Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

[nemesis45]

A clarification:

A default notice is simply notification from a creditor to a debtor that if the terms of the Default Notice are not met within the period of time set down in the notice or an arrangement is made to remedy the default that a default MAY be recorded at the
end of the period allowed to remedy the cause of action e.g. paying arrears or missed payments.

The Date on a default notice has no relation to the date a default is actually placed.

Also the removal of defaulted accounts from credit files after 6 years paid or not is Not the same as a debt becoming statute barred.
A default entry will remain on CRA files until the default expires even if the debt becomes statute barred.

Statute Barred only means that a debt cannot be enforced via the courts in England & Wales the debt still exists and is collectable short of court action.

A debtor should inform a creditor in writing that a debt is statute barred (when aware that is so barred) of the status of the debt and no payment will be made.

It may amount to harassment if the creditor continues to press for payment after being thus informed.

[Guest]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Yes however the default notice referred to here is the one sent in accordance with the ICO guidelines, not a default notice sent under section 87 of the consumer credit act.

The latter gives notice of impending action(in court) and has nothing to do with credit recording,

[ncf355]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Hi,

As is often the case, I'll throw my ball into play here

I don't agree, and never have done, that a Default notice sent under Section 87 regarding impending court (or other) action bears no relevance to the date a Default should be recorded on a credit file

The ICO's position in their guidance for the placing of Defaults is that ordinarily, the Default should be filed at the point the relationship breaks down, and the main yardstick they use for this is no sooner than 3 months and no later than 6 months after the last full contractual payment has been made, or where a debtor has otherwise made clear that he intends not to pay.

However, as the guideline is 'breakdown of relationship', I can see no clearer demonstration of a breakdown in relationship than the Creditor threatening court action unless the arrears are paid within X days.

Obviously, if the Debtor pays the full arrears within the time stated, and then goes on to further fall to arrears at a later date it could be easily argued this would reset the clock on the Default, but if , for example, a S87 was issued requiring remedy by July 28th 2007 and it was not remedied and from that point the debtor either paid nothing, or less than the contractual payments due, the Default should be removed 6 years after the Default date (in this example, 28th July 2013)

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

A bit od a dodgy ball may be.
1 What I said was the date on the default nAce is not and has no relation to the date a default is record as shown on credit files.
2. To claim that a default was placed because a default notice was issued is wrong.
3. If a DN is complied with no default is recorded any future cause of action is a new situation and a New DN is issued.

[ncf355]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

A bit od a dodgy ball may be.
1 What I said was the date on the default nAce is not and has no relation to the date a default is record as shown on credit files.
2. To claim that a default was placed because a default notice was issued is wrong.
3. If a DN is complied with no default is recorded any future cause of action is a new situation and a New DN is issued.

Most of what you are saying I agree with Nem

But surely you would agree that if the Default notice is issued, with a date upon which the arrears etc must be remedied by, the arrears were not paid and the debtor then goes on to either not pay the full contractual payments as due, or pays nothing at all, there would be substance in the Debtor claiming this could be the date upon which the relationship broke down?

And so it would follow (via the ICO guidelines) this would be the date upon which the Default must be recorded from, not some date picked at random by the creditor?

Without this position, the Creditor would be at will to place the Default on the CRA files at whatever date he saw fit, thus artificially extending the Default's life, and with it, the Creditors hold over the debtor

[Guest]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Well long standing pet subject of mine.

Firstly I think it must be made clear that a section 87 notice and a notice giving warning of the entry of a default on a credit file are completely different things.
The section 87 is a requirement of the CCA and the notice of an impending note on the CRA file is a requirement of ICO guidelines.

The fact that both are generally included within the same document does complicate matters however.

According to Goode as section 87 notice is an information notice only, this means that its function is to inform the debtor that the account is in default and give them chance to remedy before the account can be terminated and before any money not already due under the contract can be claimed.
So according to this the account will already be in default when the 87 notice is sent. There is no reason why therefore, a warning notice cannot be sent at any time prior to this and a default registered on the file, it would be then upto the lender to send a section 87 notice at a later date and commence proceedings if they so wished.

in practice this seldom happens however.

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

The confusion that is causing me concern is that in many case where advice is sought on " the default on my credit file is wrong" it soon becomes painfully obvious that the individual has received a DN with the issue date, ignore was needs to be done forgets or just files and forgets, the sometime later a DCA's threatogram arrives and a credit file is check and a default entry with a date of some months after the ignored DN with and with high dudgeon I see people complaining that account was defaulted months before the date on the credit file.

The other very common scenario is the debt has been defaulted twice, when no the individual has reached an AP with a creditor and of course no default is placed/recorded, then a some later date the AP fails and another DN is issued ( favourite trick of Barclaycard which will do this many times) and the complaint is I've been defaulted twice on the same debt I received a DN 18 months ago and now they've changed the date.

Default Notice Issue Date and limit date are not related to the date a default is registered.

[Guest]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

No indeed they are not..And of course if the account was remedied six months after it was in default, the debtor would not complain if no marker had been placed, I suppose.

The problem has always been that as far as registering the default is concerned, it is all just guidelines, you can make complaint to the ICO of course and usually , if you are persistent enough something is done

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Yes andy the ICO's favourite word " SHOULD"

[basa48]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Surely a default occurs as soon as a payment is missed. Theoretically this could be even on the day after the payment is missed and therefore a default could be placed on a debtors credit file on that day.

[Nibbler]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

basa48. Reading paragraph 9 onwards of the old ICO guidance on defaults should explain why that doesn't fly.

http://www.experian.co.uk/www/pages/...n_defaults.pdf

[Guest]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

Yes the the is defaulted when there is a repudiatory breach, generally a missed payment would be considered merely a contractual breach, to merit the termination of a contract a few payments would have to be missed, unless there is a contractual term which states that the contract may be terminated after a single missed payment, but this is not usual/

[basa48]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

OK in reply to both Nibbler and andy58.

The CRAs record actual performance of debtor accounts, nothing really to do with the contractual performance as defined by the Consumer Credit Act.

The ICOs guidelines are guidance not rules, so technically (IMO) the account is in default the day after a missed payment. I've yet to see a Credit Agreement that says the account is in default after 'a few' missed payments.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, it's just I am very interested in when a debt becomes SBd.

I know it is 6 years after the 'cause of action' but what is the generally accepted point of the 'cause of action'? Is it one day after a missed payment or the day after the date for remedy on the S87 Default Notice?

[Guest]

Re: Default Notice Date - v - Default Date

OK in reply to both Nibbler and andy58.

The CRAs record actual performance of debtor accounts, nothing really to do with the contractual performance as defined by the Consumer Credit Act.

The ICOs guidelines are guidance not rules, so technically (IMO) the account is in default the day after a missed payment. I've yet to see a Credit Agreement that says the account is in default after 'a few' missed payments.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, it's just I am very interested in when a debt becomes SBd.

I know it is 6 years after the 'cause of action' but what is the generally accepted point of the 'cause of action'? Is it one day after a missed payment or the day after the date for remedy on the S87 Default Notice?

This is a slightly different subject. The cause of action for section 5 of the SOL purposes commences when the lender is first able to reclaim full payment under the contract. This is generally not after one missed payment, as the contract would not be terminated, generally it would take two or three missed payments.