default notice query - please help

drewwhonumba2

I apologise if anybody thinks I am a trol, this is not the case, I have genuinely been affected by defaults and CCJ's and I have ben trying to give you advice based upon my own experience.

I defaulted around 7 years ago on a barclaycard and a barclays overdraft, I did not pay and have made no attempt to pay and have never been pursued in the county court as a result. They have subsequently been removed from my credit file.

Based upon the information on this site....please search 'settled' default and you will see peoples experience, you will amost always find that a settled defualt is in REALITY no better than an unsatisfied default as it is seen just as bad bay lenders. For you to get to CCj level with that default the company would have to purseue you in the county court, you will be given notice of this. So basically what I am saying is that it is unlikely they will pursue it now it has defaulted, and even if they do, you will be givn the opportunity to clear it before it gets to that stage...even then if a CCJ is upheld, you are given 30 days to pay it off then it is removed from your credit file.

Can anybody tell me that they have a default notice AND a CCJ for the same debt? Probably very unlikey

I am trying to help you save money that you dont have to spend if it will not improve your credit worthiness, my opinion is that you need the default removed, and whilst the debt remains you have some leverage to do this

By paying back the debt it will appear as satisfied, but you have lost all leverage to remove it through negotiation. I would try to find out (which have done extensively and failed) if any mainstream or high street lenders will lend to you with a default even if the rest of your fie is healthy, it is very unlikely. As stated before, you NEED to keep the rest of your file looking healthy as this is what you will be judge on when the default does finally drop off so i am not advising you at all to negelct anything other that this one payment....but only to leverage the debt as a means to have the default removed.

I hope you understand where I am coming from and not intentionally trying to give bad advice, i am here for the same reasons as everybody else, certainly not to troll

Tixy

I don't think you are here to troll - but I think you possibly are advising based on just your experience of a default.

It is now far more common that creditors are taking their debtors to court long before debts become statute barred. Obviously not all creditors take all defaulted debts to court, far from it, they weigh up the value based on the balance owed, the cost of the court case and the likelihood they'll be able to collect a CCJ if granted.

drewwhonumba2 wrote: »

Can anybody tell me that they have a default notice AND a CCJ for the same debt? Probably very unlikey

Really thousands and thousands of people have. And if its a consumer credit debt then there has to be a default before they can issue court proceedings but please don't think that court proceedings don't happen - they do. Just have a look on the debt free wannabe board or the speak to any debt advisor working in the charitable sector.

You are right that people still have the option to pay within 1 month and not have the CCJ recorded on file but remember lots of people would not be in a position to pay off an entire debt in full within a month, and so would end up with their file trashed for even longer.

A lot of high street lenders won't issue say personal loans for someone with a default whether settled or not. But if you are talking about subprime credit cards or looking to get a mortgage then an unsettled default is viewed as worse than a satisfied one. I've not actually seen anyone manage to get a mortgage with outstanding defaults, but people certainly can with satisfied default still on file.

drewwhonumba2

Tixy wrote: »

I don't think you are here to troll - but I think you possibly are advising based on just your experience of a default.

It is now far more common that creditors are taking their debtors to court long before debts become statute barred. Obviously not all creditors take all defaulted debts to court, far from it, they weigh up the value based on the balance owed, the cost of the court case and the likelihood they'll be able to collect a CCJ if granted.



Really thousands and thousands of people have. And if its a consumer credit debt then there has to be a default before they can issue court proceedings but please don't think that court proceedings don't happen - they do. Just have a look on the debt free wannabe board or the speak to any debt advisor working in the charitable sector.

You are right that people still have the option to pay within 1 month and not have the CCJ recorded on file but remember lots of people would not be in a position to pay off an entire debt in full within a month, and so would end up with their file trashed for even longer.

A lot of high street lenders won't issue say personal loans for someone with a default whether settled or not. But if you are talking about subprime credit cards or looking to get a mortgage then an unsettled default is viewed as worse than a satisfied one. I've not actually seen anyone manage to get a mortgage with outstanding defaults, but people certainly can with satisfied default still on file.

Understood but with all due respect in this situation the OP does have the means to pay, so the point is, he shouldnt give up his fight to have the default removed. There are lots of good and proven default removal techniques and in most cases require some leverage....either a mistake, or lack of administration or payment leverage....why give up this without a fight?

If the OP decides that he does need sub prime credit in the form of a mortgage or credit cards over the next 6 years then yes i agree the default should be satisfied. But the OP clearly already has prime credit.....it is not bad 'money saving' advice to not pay the default of CCj is not pursued and sub prime credit is not required

Highly unlikely that high street credit in any form will be issued

kilasuit

the technicality that i would be using is that for the default that there is placed on the credit file there is no default notice

There was a default notice in the past (no default on CF's) but it seems the OP has rectified the situation (so default wasnt registered at that time) as they came to an agreement with the OC which renders that default notice void and therefore they have no legal right to register a default unless a new default notice is sent out again with at least 14 days to rectify the situation.


