Default Notices: time to remedy

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

You are a bit like a irritating itch that just wont go away.

What exactly is it you wish to know keep it concise it is the last chance you will get so go ahead shoot.

Peter


I

Sorry Peter, I don't respond to this sort of instruction or to posts that profer insults.

You very clearly have absolutely nothing of value to say. Please may I ask you to not respond to any more of my posts?

LA

[Guest]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

If you read it you will see.

Try starting at para 34. Then paras 9 and 10.

LA
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


I think you have already made your point and I remain very sorry that you have adopted this attitude.

You are not obliged to respond to my posts and I am a little puzzled why you continue to do so after your previous rather unpleasant remarks.

LA

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

NOtice it says 28 days so it could not really be the 14 required by the cca could it . no it is not it is completerly independant

Paragraph 10
A ‘default’ can be said to occur as soon as a borrower fails to meet the terms of their credit arrangement. However, adopting this definition for credit referencing purposes would create difficulties since it is accepted that not all these defaults should be reported, for example, where weekly payments are late but are quickly remedied.

As soon as the borrower fails to meet cant you read.

Relevant part of paragraph 9 as previously indicated
The customer has not made satisfactory proposals in response to a demand for repayment.

Peter

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Sorry Peter, I don't respond to this sort of instruction or to posts that profer insults.

You very clearly have absolutely nothing of value to say. Please may I ask you to not respond to any more of my posts?

LA

Excellant

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

NOtice it says 28 days so it could not really be the 14 required by the cca could it . no it is not it is completerly independant

For the benefit of others, Peter is saying that the ICO document on defaults is independent of regulated agreements. It is not. For example, I have a DN which states that remedy must take place within 14 days otherwise the default will be recorded within 28 days. I believe that this is a common format.

CCA makes mention of CRAs in several sections. The ICO enforces the DPA, and it is DPA that lenders must adhere to when processing data. The rules set out by the ICO are the rules that lenders must therefore follow.

Paragraph 10
A ‘default’ can be said to occur as soon as a borrower fails to meet the terms of their credit arrangement. However, adopting this definition for credit referencing purposes would create difficulties since it is accepted that not all these defaults should be reported, for example, where weekly payments are late but are quickly remedied.

As soon as the borrower fails to meet cant you read.

Sadly, Peter only refers to the first sentence in this section in order to support his theory. If the entire section is read as a whole, the true meaning becomes clear.

It is additionally sad that Peter peppers his misinformation with insult.

Relevant part of paragraph 9 as previously indicated
The customer has not made satisfactory proposals in response to a demand for repayment.

"Section 9" (actually it is para 10) refers to the situation after the DN has expired and no remedy has occurred.

LA

[Sapphire]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Sorry to have to step in peeps, but please can you leave the insults etc at the front door, this site is about helping each other and giving support when needed. If you want to embark on insults and slanging matches then there's a nice little forum OTR who will accommodate you.

Everyone loves a bit of banter, so lets keep it friendly please.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Not really sure what the argument is about - is it whether a default can be marked at a CRA without a valid default notice under the CCA 1974 ?

Agree with Sapphy - lets keep the insults off here pls, theres just no need.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Not really sure what the argument is about - is it whether a default can be marked at a CRA without a valid default notice under the CCA 1974 ?

Agree with Sapphy - lets keep the insults off here pls, theres just no need.

Yes, I am indeed still breathing and I am most grateful for the kind interest in my health.

I posted up the ICO technical guidance, in order to clarify the position under the DPA re: registering defaults with the CRA's.

Please note, I made no mention of sections 87/88 (CCA)

I agree with both Sapphire and Amethyst.

Please, keep the insults off here!

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I agree too, and apologise unreservedly for any offence caused.

As for s87 and the ICO guidelines on defaults, I would think that the connection is that lenders should give 28 days notice of an intent to file a default and the vehicle they use to deliver this notice to the debtor is the DN itself.

This fits with all the DNs I have seen.

The question that seemed to anger Peter was; should the lender be entitled to record the default if the DN is defective (and prevents remedy)?

LA

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Ahhh.With you now. My apologies, as I think I'm in the wrong camp on this....my opinion at the moment is that a 'default' registered with the CRA is not to do with a 'default notice'. If you default an agreement under the contract terms then a default marker can be registered with the CRA. Regardless whether a default notice under the CCA is issued or valid etc. The default notice under the cca is for an entitlement for the creditor to call in the entire debt as opposed to just the arrears and isnt to do with the CRA reporting.

