreement. Surely if there is serious arrears and the card is withdrawn , the payment is reduced, the agreement and its terms have broken down. Not advising the CRA of this just so they can avoid SB by accepting a small payment, and to ensure they can default at some time in the future is not on.

[dx100uk]

Yep.. as the stupid judgement about sb being the default date 

[Peterbard]

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

Yep.. as the stupid judgement about sb being the default date 

No DX its nothing to do with statute Bar. The contract was continually paid so it couldn't be. That's not the point

This is about kidding the CRA into thinking the account is still live, not trying to enforce, that comes when the DN (87) arrives. Which as yet hasn't. If this is permitted to stand the CRA can keep the record on file for another six years, how's that for applying unlawful pressure.

 

Anyway back to my own thread

[dx100uk]

well yes. its all linked, the stupid judgement gives a creditor the authority to file a dn whenever they like not after the third missed payment. so can run the SB date to infinity …….or never at all.

[Peterbard]

On 10/03/2019 at 09:02, shellbells1982 said:

@dodgeball

I've found/got a bunch of documentation from 2011 of my ppi claim with HBOS/Aqua, sent them a CCA, calculated it and I did the claim myself. I 'won' that in Nov 2011and went on to win Cap One and Vanquis too 

 

Silly, but I'd actually forgotten that this account was originally halifax and until you'd said DX I could've sent HBOS a SAR in the 1st place. I just automatically went with new day.

 

 

@dodgeball

That's what I've been trying to ascertain too - difference between notice sent and an 87 default notice

 

Also, if you're on an agreed payment plan with the original creditor what's the 'rules' or legit reason they can sell your account to a DCA?

 

They should send a default notice if the default is to be shown on the credit file, this is often confused as I say with the section 87 notice which is required under the CCA1974. "They", being the creditor.

The creditor can of course assign an account, but he cannot assign a live account to a firm which cannot maintain the credit agreement.

This is one reason DCAs buy defaulted and terminated accounts.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

Sorry, just in case the point was missed. If the account is sold to a DCA it has to have been defaulted and terminated, which means a section 87 would have had to be sent to the debtor. 

[dx100uk]

No sorry it doesnt need to be defaulted to be sold.

needs to be defaulted to litigate.

[Peterbard]

Yes of course DX, but someone like Lowell are not equipped to service a credit agreement. If the account was live they would have to be able to fulfil their part of the agreement.(provide credit)

A live debt can of course be assigned but only to another credit provider. 

 

I saw another of these yesterday. 

 

The CR reported a default date of 2014. This was actually when Lowells bought the account. The account had however been with Payplan since 2013 making the same payment to Newday.

 

Vanquis it seems are regarding payments to them made via a DMP as arrangements under the original contract, in some cases even sending the CCA required statements showing nonsensical credit limit's etc. This can continue for years.

 

I do not think this practice is legal as it means the threat of defaulting the account can be deferred indefinitely.

 

Guidance says that a debtor who enters a debt plan should not be penalised above those who simply do not pay, that is what is happening here.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

They get around that even though they do not offer to extend credit facilites...as long as they have a credit licence.

 

Consumer Credit Register. ... This is a public record of firms that have, or had, interim permission to carry out consumer credit activities. Most businesses that offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out consumer credit activities

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/consumer-credit-register

 

The following recent thread may be of interest in which the Judge allowed the DN to be issued from the Assignee

 

 

[Peterbard]

I should add that until the agreement is defaulted and terminated the debtor is still contractually obliged to pay the original debtor

 

Thought I would add this to enforce what I was saying, just a rando google.

If an account is to be assigned, the new "owner" has to be able to provide the same service as the assignor.

 

A dca cannot, so the account has to be terminated(released from there contractual  rights_)and you cannot terminate a regulated agreement without first sending a section 87 default note.

Fundamental Principles of Contract Drafting

www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1669/...of-Contract-Drafting.html

The assignment materially alters what's expected under the contract If the assignment affects the performance due under the contract, decreases the value or return anticipated, or increases the risks for the other party to the contract (the party who is not assigning contractual rights), courts are unlikely to enforce the arrangement.

