Default charges on credit history

izools

Status Codes on Bank Accounts don't mean the same thing as they do on a Credit Account.

(A bank account isn't a credit account and isn't regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The overdraft is a repayable-on-demand facility, not a credit agreement)

Please read page 15 of the Experian guide to "Your credit file explained":

http://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/consumer/YCREJul08.pdf

A 3+ code on a Current Account does not mean you were three months late in bringing the account up to date.

It merely means that at least one transaction per month was bounced, three months in a row. It doesn't matter if you bring the account back up to date an hour / day / week after the payment was bounced.

In this instance, and from what you have said, the data is correct.

Sorry

Dr_Cuckoo3

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Send them a subject access request (SAR). It'll cost you a tenner or so but you'll get everything they have on you!

except the information sent to credit reference agencies and the information received from credit reference agencies

But then you have never made a Subject Access Request - in the unlikely event that you have done so , you are invited to name the bank which discloses the information sent to credit reference agencies and the information received from credit reference agencies

1 , I doubt you have never made a Subject Access Request to a bank / credit card company

2, I doubt that the information sent to credit reference agencies and the information received from credit reference agencies was provided to you by the bank / credit card company as a result of a SAR

I am happy to be proved wrong by a poster with 16,022 posts since November 2004

YorkshireBoy

izools wrote: »

In this instance, and from what you have said, the data is correct.

Which is where I was going when seeking clarification earlier.

Sending a tenner if that is the case is money down the drain!

YorkshireBoy

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

except the information sent to credit reference agencies

OP already knows what's been sent to the CRAs...he told us in the first post!

But then you have never made a Subject Access Request

Correct, but OP is looking for evidence that he was continuously over his overdraft limit. The point being made to him is that it's not necessary to be continuously over your overdraft limit to earn a '3' on your credit file...merely that each month something went wrong and the bank had to take action.

If the OP went unauthorised overdrawn on 3 separate occasions, once per month over 3 months, then as has been said, the SAR will be money wasted.

Dr_Cuckoo3

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

OP already knows what's been sent to the CRAs...he told us in the first post!

The bank has provided data to the CRA and will not disclose that as a result of a SAR , the OP is entitled to query the accuracy and reasoning of the information sent to the CRA by the bank and this is undermined by the Bank's refusal to provide it

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

The point being made to him is that it's not necessary to be continuously over your overdraft limit to earn a '3' on your credit file...merely that each month something went wrong and the bank had to take action.

If the OP went unauthorised overdrawn on 3 separate occasions, once per month over 3 months, then as has been said, the SAR will be money wasted.

OP states the account was restored to credit each month when wages went in

I doubt that these are green squares containing the number 3

The status would reset to "1" in this case I think therefore 3 x "1" on the credit file

It would help to know the name of the Bank in question :idea:

YorkshireBoy

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

OP states the account was restored to credit each month when wages went in

I doubt that these are green squares containing the number 3

See the table on page 15 of the document linked in izools' post above.

A '3' may denote...

Agreed repayments are three or more months behind. Not relevant?

Your overdraft balance has been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months. How is this to be interpreted? In 3 separate months?...or for 3 consecutive months?...or at 3 separate CRA reporting dates?

Cheques, direct debits and standing orders may have been bounced for a third month to keep the account in order. OP hasn't said if that's the case or not.

izools

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

OP states the account was restored to credit each month when wages went in

I doubt that these are green squares containing the number 3

The status would reset to "1" in this case I think therefore 3 x "1" on the credit file

It would help to know the name of the Bank in question :idea:

That's not what the Experian guide states.

It states "Cheques, direct debits and standing orders may have been bounced for a third month to keep the account in order."

So even if the account is brought up to date as soon as the bounce occurred, it's the fact that "a mishap" occurred for the third month in a row that results in a "3".

Dr_Cuckoo3

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

See the table on page 15 of the document linked in izools' post above.

A '3' may denote...

wrote:

Agreed repayments are three or more months behind. Not relevant?

Your overdraft balance has been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months. How is this to be interpreted? In 3 separate months?...or for 3 consecutive months?...or at 3 separate CRA reporting dates?

Cheques, direct debits and standing orders may have been bounced for a third month to keep the account in order. OP hasn't said if that's the case or not.

This is conjecture on your part and you have no direct experience of the matter in question - use of the word "may" (in the Experian document) is ambiguous

"Your overdraft balance has been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months. How is this to be interpreted? In 3 separate months?...or for 3 consecutive months?...or at 3 separate CRA reporting dates?"

I still suggest that the clock resets when the account is restored to credit / agreed overdraft limit as would be the case with a credit card

I said that "I doubt that these are green squares containing the number 3" and this was in response to the OP's claim that

DAVID81 wrote: »

Im not arguing the fact i have missed payments on my credit history its the mark of 3+ on my record which indicates agreed payments were 3months behind.

I suspect that the OP has 3 x "1" green square status codes rather than 3 x "3" or a "1" , "2" and "3" and await clarification


The more articulate poster may well impress viewers of this forum , however I prefer the correct information in Ali G slang over articulate conjecture

So I ask which bank is being discussed and the actual CRA status codes

I am interested in facts not conjecture

Dr_Cuckoo3

izools wrote: »

That's not what the Experian guide states.

It states "Cheques, direct debits and standing orders may have been bounced for a third month to keep the account in order."

So even if the account is brought up to date as soon as the bounce occurred, it's the fact that "a mishap" occurred for the third month in a row that results in a "3".

Why would they bounce cheques "to keep the account in order" after the account has been restored to order ? - I think the clock resets if the account is restored to order and a "3" status code would only be issued if the account had been overlimit for 3 consecutive months without being restored to order

OP states

DAVID81 wrote: »

Although we went overdrawn i know my account was brought back into line each month when my wages went in.

YorkshireBoy

Go on then I'll take the bait...

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

This is conjecture on your part and you have no direct experience of the matter in question - use of the word "may" (in the Experian document) is ambiguous

Exactly...they're guidelines, as in it's a guide - which is why I asked the question (in red) "how is this interpreted?" It was a rhetorical question, because until we know which bank it is and what their policy is we will not know.

I still suggest that the clock resets when the account is restored to credit / agreed overdraft limit as would be the case with a credit card

But that's conjecture on your part isn't it? Why is it OK for you to use it and not others?

The more articulate poster may well impress viewers of this forum

I'm not quite sure why you're having a go at me?

So I ask which bank is being discussed and the actual CRA status codes

As do I, but I think the OP is happy that he now knows how to get his statements (for a tenner for the lot, rather than £5 or whatever each) so won't be back now.

I am interested in facts not conjecture

Then perhaps stick to facts yourself?