CITI/1st Credit

[teaboy2]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

[quote=berniel;249475]

Again i stand by Legislation itself, and fail to see how guidelines would take precedence over such legislation. I do not doubt they mention regulated agreements too, as i have read them myself, but clearly your interpretation is different to mine and you seem to think the legislation itself is irrelevant.

They dont take precedent they are differnt things one is the DPA and the other is the Consumer Credit Act - Yes they are two different things but the DPA argument can not take precedent as the CCA 1974 consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 prevent them from enacting the term that in the agreement that allows them to register a default, if the default notice is invalid or they fail to issue a default notice. It's there written in plain blank and white in the regulations itself.

I agree the entry of missed payments are made under the provisions of the DPA (e.g recording of accurate data), but before they a can register the account status itself as being defaulted, they most comply with CCA and relevant Regulations/legislations under the CCA, before they can register the account status as defaulted.

No because the definition that the credit agency uses for a defaulted account is that the relationship has brocken down with the debtor it has nothing to do with the CCA secion 87 default. A secction 87 DN is mearly a precursor to enforcement.

For unregulated agreements i agree they can do that - But for regulated agreements, a creditor can not register the account as defaulted until they have complied in full with a section 89 default notice (valid one) and the remedy has past without any remedy. Only then can they record the default, and only after such remedy date is the default deemed to have occured, as such the relationship is not deemed to have broken down in the legal sense until the remedy date on a valid DN has past without remedy. Though they can still register missed and defaulted payments under payment history, but is that does not put the account status itself as defaulted where as registering a the account as defaulted does. When a creditor says they will issue a default against you with the CRA's, they are not refereing to recording a single defaulted (missed payment) that does not changed the account status, they are referring to registering the acccount status as being defaulted. You are mixed two very different things up in to one, when they are not one and the same at all.

Bernie

Sorry but you can not ignore the CCA and Consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 just because they are allowed to register a default freely for non regulated agreements under the DPA. The ICO themselves state creditors must comply with necessary requirements they are obliged to comply/fulfill (e.g. legislation and regulations) before they can register a default.

Now serious peter (yes we know its you) are you seriously going to destory this thread as well, just because you can not accept a difference in opinion and interpretation or that you may likely be wrong, which i can safely say you are when it comes to registering defaults on regulated agreements. To ignore the CCA and the consumer (default, enforcement and termination) regulations 1983 and advising others to that effect would be not only wrong but an mistake only an amatuer would make.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

Peter's argument is nonesense. If it were true, then a satisfied DN would still result in a default marker.

On the contrary, most (all?) DNs carry the ICO 28-day notice as one of the steps to be taken should the DN not be satisfied. Those steps cannot be taken if the DN is satisfied. Therefore, there is a direct connection between a DN and a default record, even though they are under different acts.

Satisfaction of a DN should not, therefore, result in the recording of a default. Similarly, if there is no DN (plus notice of intent) or the DN is so bad it cannot be satisfied, then again no default should be recorded. The ICO technical guidance also makes it clear that no default should be recorded where there is any dispute over the amount.

If there is no 28-day notice of intent to file, then I think Shep should take this up with the ICO because it may mean that the default should be removed permanently (but possibly assuming that the DN is reissued and satisfied). I very much doubt that a default would be re-recorded with a later date, as this is a violation of Principle 4 of DPA (accuracy - it would be inaccurate for a data controller to do this).

HTH
LA
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
As a footnote, I think Peter just sees things in isolation, in black and white. It is true that a DN is independent of DPA, but there is nevertheless a connection. Just like with Sparkie's termination made on the same date as the DN; the DN is fine when viewed in isolation, but not otherwise.

I believe that a court (and authorities) will look at the entire picture and not just at single items which, by themselves, are fine. Indeed, S140 makes the connection between all activities of a creditor.

[teaboy2]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

Thank You Lord

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

You are welcome my good man.

Carry on.

LA

:biggrin1:

[shep65]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

Sorry with all these replies i'm lost as to know exactly what my next step should be.

Just to point out the only thing that appears on my credit file is the default with no previous payment history.

From the NOA sent by 1st Credit account transferred on 3rd March 2009 but default appears on 30th Jan 2009 with 1st Credit marked as the defaulter and no mention of CITI.

Is this an avenue I could pursue or could I send a DSAR or CPR to Experian to get more information?

I have never seen the DN and as said in first post they couldn't come up with it or the agreement for the court . But I don't want to push my luck if they have the DN but not the credit agreement.

[teaboy2]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

Stick to the advice originally given - Everyone here will tell you berniel aka Peterbard was giving the wrong advice that would likely kick start the whole process again with the creditor in a stronger legal position then before. Our original advice will basically ut a end to the matter once and for all and leave the creditor with no legal claim at all.

Peter has a habit of destroying threads to the prejudice of the OP needing help just to try and prove his hes right as he has the delusional believe hes right at the other 99% of us here are wrong, he then gets offensive and makes rude personally insultive comments when he knows hes losing the arguement and thats why hes always being banned.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: CITI/1st Credit

Shep

Just to clarify - the debt is assigned to 1st Credit so CITI will no longer appear on your credit file, even though they recorded the default. This is standard practice so no need to pursue this.

Also, you won't see any previous payment history - all that will be recorded is history to Jan 2009 (you may not be able to see this on an online file), thereafter it will be a default marker.

If you have never received a DN it is possible that CITI didn't serve one. So maybe first step is a SAR to the DP department at 1st Credit (who should refer back to CITI to provide the full picture).

If your defence mentioned that you did not receive a DN, which would have included a notice of intent to file a default, and 1st Credit could not provide this in court when required to do so, then I think this is grounds for the ICO to tell 1st Credit to remove the default. You would need to go to the ICO website and download their complaint form, fill it in and send back all relevant documentation (including the outcome from court).

It will take a while but might be worth it.

HTH
LA