Not sure who I agree with as I've got confused who's arguing what and no idea whether I'm right or wrong its just my opinion (obviously I'll burger off and read up and try find some evidence to back up my thoughts now else its pointless me saying it lol)


ICO stuff and Turner v RBS seem to agree ?

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Ahhh.With you now. My apologies, as I think I'm in the wrong camp on this....my opinion at the moment is that a 'default' registered with the CRA is not to do with a 'default notice'. If you default an agreement under the contract terms then a default marker can be registered with the CRA. Regardless whether a default notice under the CCA is issued or valid etc. The default notice under the cca is for an entitlement for the creditor to call in the entire debt as opposed to just the arrears and isnt to do with the CRA reporting.

Not sure who I agree with as I've got confused who's arguing what and no idea whether I'm right or wrong its just my opinion (obviously I'll burger off and read up and try find some evidence to back up my thoughts now else its pointless me saying it lol)


ICO stuff and Turner v RBS seem to agree ?

Thanks Amethyst.

I agree with you - it is not especially clear and I am struggling to understand this.

Reading the tech guidance from the ICO, it is as you say. There exist the mini-defaults where the agreement is breached but quickly remedied (eg, a monthly payment is made late). As the ICO states, these do not warrant a separate default entry but instead the payment history is recorded.

This is not really a problem for anyone. We all pay late occasionally.

The ICO helpfully defines a default (in the nasty sense) as;

...used to refer to a situation when “the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down"

(page 5 of the ICO technical guidance).

and the indicators of a default including when the full balance is referred for collection, which can only mean when a DN under a regulated agreement has been served and left unremedied.

The lender should give notice to the borrower of an intent to file the default (page 14), and this is 28 days. This seems to be specified in all the DNs I have seen (including my own), and is referred to within the DN as a part of the action the lender may take should the default be left unremedied.

Presumably this means that the default will not be recorded when the default is remedied?

However, and this is the question, should the lender file the default when the breach cannot be remedied because the lender has either demanded far too much or given insufficient time?

It really is making my head spin...

LA

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I think the CRA records the truth of the situation regardless of paperwork. ie. you havent paid for 2 months it says you havent paid for 2 months. If you have been terminated and ditched to DCAs then it shows as a Default (ie you aint going back). In reality if a DN is issued and the date for remedy passes they terminate and chuck you to a DCA and stick you down as D with the CRA, if you pay and remedy then they don;t it stays as a late payment marker, but I don't think that if a DN is invalid for some reason it matters at all as you arent reported as a D due to the DN but for non payment.

Does that make sense?

If theres a mistake with the CRA reporting cause you have actually paid then fair enough, get it amended.

If the CRA is completely right cause you havent paid, but the DN happens to be defective, then it doesnt matter a jot.

(ref your example - if a DN incorrectly asks for too much but you only pay the arrears that should be due under the DN then of course the D shouldnt be reported in the first place and if it is should be removed on the basis you have paid up to date - ie the DN is irrelevant)

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

I think the CRA records the truth of the situation regardless of paperwork. ie. you havent paid for 2 months it says you havent paid for 2 months. If you have been terminated and ditched to DCAs then it shows as a Default (ie you aint going back). In reality if a DN is issued and the date for remedy passes they terminate and chuck you to a DCA and stick you down as D with the CRA, if you pay and remedy then they don;t it stays as a late payment marker, but I don't think that if a DN is invalid for some reason it matters at all as you arent reported as a D due to the DN but for non payment.

Does that make sense?

If theres a mistake with the CRA reporting cause you have actually paid then fair enough, get it amended.

If the CRA is completely right cause you havent paid, but the DN happens to be defective, then it doesnt matter a jot.

(ref your example - if a DN incorrectly asks for too much but you only pay the arrears that should be due under the DN then of course the D shouldnt be reported in the first place and if it is should be removed on the basis you have paid up to date - ie the DN is irrelevant)

Thanks Amethyst.

I agree that payment history should be marked as you say, but there is still this problem of the notice of intent to file a default (as per the ICO guidelines) being based on a breach (fair enough!) which cannot be remedied using as the basis the requirements in the defective DN.