[Peterbard]

On 09/03/2019 at 22:29, dx100uk said:

well yes. its all linked, the stupid judgement gives a creditor the authority to file a dn whenever they like not after the third missed payment. so can run the SB date to infinity …….or never at all.

Sorry missed this. Yes  I agree.

[Peterbard]

I think the remedy foe this is in the CCA under section 140 as the Judge in DXs favourite case stated.

[Peterbard]

I dont know what an interim notice has to do with this.

An account must be terminated before a party can ask for full payment or activate an accelerated payment clause, you cannot terminate a regulated agreement without first sending a DN. Before the agreement is terminated he is entitle to make repayment as per its terms, remedying the FDN gives the same result on remedy.

 

I dont know about the case you mention , it may be that the DCA issued another DN in order to say they gave the OP time to settle, subsequent notices can of course be issued.  An LBA really.

 

I have had yet another of these , again Aqua, this one had a date of 2015, the DMP says ;payments were made to them since 2012, however the account was sold to Lowell in 2015. So the account was obviously defaulted before sale.

 

But it does comply with the fact it must be terminated before it is sold to a DCA.

 

I will consider what you say about licensing, Debt recovery is not giving credit of course and requires a different

class of license. It is an Ancillary credit function under the act. An interim permission is usually granted to someone who has an application under consideration.

[dx100uk]

might be better to do this on your own thread rather than hi-jacking...please

[Peterbard]

On 14/03/2019 at 10:46, Andyorch said:

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

might be better to do this on your own thread rather than hi-jacking...please

They get around that even though they do not offer to extend credit facilites...as long as they have a credit licence.

 

Consumer Credit Register. ... This is a public record of firms that have, or had, interim permission to carry out  consumer credit activities. Most businesses that offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out  consumer credit activities

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/consumer-credit-register

 

The following recent thread may be of interest in which the Judge allowed the DN to be issued from the Assignee

 

 

I dont know what an interim notice has to do with this. An account must be terminated before a party can ask for full payment or activate an accelerated payment clause, you cannot terminate a regulated agreement without first sending a DN. Before the agreement is terminated he is entitle to make repayment as per its terms, remedying the FDN gives the same result on remedy.

 

I dont know about the case you mention , it may be that the DCA issued another DN in order to say they gave the OP time to settle, subsequent notices can of course be issued.  An LBA really.

 

I have had yet another of these , again Aqua, this one had a date of 2015, the DMP says ;payments were made to them since 2012, however the account was sold to Lowell in 2015. So the account was obviously defaulted before sale.

 

But it does comply with the fact it must be terminated before it is sold to a DCA.

 

I will consider what you say about licensing, Debt recovery is not giving credit of course and requires a different

class of license. It is an Ancillary credit function under the act. An interim permission is usually granted to someone who has an application under consideration.

[Peterbard]

2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

might be better to do this on your own thread rather than hi-jacking...please

 

I dont think so, it is all relevant to the OPs position , unless the OP requests it of course.

 

I shall be making some posts over there shortly relating to the success I have had, my friends credit report is now devoid of any mention of New day or Aqua.

[Peterbard]

On 14/03/2019 at 10:46, Andyorch said:

They get around that even though they do not offer to extend credit facilites...as long as they have a credit licence.

 

Consumer Credit Register. ... This is a public record of firms that have, or had, interim permission to carry out  consumer credit activities. Most businesses that offer goods or services on credit, lend money to consumers or provide debt solutions and advice to consumers will be carrying out  consumer credit activities

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/consumer-credit-register

 

The following recent thread may be of interest in which the Judge allowed the DN to be issued from the Assignee

 

 

Andy the section you quoted does not mean that a debt collector can act as a Credit supplier, not even an interim one, are you saying the two are the same.

DX, a DN is required to terminate an account, as an un-terminated one cannot be the subject of proceedings.

 

As for going off topic , I am just replying to points you raised.