So as things stand that default on the OP's CF's is unlawful and should be removed.

mo786uk

If you stop paying now you will only be back on here in 1 years time moaning that you are being harassed by a debt collection agency.

Just bargain a bit with them in order to get the default removed. I wouldn;t cry over a default though its not that big a deal and a CCJ will be worse if you stop payment.

desperateone

Thanks so much again to everyone. People's contributions are very much helping me to think more clearly about this and it does seem to be worth contesting the default further.

Just so that I am clear, I am keen to repay the money i owe and not burn any bridges (i certainly will not do anything to risk incurring a CCJ), whilst making use of the leverage that i have.

As i see it the leverage i have this constitues: 1) the fact that I still owe them money (and WANT to pay them); and 2) Possible unlawful behaviour of the part of the credit card company, as suggested by Kilasuit.

Kilasuit sums up my situation accurately and I am now keen to hear more about this issue of whether the CC co. are legally obliged to issue a new default notice (i had stuck to the repayment agreement meticulously, with the exception of the payment that was three days late). Is this definitely the case?

Also, how can i now understand the status of the repayment schedule agreement that was reached with them 18 months ago? Surely this has now ended since i breached it (leading to registration of default) through the late payment? Do I not need to reach a new agreement with them about how much i repay each month (correspondence from them has said that the agreement has now been 'reinstated' and that i am expected to maintain repayments as before). Can an agreement be ended by one party (the CC) and then reinstated by them without any discussion with the other party (me)? I ask this because, if the default is to remain, i would like to know i am on strong footing to renegotiate a new monthly sum(something much smaller than the 200 i currently pay)

On a slight aside, they have not cancelled the credit card itself and every month i get statement that tells me i have xxx amonth available to spend! Not that i would use it, but it strikes me as rather strange that, given the default, they still want me to use the card!
Thanks again

Tixy

If you want to pursue the issue of the default then this is the official guidance from the ICO about filing defaults with the CRAs. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf It does contain a lot of info and some of it is conflicting. Its not an easy read but you may be able to identify some points that you can use in your favour.

A few things -
The fact that they have left your card open and you could spend on the account could be argued to mean that the relationship between you and BC has not broken down. Defaults are generally filed when a relationship has broken down.

Section 32 onwards deals with the notice of default being issued prior to the default being registered - this might be worth a read through. It doesn't specifically give a timescale as to how soon after issuing a default it has to be registered.

I think section 31 might be relevant as well in your case (or the card co might say it is) - this is to do with the date of the default . I would think from what you have posted you had a 'genuine and agreed variation in payment schedule' and that when you missed the payment this would be classed as the revised payment has broken down, so you might need to try to argue why this is not the case.

What default date has been entered by BC? the original default date (28days after the original notice) or the date you missed that payment?
I think first I would probably try again with the fairly informal approach calling and seeing if you can get the default removed. If that still doesn't work then perhaps write a letter based on the circumstances and any info you pick up from the ICO guidelines to try to convince them that the default should not have been registered.

What I would not do is threaten to withold payment if they won't remove it. Someone has posted that you can use the fact that you can now pay in full as leverage to get it removed - this does seem to work in some cases when dealing with things like catalogues / mobile phone companies etc. But when you are dealing with a bank this if far less likely to work. Banks simply tend to take the line that they won't remove defaults if they have been correctly filed as to do so would not represent an accurate position to any other potential lenders.
So instead I would think you would be better trying to argue why you think it shouldn't have been filed rather than trying to bargain with them about paying in full.

desperateone

That's extremely helpful, thank you so much. I will take a close look at what you have sent.

The default date that has been registered is that date just after I missed the payment. I wouldn't mind so much if it had been recorded 28 days after the original notice, as it least it would then reflect when i really had run into difficulty (ie, payments a few months later rather than a few days). Also, had they registered it back then I wouldn't be in such a bad position now, as almost two years of the six years of bad credit rating would have elapsed.

Thanks again

desperateone

Just checked my credit file and the 'date of default' is recorded as two days AFTER I made the required payment for that month. Is this legitimate? Surely this strengthens my case?

desperateone

Any more thoughts on this would be most appreciated.

I am writing another letter to the cc company, having made no progress on the phone.

I have read the ICO's technical guidance document about defaults and it does seem to indicate that - in an 'arrangement to pay' (which is what i was on) - a default should not be registered until payments are three months late. Am I reading this correctly? In my case, the payment was three days late. (Though, as mentioned above, the default date on my credit file is two days AFTER I made the required payment!)

Also, the payments i have been making are far in excess of the minimum monthly payments that would have been required had i not been on an arrangement to pay. Does this help my case?

Many thanks in advance