Max Recovery Limited purchased my debt from MBNA sometime in 2012.
At the time of purchasing this debt, it was included in an IVA.
I wanted to ask a question about defaults.
The IVA commenced on the 1st June 2012, which should be the date of default on the MBNA debt.
When Max Recovery Limited bought the debt from MBNA, the MBNA default should say "satified".
However, Drydensfairfax Solicitors updated my credit file on the 30th May 2017 from Eversheds.
The default has NEVER shown Max Recovery as being the debt owner.
So my question is this.
Under sections 87,88,89 of the consumer credit act 1974, should Drydens have sent me a default notice when they updated the credit file on the 30th May 2017?
Drydens have refused saying they nor Max Recovery are obliged to send a default notice. Is this correct?
Secondly they are refusing to change the date of default.
I have contacted MBNA and asking them for clarification when did the account go into default before it was sold.
Is it correct that without sending a default notice any attempt at proceedings would fail!?
At the time of purchasing this debt, it was included in an IVA.
I wanted to ask a question about defaults.
The IVA commenced on the 1st June 2012, which should be the date of default on the MBNA debt.
When Max Recovery Limited bought the debt from MBNA, the MBNA default should say "satified".
However, Drydensfairfax Solicitors updated my credit file on the 30th May 2017 from Eversheds.
The default has NEVER shown Max Recovery as being the debt owner.
So my question is this.
Under sections 87,88,89 of the consumer credit act 1974, should Drydens have sent me a default notice when they updated the credit file on the 30th May 2017?
Drydens have refused saying they nor Max Recovery are obliged to send a default notice. Is this correct?
Secondly they are refusing to change the date of default.
I have contacted MBNA and asking them for clarification when did the account go into default before it was sold.
Is it correct that without sending a default notice any attempt at proceedings would fail!?
Comment