I'm getting confused.

pmf63

I had a creditor default a credit card way back in 2005, around April time. so I was expecting it to drop off around April this year. Now, they rang us just over a year ago and agreed on us clearing the debt at a significant reduction of what we owe. I recently noticed that on the experian report it now does not show as defaulted 04/2005 but partially settled on 12/2009. Does this mean that they have revised the date the debt comes off the CR? 6 years from settlement is 12/2015.

If this is the case, what incentive does anyone have to clear their debt if they are 'marked' from the date they clear it? I would have been better off paying them the peanuts I was and taking another 10 years to pay it all back.

Your thoughts would be very much appreciated.

fermi

The Experian report should show two dates.

It should give a default date (04/2005) and a settlement date (12/2009).

pmf63

No it doesn't ... just the partial settlement date and a special instruction date, both within a few days of each other. Infact at the bottom it used to say that it comes off 6 years from date of default and now that is gone also.

fermi

In that case I would get in touch with Experian. It may just be an error their end. That is the first thing to check out anyway.

If the creditor has removed the default data, then in some ways that is a bit naughty. Depends on how you look at it. If there is genuinely no default registered now, then in the short term that will be better. In the long term, the partial settlement would stay on file longer so not be so good.

pmf63

Exactly my thoughts fermi ... I have emailed Experian. The creditor was Nat West Bank and I have been told by an employee friend that they purposely do anything they are legally allowed to do to keep your bad credit on file for as long as legally possible.

I have learnt a lot over the years and they do not threaten me anymore, but they used to. Now when they ask for more money and threaten court I tell them to go ahead ... any court in this land would declare me bankrupt.

I am unemployed, no chance of finding employment again at my age, I was made redundant 7 years ago and still manage to pay them £15 month off of a £12 000 loan taken out in 2001 which after their constant interest and fee's (and I have already paid them £13 000), they still say I owe £18 000.

I took out the original £12 000 and after a couple of years had trouble so they arranged a new loan to pay off the first ... I made the mistake of taking out that second loan ... my debt had nearly doubled because of that by the time that I paid back the original loan plus the full term interest and the new loan had to be £19k plus another lot of interest. When I was made redundant the interest kept going up and 'fees' added everytime they sent me a letter and I tried to negotiate but they eventually defaulted. It was only a few years ago that I managed to get them to freeze the interest which was still acruing years after default. Hence I still owe them more now than I borrowed 10 years ago.

fermi

pmf63 wrote: »

Exactly my thoughts fermi ... I have emailed Experian. The creditor was Nat West Bank and I have been told by an employee friend that they purposely do anything they are legally allowed to do to keep your bad credit on file for as long as legally possible.

Yep. Sounds like NatWest.

If the have really removed it then you might have an argument against it. On accuracy/fairness at least. However, if it has been done out of spite then I suspect it might be a bit of a fight?

pmf63

So by the sounds of it ... if an account has defaulted, then it is best NOT to make a partial settlement. The creditor will/can put you back on the CRA starting your 6 years again.

Thanks for your thoughts.

They haven't removed anything yet ... when the account was partially settled they just changed 'Defaulted' to 'Partially Settled' and changed the date from 04/2005 to 12/2009

I always thought that an account was removed 6 years after default regardless of whether it was paid or not and regardless of how it was paid. Seems like that is not the case!

fermi

I wouldn't say that in general. Most creditors won't play silly games like this, and I think you have a reasonable argument against it.

The vast majority will just update the default with the additional information regarding the settlement, as they really should.