Issue with wording on a settlement letter

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

but nfc has already stated that this was a claim for unenforcability, not charges.


Anyway, we're heading in circles here - my main point is still that you're more likely to be successful in asking for the entire record to be deleted than for the negative history to be revised. And if the lender wants confidentially, which the almost certainly will, then this implies that the CRA record should be expunged.

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

but nfc has already stated that this was a claim for unenforcability, not charges.


Anyway, we're heading in circles here - my main point is still that you're more likely to be successful in asking for the entire record to be deleted than for the negative history to be revised. And if the lender wants confidentially, which the almost certainly will, then this implies that the CRA record should be expunged.

I do not see how a claim for unenforceabltiy would result in a rebate of charges, even if there was some peculiar circumstance where it did, the charges would presumable have been wrongly applied so the point in my previous post still applies.

Creditors will not make deals to record or remove correctly applied data, just does not happen.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I do not see how a claim for unenforceabltiy would result in a rebate of charges, even if there was some peculiar circumstance where it did, the charges would presumable have been wrongly applied so the point in my previous post still applies.

Creditors will not make deals to record or remove correctly applied data, just does not happen.

Andy,

it was you that mentioned charges, not me

The claim was for a return of interest paid, etc (in actual fact, a previous claim had already been made and won for the penalty charges some time prior to this claim)

As for "will not make deals to record or remove correctly applied data" I have shown you absolute proof in the scan above, yet still you refuse to accept its possible, so I'm not sure what else I can do

I did qualify this evidence by stating this took place a few years ago, so I can believe that what was achieved may not be now as creditors have upped their game, but it DID happen and the proof is above for all to see

[MissFM]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Thicko asking for elucidation

It looks to me as if you are sort of agreeing with each other in principle but in the case of Ncf355's Tomlin Order not quite.

As I understand it - Andy is saying that no CRA will go against the law as regards data recorded and the "deal" posted up by Ncf355 reflects that the cited agreement was unenforcable hence the willingness to "sanitise" the CR (which they would anyway have been obliged to do in the event of it going to court). The logical conclusion is that the creditor wished to avoid court (the debt being unenforceable) and was happy to do a deal which gave them some money otherwise not obtainable (had they gone to court with an unenforceable agreement) and did what they would have had to do anyway (ie return things to how they would have been had a wrongful default not been assumed etc.)

Just want to know - are you agreed that the TO posted would not have been legal had the original agreement been enforceable?

Or am I being exceptionally stupid?

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Not a thicko, however...

..... and was happy to do a deal which gave them some money otherwise not obtainable

Not sure where you got this bit from?

They paid out money, set the balance to 0 and sanitised the credit file...they were not paid a penny!

ALSO.....

Andy is saying that no CRA will go against the law as regards data recorded

My comments are not about the CRA's - they effectively show what the Creditor/DCA provide to them - any deal a debntor does with regards to "Sanitising" data has to be done with the owner of the debt as the CRA's collective response will always be "we cannot change data without clear agreement from the provider of the data/creditor/etc"










As for if we're agreed, I cant speak for Andy

I'm not sure on the legality of the Tomlin had the agreement been enforceable, but within the settlement they are stating they admit no liablility, which in this scenario is basically claiming they believve the agreement to be enforceable, so they are claiming its enforceable whilst in the other hand agreeing to pay the claimant monies (apparently out of the goodness of their own heart!) and wipe data related to it

So, in summary I have no real idea regards the legality, I was merely seeking to show that creditors/DCA's WILL do deals that involve "sanitising" credit records if they feel it suits them to do so
Again for clarity, this claim had NOTHING to do with penalty charges - it was a claim that the agreement was unenforceable under the CCA 74' due to the lack of / incorrect details relating t prescribed terms - this was a Pre 2007 agreement.


In addition, and importantly, I am yet to be shown evidence of a legal requirement for Creditors/Debt Purchasers to write information about an account to CRA files.

Again, to be clear - I fully understand that if they write data, then under the data protection act this data HAS to be accurate (though some seem to have a very lax approach to this)

BUT if they remove the data in its entirety, as far as I can see, this is completely acceptable as no law compels them to write the data on someones credit file.

[charitynjw]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

As an aside, I have read elsewhere that, when arranging a F&F, do so through a trusted third party.

