Petition to No.10 Downing Street

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

ILW wrote: »

I agree with much of what you say, but I think it is not a matter of how long the data is kept, but how it is used.

Yes entirely, but the way it is used has this same profound effect on the length of time it is kept, i.e. one works with the other and without one then both links break.

Its a catch 22..... really, shutting the CRA's down and using inter-bank sharing would/maybe/could be the way forward.......

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Isn't the current time limit from 'last contact,' not when the debt defaulted/was taken out? So a debt taken out (say) 12 years ago can still legitimatly(sp?) appear on a credit record if the debt has been acknowledged in the past six years.

Is that changing?

Yes, everything will fall in line to 3 years - well, thats what they are suggesting cos this works fine in the rest of the EU and their consumer debt is miles less than ours so factually proves it does work......

However we'll await and see next week what is decided! :eek: :eek:

In your example no, cos if it was taken out 12 years ago after the initial 6 years then the debt became statute barred so the latter 6 years would be insignificant. To be honest, not many people acjnowledge a debt now cos they are savvy to the rules so I think admittal is a thing of the past..... certainly in writing which is what is required!

dealer_wins

After 6 yeards

AS a former bank employee for 17 years, I can say that people who pay on time consistently do that, and take provision against sudden changes like unemployment, illness etc, and people that miss payments all the time have absolutely no backup for any emergencies and live week to week.

My point is that as a bank employee I could see by looking at someones account who is good for £5K and who isnt, but for companies who dont have access to their prospective borrowers main bank account, they really do need as much data as possible to make a responsible lending decision which benefits them, and just as importantly the borrower from over committing.

Paul_Herring

After 6 yeards

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yes, everything will fall in line to 3 years - well, thats what they are suggesting cos this works fine in the rest of the EU and their consumer debt is miles less than ours so factually proves it does work......

Not sure I got my point across - under the (proposed?) new rules, if a 12 year old debt is acknowleded within the past 3 years, will it still appear on a credit reference, or would it not be allowed since it's older than 3 years?

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Not sure I got my point across - under the (proposed?) new rules, if a 12 year old debt is acknowleded within the past 3 years, will it still appear on a credit reference, or would it not be allowed since it's older than 3 years?

Ahhh sorry, got you.

It would be the same process as present, i.e. if the debt is 12 years old, after 6 it will become statute barred (the new 3yrs rule wont affect this as statute barred is a separate act that would supercede the 3yr rule anyway) but lets say after the 3yrs have passed, then it'd vanish from the credit file.

1997 - I take out credit
1998 - I make a last payment and hide!
2001 - The debt & all associated entries will auto drop off my credit file
2003 - Debt becomes unenforceable (Statute Barred) - even though it is off my CRA it still remains enforceable until 6yrs
2009 - (12yrs later) I ring the lender, they will have no record of me.

Hope that helps

Paul_Herring

After 6 yeards

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Ahhh sorry, got you.

It would be the same process as present, i.e. if the debt is 12 years old, after 6 it will become statute barred

That's the term I was grasping for - is that changing? Either in duration or implementation?

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

Paul_Herring wrote: »

That's the term I was grasping for - is that changing? Either in duration or implementation?

It can't - its a separate Act as Statute Barred is a Statute of Limitations Act whereas CRA data confirms to DPA so the Statute of Limitations would surely overrule that of a local policy that is a sub-division of another Act (DPA)...... what i'm trying to say is that in my opinion, the debt would vanish from the CRA record but still enforceable until the statute limit of 6yrs (England) or 5yrs (Scotland) regardless of the new rules. I may be wrong but can't see this, unless a clause is inserted into both Acts to allow a shorter limitation time frame....

udydudy

After 6 yeards

never-in-doubt wrote: »

We're trying to get the CRA's to fall in line with Europe and stop reporting data for 6yrs, but instead hold data for 3yrs like our European counterparts. If you'd like to show your support, please click the link below and sign up for free...

Petition to: reduce the time Credit reference agencies hold data for to 3 years. | Number10.gov.uk

Well then we should maybe join europe(EU)....with all their lawlesness...Spain..Italy...France...

I gues you would not want the illegal immigrants when they get here....

btw before anybody jumps the gun.... :jI am an immigrant.. a legal one.. the rest can start jumping....:money: all opinions welcome...;)

Paul_Herring

After 6 yeards

udydudy wrote: »

Well then we should maybe join europe(EU)....with all their lawlesness...Spain..Italy...France...

Stop reading the Daily Mail?

I gues you would not want the illegal immigrants when they get here....

Oops, too late.

btw before anybody jumps the gun.... :jI am an immigrant.. a legal one.. the rest can start jumping....:money: all opinions welcome...;)

There's a world of difference between immigrant, and illegal immigrant. Some areas of Spain, for example, have a high immigration rate of Britons turning up.

DMG seem to confuse things somewhat and end up having 'middle England' spluttering into their cups of morning tea. I'd advise such persons to either do it with a [STRIKE]pinch[/STRIKE]bucketfull of salt or stop reading it. Sadly (or not, I get to see what DMG're up to) my in-laws continue buying it.

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

udydudy wrote: »

Well then we should maybe join europe(EU)....with all their lawlesness...Spain..Italy...France...

I gues you would not want the illegal immigrants when they get here....

btw before anybody jumps the gun.... :jI am an immigrant.. a legal one.. the rest can start jumping....:money: all opinions welcome...;)

Its not total lawlesness and to be honest each country throughout the world has their own problems why should we be any different? Spain (well the canaries in particular) has a problem with being so close to Africa and Mainland Spain / Italy / France are actually middle points to the UK this is why they have immigration problems. Trust me, if we opened the doors they'd soon be jumping ship to the UK - these places are stop-gaps to the promised land!

As for yourself being an immigrant, so what? That has nothing to do with debt and a petition to get CRA's to stop processing after 3yrs! You've slightly hijacked the thread with an intention of adding race which is not really relevant to the thread now is it - :rotfl: