New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

[PaulWM]

Hi All

I got a default from Barclays dated 30th March 2009 on a revolving loan type of agreement.

Time ticked by and eventually this dropped off my credit file and it is now statute barred. (No contact, payment or admission)

I have now received a letter dated 18th August 2015 saying the original default was wrong as they charged too much interest or didn't tell me, and as such I have until 8th September to pay up. Included with this was a brand new default notice.

I have looked and believe that the new default is correct in so much as they can legitimately serve it based upon the original one being wrong, I further believe that this debt was not sold on to a DCA but I will look and check on this to be certain.

My question is can they issue a default on a statute barred debt when the original default is incorrect?

Does this start the clock again?

Would this be allowed on my credit file?

I have literally just got all my defaults off my credit file and right on the point of applying for a mortgage and boom a new default on an old debt!

[Debt Camel]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

If this debt is statute barred, nothing they can do will restart the clock.

If it has dropped off your credit file, it could only reappear if they amended the default date on the credit record. I'm not sure if this is technically possible - I haven't seen a case where it has happened. The default date on your credit file has nothing to do with the date on a Default Notice.

How much money is involved? If you are sure this is statute barred then you could consider offering them a low full & final settlement offer, stating that the debt is statute barred and offering the money on condition that they do not change the default date on your credit file so the debt reappears.

Of course if it is statute barred you don't actually have to pay them anything, but the above is a practical option if you want to make a mortgage application soon.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

I got a default from Barclays dated 30th March 2009 on a revolving loan type of agreement.

Time ticked by and eventually this dropped off my credit file and it is now statute barred. (No contact, payment or admission)

I have now received a letter dated 18th August 2015 saying the original default was wrong as they charged too much interest or didn't tell me, and as such I have until 8th September to pay up. Included with this was a brand new default notice.
I have looked and believe that the new default is correct in so much as they can legitimately serve it based upon the original one being wrong, I further believe that this debt was not sold on to a DCA but I will look and check on this to be certain.

This is all rather strange and sounds like a rather crude attempt at trying to revive a SBd debt. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

What makes you believe that the new default is correct? Surely if the old one was wrong they had six years to rectify it. :noidea:

In any case, if there was a clear period of at least six years without any payment or written acknowledgment, the debt should be SBd regardless of the date when the DN was issued.

They must have heard about a recent case where a judge ruled that the clock started to run from the date of the DN and thought of giving it a try to see if you bit and pay up. :nono: :rant:

The case in question was in the county court and DOES NOT SET LEGAL PRECEDENT. It is also in the course of being appealed.

Out of interest, could you post up a redacted copy of the DN and covering letter? :typing:

My question is can they issue a default on a statute barred debt when the original default is incorrect?

Does this start the clock again?

No, the clock starts with the cause of action which would have been when you stopped making contractual payments. If this was the case every creditor would be re-issuing default notices and make a mockery of the Limitation Act!

Would this be allowed on my credit file?

I have literally just got all my defaults off my credit file and right on the point of applying for a mortgage and boom a new default on an old debt!

No, there can only be ONE default per account on your credit file, and that's not got anything to do with the default notice which is a procedural requirement under the Consumer Credit Act.

I find the whole thing outrageous to say the least! :rant: :rant: :rant:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

If this debt is statute barred, nothing they can do will restart the clock.

If it has dropped off your credit file, it could only reappear if they amended the default date on the credit record. I'm not sure if this is technically possible - I haven't seen a case where it has happened. The default date on your credit file has nothing to do with the date on a Default Notice.

There can only be one default per account and that should be recorded three to six months after you stop making contractual payments. As you say, the DN has nothing to do with CRA reporting so no reason to change the date.

How much money is involved? If you are sure this is statute barred then you could consider offering them a low full & final settlement offer, stating that the debt is statute barred and offering the money on condition that they do not change the default date on your credit file so the debt reappears.

Of course if it is statute barred you don't actually have to pay them anything, but the above is a practical option if you want to make a mortgage application soon.

I wouldn't do that, They can't just re-instate a default that has dropped off, the only way to do it would be with a CCJ which they could still get if the OP didn't defend (default judgment), otherwise SBd is an absolute defence.

