WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I am a little confused with this Default conversation.

Andy are you saying that there is no real relation between a Default Notice and a Default being marked on your credit file?

Are they not exactly the same thing, surely one can not exist without the other.

If you receive a Default Notice and you rectify the situation in the given timescale then a default can not be marked on your credit file as you will not have Defaulted, like wise if you receive a Default Notice and you arrange a reduced payment schedule which has been agreed then a Default should not be registered either?

Or so the ICO insist

I am looking at making a claim against an organisation who have placed a Default marker on my credit file but never issued a default Notice or advised me that they were going to. My arguement was going to be that seen as they never sent me a Default notice and they have zero proof that one was issued, they have basically unlawfully Defaulted me and blackened my name for the past 6 years on my creidt file?

Is my way of thinking here wrong and it does not matter about a Default Notice being issued?

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I was tempted to claim the £8000 awarded to Durkin for general injury to my creditworthiness

[Guest]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I am a little confused with this Default conversation.

Andy are you saying that there is no real relation between a Default Notice and a Default being marked on your credit file?

Are they not exactly the same thing, surely one can not exist without the other.

If you receive a Default Notice and you rectify the situation in the given timescale then a default can not be marked on your credit file as you will not have Defaulted, like wise if you receive a Default Notice and you arrange a reduced payment schedule which has been agreed then a Default should not be registered either?

Or so the ICO insist

I am looking at making a claim against an organisation who have placed a Default marker on my credit file but never issued a default Notice or advised me that they were going to. My arguement was going to be that seen as they never sent me a Default notice and they have zero proof that one was issued, they have basically unlawfully Defaulted me and blackened my name for the past 6 years on my creidt file?

Is my way of thinking here wrong and it does not matter about a Default Notice being issued?

There is no relationship between a default notice issued under the Consumer credit act 1974 section 87 and the issuance of a default marker on your file.

The DPA guidelines say that a default warning notice should be sent prior to recording, but that is a different provision and does not involve any direct sanction for failure to comply.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I am a little confused with this Default conversation.

Andy are you saying that there is no real relation between a Default Notice and a Default being marked on your credit file?

Are they not exactly the same thing, surely one can not exist without the other.

If you receive a Default Notice and you rectify the situation in the given timescale then a default can not be marked on your credit file as you will not have Defaulted, like wise if you receive a Default Notice and you arrange a reduced payment schedule which has been agreed then a Default should not be registered either?

Or so the ICO insist

I am looking at making a claim against an organisation who have placed a Default marker on my credit file but never issued a default Notice or advised me that they were going to. My arguement was going to be that seen as they never sent me a Default notice and they have zero proof that one was issued, they have basically unlawfully Defaulted me and blackened my name for the past 6 years on my creidt file?

Is my way of thinking here wrong and it does not matter about a Default Notice being issued?

FWIW, my understanding is that s.87 default notices have nothing to do with defaults on your credit file - except that they are used to issue a notice of intent to file a default with the CRAs (which is the ICO/LC requirement).

This is why some s.87 notices have 2 dates - the 14 days to pay the money under s.87 and the 28 days to pay the money to avoid the default - IMO a ridiculous situation!!

If you had a non-regulated agreement, a notice of intent would be needed but not a s.87 notice.

My view is that it does matter that you are notified before a default is reported - others will disagree, although I don't see how that squares with the ICO and the lending code.

HTH

[Guest]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I am a little confused with this Default conversation.

Andy are you saying that there is no real relation between a Default Notice and a Default being marked on your credit file?

Are they not exactly the same thing, surely one can not exist without the other.

If you receive a Default Notice and you rectify the situation in the given timescale then a default can not be marked on your credit file as you will not have Defaulted, like wise if you receive a Default Notice and you arrange a reduced payment schedule which has been agreed then a Default should not be registered either?

Or so the ICO insist

I am looking at making a claim against an organisation who have placed a Default marker on my credit file but never issued a default Notice or advised me that they were going to. My arguement was going to be that seen as they never sent me a Default notice and they have zero proof that one was issued, they have basically unlawfully Defaulted me and blackened my name for the past 6 years on my creidt file?

Is my way of thinking here wrong and it does not matter about a Default Notice being issued?