The breach cannot be remedied due to the lender's demands, and those demands (as in my case) are reiterated to the borrower pre-termination even when the lender has been advised that the DN is defective. The default is therefore recorded (in my view, erroneously and unfairly).

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that the CRA records the truth of the situation. I think that is what the CRAs were originally set up for; to alert other lenders of possible problems with individuals (eg, the irresponsible lending thing).

However, is it "truthful" to record a default where remedy of that default has been seriously compromised by the lender himself in his defective DN? The default meaning a serious breakdown in the contract, a situation that may have been avoided had the borrower been given proper entitlement to remedy his breach.

One last illustration; the DN served on me that caused me to start this thread was based on a Halifax account opened some 12 years earlier and on which there had never been any problem whatsoever. A perfect payment history for 12 years. Ill-health followed by temporary loss of income resulted in a breach, for which the bank issued a DN that offered too little time to remedy. The result has been a credit file that has been rubbished. My CRF shows this default, but does not show the 12 years of perfect payment history. It is therefore impossible to understand why this should be considered to be a truthful (or accurate) picture of one's track record, particularly in view of the fact that the lender placed obstacles in the the way of remedy which is inconsistent with CCA.

Any further comments most welcome.

LA

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

One last illustration; the DN served on me that caused me to start this thread was based on a Halifax account opened some 12 years earlier and on which there had never been any problem whatsoever. A perfect payment history for 12 years. Ill-health followed by temporary loss of income resulted in a breach, for which the bank issued a DN that offered too little time to remedy. The result has been a credit file that has been rubbished. My CRF shows this default, but does not show the 12 years of perfect payment history. It is therefore impossible to understand why this should be considered to be a truthful (or accurate) picture of one's track record, particularly in view of the fact that the lender placed obstacles in the the way of remedy which is inconsistent with CCA.

Any further comments most welcome.

LA

Your DN offered too little time to remedy - but did you remedy ? arrange a payment plan etc ?

If the DN only gave you 10 days but you remedied on day 14 then of course the Default marker should be removed - but if you didn't then it really isn't of any relevance as your account is defaulted.

I know its a bummer after 12 years of perfect payment,but its a bit like car insurance without no claims protection - 30 years perfect driving, 1 crash and its all up the swanney.

What obstacles ?

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Your DN offered too little time to remedy - but did you remedy ? arrange a payment plan etc ?

If the DN only gave you 10 days but you remedied on day 14 then of course the Default marker should be removed - but if you didn't then it really isn't of any relevance as your account is defaulted.

I know its a bummer after 12 years of perfect payment,but its a bit like car insurance without no claims protection - 30 years perfect driving, 1 crash and its all up the swanney.

What obstacles ?

Ta v much Amethyst.

I did try to remedy and even arranged deferred payment to avoid the default and further action, but the bank went ahead anyway.

The other DN, which demanded £4.6K instead of the £2.5 arrears, I could do nothing about. The lender (Egg) told me that they would accept payment of £2.5K but that would not stop the default being recorded and the balance being sought. The only option was to pay the full amount of £4.6K. I therefore decided to try a Woodchester and did not pay anything, firmly believing that Egg were completely out of control on this point.

By 'obstacles' I just meant the reduced time or excess money. The reality is that in both cases, had the DN been fully compliant, I could have remedied.

LA

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Hdd you paid the correct arrears of £2.5k then you would have an argument to remove the default marker (you know that already)

However I assume Egg terminated on their 'we can terminate when we damn well like and call in all your debt' clause in their agreements ?

I also assume there were a few late payment markers before you got to an arrears of £2.5k position.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Default Notices: time to remedy

Hdd you paid the correct arrears of £2.5k then you would have an argument to remove the default marker (you know that already)

However I assume Egg terminated on their 'we can terminate when we damn well like and call in all your debt' clause in their agreements ?

I also assume there were a few late payment markers before you got to an arrears of £2.5k position.

Yes, unfortunately Egg insisted that any payment I made up to the £4.6K would not suffice to avoid their next steps.

My Egg ag states 30 days notice to terminate.

And yes there were some late payment markers, and the default was recorded the day after expiry of the DN.

Egg did write to me afterwards to tell me that I could have just paid the £2.5K to satisfy the DN, but not before. In fact I have a letter from them that reiterates their demand, and also various telephone calls took place when they again told me to pay £4.6K.

This to me was a fait accompli. There was nothing I could do.

LA