Threatening to re-instate a default to collect on a SBd debt would amount to extortion. :scared:

The whole thing sounds like a desperate attempt at exploiting the fact that a judgment was made on the basis of the DN date. :mad2: :rant: :mad2: :rant:

[Nibbler]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

I got a default from Barclays dated 30th March 2009 on a revolving loan type of agreement.

Time ticked by and eventually this dropped off my credit file and it is now statute barred. (No contact, payment or admission)

I have now received a letter dated 18th August 2015 saying the original default was wrong as they charged too much interest or didn't tell me, and as such I have until 8th September to pay up. Included with this was a brand new default notice.

I have looked and believe that the new default is correct in so much as they can legitimately serve it based upon the original one being wrong, I further believe that this debt was not sold on to a DCA but I will look and check on this to be certain.

Barclays have been going back over old s87 notices and doing re-issues in the last few months/year, due to messing up the originals etc.

Have seen this quite a few times now.

I don't think there is any grand conspiracy over reviving SB dates, but they are just putting right a historical cock up.

- They can re-issue the DN if the original was invalid or defective but that does not re-start time for the SB clock.

- Original default on the CRA must stand. The ones I've seen were not re-added, even if the letters appear to threaten it. If they did re-add it, you could complain to have it removed.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

Barclays have been going back over old s87 notices and doing re-issues in the last few months/year, due to messing up the originals etc.

Have seen this quite a few times now.

I don't think there is any grand conspiracy over reviving SB dates, but they are just putting right a historical cock up.

One does get paranoid! :mmph:

I just thought it was too much of a coincidence in view of the recent judgment. :confused2:

- They can re-issue the DN if the original was invalid or defective but that does not re-start time for the SB clock.

- Original default on the CRA must stand. The ones I've seen were not re-added, even if the letters appear to threaten it. If they did re-add it, you could complain to have it removed.

In view of the two factors highlighted above, I fail to see any point in re-issuing them at this late stage. :noidea:

[Debt Camel]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

I wouldn't do that, They can't just re-instate a default that has dropped off, the only way to do it would be with a CCJ which they could still get if the OP didn't defend (default judgment), otherwise SBd is an absolute defence.

I agree it isn't necessary and normally Ii wouldn't suggest it. However it is a practical way forward for someone who is about to make a mortgage application. Even nailed on SB defences can take many months to be sorted out in court.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

I agree it isn't necessary and normally Ii wouldn't suggest it. However it is a practical way forward for someone who is about to make a mortgage application. Even nailed on SB defences can take many months to be sorted out in court.

Court process and SBd have nothing to do with credit files and there would be nothing recorded on them to give an indication that there is a debt being disputed in court so I can't really see the connection. The only thing that would get recorded would be a CCJ and even those can be avoided by settling with a Tomlin order if it came to that, but we are nowhere near that point since no claim has been issued.

IMHO to even suggest re-instating a default on the credit records would be an attempt at extortion IF a creditor came up with that one, and making an offer to repay a SBd debt on those basis is a bit like submitting to potential blackmail, even when the blackmailer hasn't made a definite demand/threat. However, if I've read everything correctly, there is no such threat in this case, just a re-issued DN and a demand for payment, ludicrous in itself :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: but the creditor has not mentioned anything about a new default, the OP has.

[Nibbler]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

Barclaycard have been putting right a range of historical issues. Some have been interest related, some defective/invalid DNs, some where a "demand for payment" was not issued before a CRA default. In some cases BC still have the account, while in others a debt purchaser is having to do the running.

Even on ones where they do actually say in the letter:

If you don't make a payment or reach an agreement with us by dd/mm/yyyy, we'll register a default with the credit reference agencies.

they have either not done it or have recorded it backdated, so it doesn't appear or drops off at the correct time. Ambiguous wording as they omit to say the default is a backdated one, and leave you to assuming it will be a recent date.

[Debt Camel]

Re: New Default after Original Default is over 6 years old

Court process and SBd have nothing to do with credit files and there would be nothing recorded on them to give an indication that there is a debt being disputed in court so I can't really see the connection.

Credit records are not the only thing that matters in a mortgage application. Depending on the lender you may be asked a wide variety of things on a mortgage application form, including listing debts which do not appear on your credit record.