Default Date relevance to Statute Barred defence?

[Nibbler]

Re: Default Date relevance to Statute Barred defence?

Also used simply as a tactic to force debtors to contact and engage with them.

Puts you in the position of demanding that it is corrected or removed as the date is wrong, which could be construed as a form of admission. i.e. if not yours you would ask for it to be removed on the grounds it was never yours instead.

Not that this would change the statute barred status here, but Cabot may think you might be misled as to the implications of demanding it is set back to to March 2009.

EDIT: never rule out plain incompetence from Cabot though. They have shown plenty in the past and don't show much sign changing that.

[nemesis45]

Re: Default Date relevance to Statute Barred defence?

I don't think correcting data on the CRA file will be an admission if the usual " the credit file entry for the alleged debt has been amend to xx.xx.xxxx., the original entry showed a default date of yy.yy.yyyy this entry for the alleged debt must be corrected failure so to do will result in a complaint to the ICO."
This letter is not an admission of any liability for the alleged debt.

With the ever growing use of the Credit Reference Agencies by the public on would expect companies to be aware that such actions will easily be found out.

My guess is that when challenged this turns out to be a " clerical error".

nem

[Nibbler]

Re: Default Date relevance to Statute Barred defence?

I said 'could' be construed. i.e. Cabot might do so and hope that you could be fooled.

It's a tactic that is not used as much now, precisely because of over use a few years ago by companies like Arrow etc in the past.

And yes, they always claim it was an admin error. Much in the way the phantom recent payments are often due to the same cause when challenged.

The complaint here would indeed be the standard: The entry date has been altered in breach of DPA requirements. Correct it otherwise I will be complaining via both the ICO and FOS.

[Don Quixote]

Re: Default Date relevance to Statute Barred defence?

If they commence litigation while in breach of a valid s78 request, some interesting legal issues are raised.

First of all, they would have issued knowing they could not gain judgment. That would be a waste of the court’s time, and contrary to the overriding objective.

Secondly, they could be accused of beginning litigation in an attempt to stop the SB clock (though we know their erroneous interpretation of SB makes this futile).

Thirdly, and further, this could be taken as an abuse of process because, in issuing a claim, they would almost certainly have to make a statement of truth in relation to a contract they cannot yet evidence.

We know this sort of thing happens all the time. There is now a useful judgment to quote where a judge has raised similar issues in relation to claimants making doubtful statements of truth (a case involving MKDP). I’m not sure if this has been published other than by the legal team involved – hopefully it will be so it can be used.

https://consumercreditlitigationandd...mkdp-judgment/