Lowell defaulting debt twice

[scottvsaunders]

Hello all,

This is my first post on this site so please be gentle with me.

I got into some financial mess about 7 - 8 years ago when I lost my job, this spiralled out of control and I ended up getting a rather lot of defaults on pretty much everything I had in my name. Fast forward to now and I have been in steady employment now for 6 years and things are starting to look up. I have recently checked my credit file to see if things are improving and I have noticed some of the defaults I had are still on there even after some are over 6 years old but the name of the creditor has changed to Lowell. Presumable this is because debts have been sold on etc however the default date had already been changed to be more recent. Can a company default me twice for the same debt purely down to a new company purchased a statue barred debt?

It seems that Lowell don't have a particularly great reputation after Googling them and a few people do mention some strange tactics they use.

Thanks

Scott

[Kati]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Hi Scott ... welcome to LB

I'm sure you will get lots of advice from the knowledgeable Beages

Kati xx

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

They can have the default record switched to their name, but they are not allowed to alter the original default date. That MUST remain the same as the original.

I'm sure Lowells would claim that a mistake has been made, but this seems a reasonably common tactic by them which you could tempted to say is deliberate.

Presumably they hope that people annoyed and wanting to dispute the wrongly dated default will contact them, at which point they will have the chance to try to con you into paying them.

Do you have records showing the original correct default date?

How sure are you this is definitely statute barred?

How long until the default would now drop off?

You will have to weigh the answers to those 3 questions to decide if it is a good plan to dispute this now or just leave it.

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

They can have the default record switched to their name, but they are not allowed to alter the original default date. That MUST remain the same as the original.

I'm sure Lowells would claim that a mistake has been made, but this seems a reasonably common tactic by them which you could tempted to say is deliberate.

Presumably they hope that people annoyed and wanting to dispute the wrongly dated default will contact them, at which point they will have the chance to try to con you into paying them.

Do you have records showing the original correct default date?

How sure are you this is definitely statute barred?

How long until the default would now drop off?

You will have to weigh the answers to those 3 questions to decide if it is a good plan to dispute this now or just leave it.

Thanks for the reply,

I am very sure that they have changed the date on the defaults and they have about 18 months left until they drop off themselves.

I do have a debt on the with MKDP which was for a welcome finance loan I took out in 2007 and defaulted on in 2008. No payments have been made in over 6 years and this is all showing, they have changed the default date to 2010.

Surely this isn't right?

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Hi Scott ... welcome to LB

I'm sure you will get lots of advice from the knowledgeable Beages

Kati xx

Thanks for the welcome :-)

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

No it's not right, but it is a common thing for debt collectors to do. It's a scummy little industry.

As said, you have to decide if you are going to challenge it now.

Altering the default date would be reporting inaccurate and misleading information to the credit reference agencies, in breach Of the Data Protection Act 1998 and ICO guidelines on reporting defaults.

You could:

- Raise a dispute via the CRAs that show the altered date. They will they query with the collector. Problem there is that if told by return it is correct, they tend to just believe the collector and do nothing.

- Complain direct to the DCA telling them that unless they remove the entry or correct the falsified default date, you will be taking them to the FOS and reporting them to the ICO for data protection breaches.

Or as would probably be best, do both of the above simultaneously for maximum chance of getting a quick resolution.

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

No it's not right, but it is a common thing for debt collectors to do. It's a scummy little industry.

As said, you have to decide if you are going to challenge it now.

Altering the default date would be reporting inaccurate and misleading information to the credit reference agencies, in breach Of the Data Protection Act 1998 and ICO guidelines on reporting defaults.

You could:

- Raise a dispute via the CRAs that show the altered date. They will they query with the collector. Problem there is that if told by return it is correct, they tend to just believe the collector and do nothing.

- Complain direct to the DCA telling them that unless they remove the entry or correct the falsified default date, you will be taking them to the FOS and reporting them to the ICO for data protection breaches.

Or as would probably be best, do both of the above simultaneously for maximum chance of getting a quick resolution.

Thanks for the help.

Will any of these challenges effect the debts statue barred status or cause problems if they are for some reason not SB'd ?

Just trying to make sure I have all options covered ?

Thanks again

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

That is why I asked how sure you were.

Once statute barred a debt stays that way, permanently. No matter what you then do.

If not statute barred, then writing disputing just the default date could maybe be classed as acknowledgement.

Arguably disputing via the CRAs would not be, as acknowledgement must be made in writing to the creditor or their agent, but we see some judges stretch interpretations to the limit so I would not like to guarantee that.

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Thanks, I think I will dispute the MKDP one as I am 100% sure that is statute barred and the default date has been changed..

Is there a standard template for doing this or do I just keep it to specifics only?

Thanks

That is why I asked how sure you were.

Once statute barred a debt stays that way, permanently. No matter what you then do.

If not statute barred, then writing disputing just the default date could maybe be classed as acknowledgement.

Arguably disputing via the CRAs would not be, as acknowledgement must be made in writing to the creditor or their agent, but we see some judges stretch interpretations to the limit so I would not like to guarantee that.

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

See above, the account was taken in 2007 and defaulted 4 months later.. Welcome placed a default on my file and so have MKDP.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Can you please post up a suitably redacted copy of the credit file entries as the new formats introduced make them much harder to decipher.
Remember also that the CRA's are wholly reliant on the data provided to them by creditors, dca's and debt purchasers, you need to place a notice of dispute/correction on the entries ( all 3 main agencies probably have the same data.)

You then make a formal complaint to the Data Controller of the company that now own the debt, send any data you have showing how the entries have allegedly been changed.

MKDP have been known in the past to claim that it can place a new default when it acquires a debt.

Carefully check those files to be sure the dates you are seeing are not just the "acquisition" dates.

[Nibbler]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Yes, MKDP have a history of recording false recent default dates when they buy a debt.

There is no particular template, but as said it is against the accuracy requirements of the DPA and against current and past ICO guidelines for the default date to be changed when a debt is sold.

Make sure you say as above that you will be taking them to the FOS and reporting them to the ICO for data protection breaches. MKDP may try to make excuses, but they well know they are in the wrong, and could probably do without any more advers ICO/FOS decisions against them.

[scottvsaunders]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Thanks, that's the actual screen dump taken today from my Noddle credit file. I have just deleted my address from the entry but that's how it appears.

[nemesis45]

Re: Lowell defaulting debt twice

Ok Scott,

Formal Complaint

For the Personal Attention OF;

Ms Sara Lambert
CEO The Compello Group (same address a MKDP


Ref: use MKDPS
Re: Manipulation of Credit File Data.

Dear Ms Lambert,

I am making a formal complaint regarding the conduct of MKDP in relation to entries made to my credit reference files (screen shot attached.)

The personal loan referred to in the credit file entry was originally defaulted on xx.xx.xxxx how ever MKDP has seen fit to enter a default date of 02/01/2010.
I cannot see any reason for this manipulation of the credit file data other than to give MKDP and extended time scale to pursue this alleged debt unfairly.

Therefore MKDP Will correct all credit reference files to which the alleged debt has been reported with immediate effect and confirm in writing that it has done so.

I am aware that this situation is not unfamiliar and I will be making a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office and will
send a statement to The FCA for information and will comment on the fitness of MKDP/Compello to hold a consumer credit licence.
amend as required.

Use signed for post: Send all evidence of original default date.

nem

May be also worth doing a SAR to the original creditor.