Tweet
Hi all 
So straight into it...
The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor, which were taken over by a 3rd party, however the earlier defaults were left on file and new ones added. 2 defaults for the same account. This duplication has been sorted but it showed some quite interesting discrepancies.
The accounts had the same start start date but different default dates and amounts. I put this to the original creditor and received the following response, with account numbers removed to protect the innocent:
The MMF reported default gave default dates of 2 weeks after the NoD was issued and the balances reflected those on the default notices. The balances on the notices of default as issued on 4th September were £962 and £537 respectively.
Credit file reports 3 missed payments then account into default, which is interesting given that one account went into default status on 2nd September, showing 3 monthly payments missed, having been opened on 5th July, less than 2 months previously.
I have a suspicion that this reporting process is a big no-no. I also have a suspicion that they register a default with the CRAs promptly for the amount on the default notice then change the details on said default when they sell it on, this sale being completed on 14th February 2013. The technical guidance the ICOicon supply regarding report of defaults seems to bear this out.
It's also fairly interesting to note that between 2nd September and 30th January isn't 180 days.
It looks like this creditor plays extremely fast and loose with the reports they provide to CRAs. The 'reporting procedure' I've been given also appears to at very least not be followed.
I have presented this to the main CRA, they previously asked this creditor if the data was correct which they have, of course, confirmed. I have supplied the additional information to them and suggested they should perhaps take proactive action given the creditor has told me that they, as a matter of procedure, don't follow proper process.
The credit reference agency's response was to refuse to take any action beyond to ask the original creditor again whether the data is correct, despite evidence being presented to them that this creditor routinely misreports to them.
It strikes me that the manner in which this creditor is conducting reporting of defaults is a big no-no, and the refusal of the CRA to do anything regarding the, by the creditor's own admission, incorrect data beyond ask the original creditor whether they want it to stay on the file as is isn't great as far as their obligations to present correct data goes.
I would welcome the thoughts of those more knowledgeable.
I look forward to reading here more often!
So straight into it...
The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor, which were taken over by a 3rd party, however the earlier defaults were left on file and new ones added. 2 defaults for the same account. This duplication has been sorted but it showed some quite interesting discrepancies.
The accounts had the same start start date but different default dates and amounts. I put this to the original creditor and received the following response, with account numbers removed to protect the innocent:
1. We transferred your loan accounts xxx and xxx to Motormile Finance Ltd (MMF) in February, 2014 and we reported these accounts as transferred/sold to the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA). At the time when your accounts were transferred to MMF, the outstanding balances were £1448.00 and £673.00 respectively.
2. Both the above loan accounts went in Default status with us on 02nd September, 2012 due to non-payments and we sent you a Notice of Default via email (on 04th September, 2015) as well as via Post to notify you about the same. Please find attached the Default notices which were sent to you.
3. According to our reporting procedure, we give our customers 180 days post the account goes into Default to get the loan up-to-date or closed. Since we did not receive the payments within this time frame, we reported the same to CRA's on 30th January, 2013.
At the time when we reported this to CRA's, the balance for your accounts were £1386.00 and £611.00 respectively. This is the reason, the Default date for these accounts are showing for 30th January, 2015 with the Default balance of £1336.00 and £611.00 respectively on your credit file.
As these are genuine Default marks, we would not be able to remove them from your credit file.
2. Both the above loan accounts went in Default status with us on 02nd September, 2012 due to non-payments and we sent you a Notice of Default via email (on 04th September, 2015) as well as via Post to notify you about the same. Please find attached the Default notices which were sent to you.
3. According to our reporting procedure, we give our customers 180 days post the account goes into Default to get the loan up-to-date or closed. Since we did not receive the payments within this time frame, we reported the same to CRA's on 30th January, 2013.
At the time when we reported this to CRA's, the balance for your accounts were £1386.00 and £611.00 respectively. This is the reason, the Default date for these accounts are showing for 30th January, 2015 with the Default balance of £1336.00 and £611.00 respectively on your credit file.
As these are genuine Default marks, we would not be able to remove them from your credit file.
The MMF reported default gave default dates of 2 weeks after the NoD was issued and the balances reflected those on the default notices. The balances on the notices of default as issued on 4th September were £962 and £537 respectively.
Credit file reports 3 missed payments then account into default, which is interesting given that one account went into default status on 2nd September, showing 3 monthly payments missed, having been opened on 5th July, less than 2 months previously.
I have a suspicion that this reporting process is a big no-no. I also have a suspicion that they register a default with the CRAs promptly for the amount on the default notice then change the details on said default when they sell it on, this sale being completed on 14th February 2013. The technical guidance the ICOicon supply regarding report of defaults seems to bear this out.
It's also fairly interesting to note that between 2nd September and 30th January isn't 180 days.
It looks like this creditor plays extremely fast and loose with the reports they provide to CRAs. The 'reporting procedure' I've been given also appears to at very least not be followed.
I have presented this to the main CRA, they previously asked this creditor if the data was correct which they have, of course, confirmed. I have supplied the additional information to them and suggested they should perhaps take proactive action given the creditor has told me that they, as a matter of procedure, don't follow proper process.
The credit reference agency's response was to refuse to take any action beyond to ask the original creditor again whether the data is correct, despite evidence being presented to them that this creditor routinely misreports to them.
It strikes me that the manner in which this creditor is conducting reporting of defaults is a big no-no, and the refusal of the CRA to do anything regarding the, by the creditor's own admission, incorrect data beyond ask the original creditor whether they want it to stay on the file as is isn't great as far as their obligations to present correct data goes.
I would welcome the thoughts of those more knowledgeable.
I look forward to reading here more often!
)
Comment