county court summons issued against Provident

[willi01]

Hi

Cna someone please offer some advice.

The history:

In 2008, i entered into an IVA and Provident was a creditor in my IVA.

The problem i have is that Provident have not registered my account in default in 2008 with the credit reference agencies and have been marking my account as 6 months payment in arrears since 2008 and then marked it as settled when the iva was complete in 2013.

I have repeatedly asked them to update the information they share with Equifax and Call Credit, but they have chosen not to do it - they say it is correct, but it is not.

I have issued a county court summons against Provident because they continue to register incorrect information with the credit reference agencies and i am have to continually obtain my credit files at a cost to me to see if they have corrected the information with the credit reference agencies as they have failed to accurately record the default date of when the IVA started in 2008.

I have submitted the county court claim, claiming for the costs incurred by requesting they correct this data and the cost of obtaining my credit files.

They have defended the claim saying that they are not at fault.

I am claiming for call costs, letters sent and the costs of obtaining my credit files each month from 3 credit reference agencies now for the past 6 months.

I have sent off the allocation questionnaire and am waiting for Northampton to assign it to my local court.

I could do with some help on pushing this through - so far i have spent £498 on obtaining credit files, calls, letters and postal costs which i am wanting to get back and this is the claim value.

The bigger issue is that my credit file is still incorrect because of the information Provident is recording which they insist is correct, but i know this is wrong. Defaulted accounts come off your credit file after 6 years from the date of the default, but as they have not defaulted the account, but marked it as settled in 2013, i will have to wait 6 years until 2018 for the credit history to be removed when it should be this year not 2018.

Advice greatly received.

[Amethyst]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

So when you entered the IVA you were 6 months in arrears in payments, and they kept reporting the 6 month arrears each month until the IVA concluded when they marked as settled ?

Have you discussed the issue with the ICO or FOS at all prior to bringing the claim?

You are claiming costs as opposed to damages ?

Could you post up your particulars of claim and their defence please.

Who was your IVA through ?

[willi01]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Hi,

When my IVA started, i was about 4 weeks in arrears with the payments - not 6 weeks/months - but they have just continued to record it as a code 6 on the monthly updates rather than default the account. A defaulted account shows as code 8.

Ive not reported it to the ICO or the FOS - but could do if you think that would help.

I am claiming costs only and this is my online particulars that i did with money claim online - i did send in full particulars outlining everything but it was after they had submmitted their defence which came at day 28.

Claim details:

Particulars of Claim


Claimant had a previous account with the
defendant a provident account. Claimant has
attempted to resolve an ongoing problem which
the defendant is directly responsible for and
has been and continues to record inaccurate
data against the claimants credit files
despite multiple requests for it to be
corrected. This claim is for costs associated
and work involved in correcting the
inaccurate data recorded with the credit
reference agencies. Cost of credit files is
179.88 with Experian, Equifax 119.40, Call
Credit 96.00, Call costs 66.00, Letters 6.85,
Admin Time 30.00. The claimant advised the
defendant in writing that unless this problem
was resolved, the matter would be referred to
court


Their defence is in paper format, so ill find a way of typing it in .

[willi01]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Their defence:

Ive kept it simple.

1 - Defendants registered address.

2. Def admits Cla had a loan account and went into default in 2008.

3. Claimant claims IVA was completed in 20 Nov 2013 - def neither admits or denies this.

4. Def avers that its records show that the IVA was due to be extended to 20 Feb 2014 and the defendants records show it received a certificate of completion on or about 5 Dec 2013.

5. Def admits there was a short delay of approx 3 months in updating info held on certain records in relation to the claimants account. The def has taken action on or around 19 March 2014 to correct these inaccuracies which are now reflected on the claimants credit file.

6. The def avers that the claimants claim is not a money claim but a damages claim. The def denies that the particulars of the claim disclose a recognisable cause of action or particularise the amours claimed or the dates upon which the amount claimed arouse.

7. The def denies it owes the claimant the sum claimed or any monies whatsoever and puts the claimant to strict proof of liability and quantum of damages.

8. Save as otherwise admitted, the claimants particulars of claim are denied and each and every allegation in the particulars of claim is specifically denied.


I then filed a fill set of particulars outlining each and every cost and all actions taken in the case.

Part 2 states my account went into default in 2008 - yet this whole issue is about them not registering the default on my credit files.

Part 5 says they have corrected the information, but they have not registered the default as they said my account went into in Nov 2008?


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Any advice on claiming damages would be gratefully received as this is a costs only claim for the costs of me obtaining all my credit files and calls.

[Nibbler]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Yes, would have perhaps been wiser to take to the ICO and FOS before taking legal action. Court is the last resort after that, and I have heard of judges being very critical when you have not used the non court based dispute resolution options such as those prior to launching legal action.

[Nibbler]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Previous ICO guidelines in force at the time:

10 Indicators of a default

The following indicate that a breakdown has occurred in most types of product (excluding those in the section on Exceptions at paragraphs 12-15). This list is not necessarily exhaustive.