In short a creditor will not remove a default marker if you complain that a notice was sent, because there is no legal reason why they should. They would investigate the claim that the account had not been defaulted, but if the requisite number of payments had been missed the default would remain, notice or no.

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

So I am guessing that if they did not send a 'Notice to file a Default' either or have proof that it was sent, that alone would not be grounds to have the Default removed or make a claim

How about the Default amount, how accurate does this have to be? In my case I owed £***.44 pence and on my credit file they have rounded the Default amount up to the nearest pound? A technicality maybe but are they allowed to do this?

Has anything happened with regards to being Defaulted on an account that is unenforceable??

As you can see I am quite far behined on current matters

[Guest]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

So I am guessing that if they did not send a 'Notice to file a Default' either or have proof that it was sent, that alone would not be grounds to have the Default removed or make a claim

How about the Default amount, how accurate does this have to be? In my case I owed £***.44 pence and on my credit file they have rounded the Default amount up to the nearest pound? A technicality maybe but are they allowed to do this?

Has anything happened with regards to being Defaulted on an account that is unenforceable??

As you can see I am quite far behined on current matters

Again you are talking about damages, whilst there is a requirement for the entry to be correct, would a few quid on the balance damage the consumer, you could complain and they would hae to rectify any error, but they would not remove the default marker.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

If there is a default on your file THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST then there is action available and a possibility of compensation.

Taking a bank to court for compensation over a .44 difference on your balance and a mark on your file would just be stupid. Completely agree with Andy58.

[ncf355]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

That, I think, we can all agree with

If you were to take action on that basis you can fully expect a court to land you with costs, even at small claims (and possibly risk being regarded as a vexatious litiagant)

If however the agreement itself has fundamental flaws, there MAY be grounds to argue the default

[Guest]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

That, I think, we can all agree with

If you were to take action on that basis you can fully expect a court to land you with costs, even at small claims (and possibly risk being regarded as a vexatious litiagant)

If however the agreement itself has fundamental flaws, there MAY be grounds to argue the default

If your referring to the enforceability of a regulated agreement, then no it would have no baring on the recording of the repayment history.

[enaid]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Are we nearly there yet with me plain and simple definition of our super duper result for the consumer? :doggieyes:

[supasta1]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I was not trying to base a claim on the arguement of 44 pence I am just building my overall understanding lol

Regarding the Default, it was for a catalogue debt that my ex wife took out in my name. We moved and she stopped/forgot to carry on making payments, the first I knew of it was when I checked my credit file a few years ago. I phoned up, explained the situation and paid the balance but they refused to remove the Default which I have been stuck with for 6 Years in May.

I have been trying in earnest to find a way to have it removed but have fell at every hurdle and this has stopped me moving home, taking out any sort of credit and well and truly screwed me over which I believe has been unfair.


As a company they are not willing to listen or be sympathetic with my position.


Anyhow, I have only got a month longer to wait. I was just hoping the judgement yesterday may have give me some hope of claiming some kind of compensation for my life being put on hold for 6 years but my view on Default Notices was well wide of the mark.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Are we nearly there yet with me plain and simple definition of our super duper result for the consumer? :doggieyes:

If there is a default on your file THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST then there is action available and a possibility of compensation.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

If you just didn't pay a debt then it is correct that a marker should have been on your file for 6 years. As you say you only have a couple months till its cleared off

I was not trying to base a claim on the arguement of 44 pence I am just building my overall understanding lol

Regarding the Default, it was for a catalogue debt that my ex wife took out in my name. We moved and she stopped/forgot to carry on making payments, the first I knew of it was when I checked my credit file a few years ago. I phoned up, explained the situation and paid the balance but they refused to remove the Default which I have been stuck with for 6 Years in May.

I have been trying in earnest to find a way to have it removed but have fell at every hurdle and this has stopped me moving home, taking out any sort of credit and well and truly screwed me over which I believe has been unfair.


As a company they are not willing to listen or be sympathetic with my position.


Anyhow, I have only got a month longer to wait. I was just hoping the judgement yesterday may have give me some hope of claiming some kind of compensation for my life being put on hold for 6 years but my view on Default Notices was well wide of the mark.

[Guest]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

If there is a default on your file THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST then there is action available and a possibility of compensation.

)
More importantly IMO. If you return goods under a credit agreement, the agreement is cancelled also(without using any cancellation regulation)