The contract for the F&F is then between the debt 'owner' & the third party, & if accepted, any future attempt to chase for the balance would be a breach of contract.

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Whether it is a refund of charges or interest it makes no difference , the point is that there is a refund(charges that should not have been made) therefore the account can be restructured to reflect the position it should have been in. This is different to a creditor making a deal in a F and F where they are in fact falsifying data, in fact it is the opposite because what they are doing is correcting the record to reflect the correct position.

Charity.
Yes this is always good advice, more-so in unregulated agreements,but as a belt and braces approach it is a good idea. Case law has it that some full and final settlements have been overturned on the grounds that the original contract cannot be overridden by the settlement.
on a regulated agreement the CCA states that the agreement can be terminated at any time by the debtor, this plus the fairness provisions and necessity for the creditor to obtain an enforcement order subject to any prejudice suffered by the debtor(section 127(1) makes any such challenge unlikely to succeed on a regulated agreement. IMO

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

But the creditor maintained the agreement was valid at all times and still removed the data?

If , as I have said, the creditor were to remove ALL data related to the account in an F and F (rather than just miodify the data that is there) then surely there would be no case against them for falsifying data?

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Also, who is going to say that the data has been falsified? The CRA will take what the creditor submits at face value. The customer is hardly going to complain. So You'd be expecting the ICO to investigate of its own initiative. Good luck with that.

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Also, who is going to say that the data has been falsified? The CRA will take what the creditor submits at face value. The customer is hardly going to complain. So You'd be expecting the ICO to investigate of its own initiative. Good luck with that.

It is a wonder they bother to record any correct data at all, they could just make it up as they went along

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

It is a wonder they bother to record any correct data at all, they could just make it up as they went along

Well, as a rule they do record accurate data - to comply with the DPA and the principles of reciprocity. But its clear that we are talking about exceptional cases where the DPA is effectively irrelevant because the data subject has requested it.

Debt buyers, bottom feeders as the are, don't care much for the principles of reciprocity. The value of accurate account data isn't particularly high when you only really use the bureau for tracing debtors and identifying those that are homeowners. OC's, as they also underwrite new lending, tend to take it more seriously. All lenders will, as a mater of policy, adhere to the principles, but many will he happy to bend them on a case-by-case (and confidential) basis if sufficiently incentivised.

[MissFM]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Not a thicko, however...



Not sure where you got this bit from?me neither sorry - misunderstood!

They paid out money, set the balance to 0 and sanitised the credit file...they were not paid a penny!

ALSO.....







As for if we're agreed, I cant speak for Andy

I'm not sure on the legality of the Tomlin had the agreement been enforceable, but within the settlement they are stating they admit no liablility, which in this scenario is basically claiming they believve the agreement to be enforceable, so they are claiming its enforceable whilst in the other hand agreeing to pay the claimant monies (apparently out of the goodness of their own heart!) and wipe data related to it

Thank you ncf355 for taking the trouble to reply! I am most grateful but still can't grasp some aspects. Particularly the bit changed to red above - why would they do this if the debt were enforceable? "They" are not known to be philanthropic..?

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Thank you ncf355 for taking the trouble to reply! I am most grateful but still can't grasp some aspects. Particularly the bit changed to red above - why would they do this if the debt were enforceable? "They" are not known to be philanthropic..?

They wouldn't MsFM

Just because a debt is unenforceable does not mean that it is not owed, they are under no obligation to refund anything, in fact they can still demand repayment of any balance outstanding, it is just that they cannot do so through the court.

[MissFM]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

They wouldn't MsFM

Just because a debt is unenforceable does not mean that it is not owed, they are under no obligation to refund anything, in fact they can still demand repayment of any balance outstanding, it is just that they cannot do so through the court.

So why did they (refund)?

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Hi

Don't quite get Andy's comment above "they wouldn't" when I have shown proof that they would, and more importantly did!

However, the only thing that comes to mind is that by making it out of court "they" avoided the risk of possible precedent being set, should it end up at appeal in the higher courts (not to mention the publicity, which of course would have been obtained even at a lower county court had they lost)

As I've said before, this was some years ago and evidently they are somewhat more agressive in defending such actions nowadays

But as I've also said I still believe this offers all the proof needed that it's worth a try when negotiating a F and F - nothing ventured, nothing gained, surely?

They can only tell the person negotiating to take a hike!