• The account has been referred to a collection agency or in-house debt collection department.
• The account has been referred for legal action.
• The account has been included in a bankruptcy, IVA, or similar.
• The asset financed has been repossessed or instructions for repossession have been given.
• The lender takes or has taken steps to cut off the service provided (or would do so if they were not prevented on social rather than commercial grounds or by other regulations, codes of practice or statute).
• The customer has not made satisfactory proposals in response to a demand for repayment.
• The customer has given a clear indication, for example, by handing back an asset, that they do not intend to meet their contractual obligations.
• The lender has evidence that an account has been opened or used for fraudulent purposes by the applicant.

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

35 It may not be necessary to serve a notice on all occasions. We accept there are cases when there should be no doubt over a default, for example, cases:

• involving fraud;
• where the lender has been notified under the terms of a bankruptcy or IVA;
• where there has been successful court action or repossession; or
• where a customer has made no attempt to resolve their arrears.

Relationship of defaults to CCJs, decrees, bankruptcies, IVAs and similar arrangements

46 We do not see any inconsistency in filing defaults relating to debts which the lender has also tried to recover through a CCJ or decree. Of course, the default must not be filed as being after the date of the CCJ or decree.

47 In normal circumstances lenders will be notified when the debt that is owed to them is to be included in a bankruptcy or IVA. In these cases lenders should file a default relating to an account that is included in an IVA or bankruptcy as soon as they receive the notification. In principle, a default should be filed as being no later than the date of the IVA or bankruptcy. We understand that on some occasions a lender does not immediately become aware of the court’s decision. In these cases, we are satisfied if a lender files a default when they become aware of the position, providing the delay is only relatively short. In these circumstances a lender should backdate the default filed to the date of the bankruptcy or IVA if the customer requests this. Where a credit agreement, for example, hire purchase on a motor vehicle, is not included in an IVA or bankruptcy, then it should be treated separately from the debts included in the IVA or bankruptcy and not be automatically marked in default. Similarly, where there is joint and several liability, and one party becomes bankrupt, then the account should not automatically be marked in default, because the other party will be responsible for it and may maintain payments.

48 Where a customer continues to pay a debt in line with the original contractual obligations, despite the debt being included in a bankruptcy or IVA ( including where the bankrupt agrees with Official Receiver that payments will continue), the lender would not be obliged to record the account as in default. If the customer stops payment at a later stage, the default recorded should show the date of the IVA or bankruptcy and the fact that it was settled only by IVA or bankruptcy as described in paragraph 51.

[Amethyst]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

I would tend to agree with this part of the defence = 6. The def avers that the claimants claim is not a money claim but a damages claim. The def denies that the particulars of the claim disclose a recognisable cause of action or particularise the amours claimed or the dates upon which the amount claimed arouse =

You should be suing them for a specific performance (correcting your credit file) as well as damages, as it stands you are suing for damages without any reason why. If they had admitted the entries were an error and refused to pay your costs of sortting it out, then you could sue for damages off the back of that, but that isnt the case.

Presumably your priority is sorting out your credit file?

Personally I would withdraw the claim as it is incorrect. You could amend it to ask for the entries to be corrected but that will cost you more and no guarantees you'd succeed, so I'd just remove it and go through the ICO to try get the credit file issues sorted, Then consider compensation/damages once you have a positive assertion the file entries are wrong and they have been forced to correct them. Just my opinion though.

Ftaod ... the entries are wrong and should be corrected but your court claim doesn't ask for the right thing

[Nibbler]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Current relevant ICO/scor guidance for comparison.

Relationship of defaults to CCJs, decrees, bankruptcies, IVAs and similar arrangements

A default can be registered for debts which the lender has also tried to recover through a CCJ or decree.

In normal circumstances lenders will be notified when the debt that is owed to them is to be included in an insolvency e.g. bankruptcy, IVA or similar and should be marked as included in that by filing a default as soon as is practical.

The default date must be consistent with that of the CCJ/bankruptcy or IVA; therefore a default should be filed as being no later than the date of the insolvency order. In
circumstances where the lender is not immediately aware, the default can be filed at that point in time. If evidence of the insolvency date is provided, the default date recorded at the CRA will be aligned.

If a default has already been filed and a CCJ or other insolvency or similar is subsequently registered, no further action is needed.

Where there is joint liability and only one party is the subject of an insolvency order, then the account should not automatically be marked in default if it is being maintained by the other party.

[Nibbler]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

go through the ICO to try get the credit file issues sorted, Then consider compensation/damages once you have a positive assertion the file entries are wrong and they have been forced to correct them. Just my opinion though.

Ftaod ... the entries are wrong and should be corrected but your court claim doesn't ask for the right thing

Not only the ICO, but I would say the FOS as well.

They can both look at these complaints and to be honest at the moment creditors seem to be taking more notice and sorting things quicker when they know you are going to the FOS as well.

This is basically it, although could do with some updating to reflect what I just said. -> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1286063

[willi01]

Re: county court summons issued against Provident

Thanks for the advice.

It would have been useful for me to put the full particulars i sent in as this outlines the full case in much more detail and maybe says the things that are not in the initial MCOL brief particulars.

If there is a way of sending a private message tho those who have provided feedback, I'm happy to send you a private message so you can see the full particulars - there are 46 points, so i think its a little bit too long to post on this thread.

i have raised a complaint now to the IOC.

Going to do one as well with the FOS.

Thanks