Default charges on credit history

YorkshireBoy

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

Why would they bounce cheques "to keep the account in order" after the account has been restored to order ?

It's really quite simple. They may have bounced cheques/refused DDs inbetween the account going unauthorised overdrawn and the next credit arriving. Or a payment requested may have resulted in an unauthorised overdraft situation so they applied a fee...which then created an unauthorised overdraft situation.

If this occurs once a month for 3 months then that may fall under the 3rd bullet in the Experian guidelines, namely...

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

You may be right (but I don't think you are), but what we need from the OP is a breakdown of his CRA file for the account in question to see if it's:

3210000002100000

or

1110000001100000

masonic

If I understand this "exchange" correctly, Dr_Cuckoo3 believes that if the OP had bounced payments in 3 consecutive months and cleared the arrears each month, he could successfully overturn a "3" status on his credit file? On what basis is this assertion being made?

YorkshireBoy

masonic wrote: »

If I understand this "exchange" correctly, Dr_Cuckoo3 believes that if the OP had bounced payments in 3 consecutive months and cleared the arrears each month, he could successfully overturn a "3" status on his credit file?

The Dr is suggesting (I know not on what basis though...maybe it's conjecture ) that in such a situation there wouldn't be a '3' present at all. He's saying the OP's credit history for this particular account will show as the second of my two example histories above.

However, when he says...

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote:

Why would they bounce cheques "to keep the account in order" after the account has been restored to order ?

...he hasn't yet realised, or been informed by the OP, that there may have been a period exceeding 24 hours (during which payment requests were presented) between going unauthorised overdrawn and a credit arriving in the account.

Dr_Cuckoo3

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

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

I use the phrase "I still suggest..." , whereas you state your conjecture as fact

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

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

because your posting style attempts to impress the reader that you are knowledgeable -when you have no experience in the particular matter (it appears that you were not aware of the interpretation of current account staus codes until izools posted the Experian link)

for example It appears that you have never ordered data proctection records from a bank

You are very knowledgeable on the subject of stoozing - but I do not think you are knowledgeable in this matter

I am happy to wait and see whether or not you are correct and have not stated otherwise (you appear to suggest that you are correct already)

I would be interested to know which bank you think the OP is referring to and which banks report overdraft status codes in the manner you suggest

I have already posted a link about First Direct and this problem appears to be peculiar to HSBC , I am not aware of any other bank acting in this manner

Dr_Cuckoo3

I suggest that as soon as a breach is rectified the clock is reset - therefore the next status code will be "1" if the account is not in order again and will only accumilate to a "2" or "3" if unrectified

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

3210000002100000

or

1110000001100000

under what circumstances would a current account generate consecutive"1"s as quoted in your example above

a credit card paid late eg 20 days late consecutively for 3 months would generate consecutive"1"s rather than "1","2"& "3" or do you suggest otherwise

Dr_Cuckoo3

masonic wrote: »

If I understand this "exchange" correctly, Dr_Cuckoo3 believes that if the OP had bounced payments in 3 consecutive months and cleared the arrears each month, he could successfully overturn a "3" status on his credit file? On what basis is this assertion being made?

Because the OP states that the account was put back in order each month - a credit card bill paid in full or the minimum amount each month but late (eg 20 days late) would be classed as 1 payment late each month with a "1" status code - these would not accumilate to a "3" status code unless no payments (or less than minimum payment) had been made for 3 consecutive months

If I am incorrect in that respect (as far as credit cards are concerned) then I am probably incorrect in my assertion as far as current accounts are concerned

YorkshireBoy

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

(it appears that you were not aware of the interpretation of current account staus codes until izools posted the Experian link)

I've posted that link many many times on this board, and on the credit card board. To be honest, I was glad someone else posted it to save me the trouble of posting it again.

I am happy to wait and see whether or not you are correct and have not stated otherwise (you appear to suggest that you are correct already)

If, as I speculated, payments were refused whilst the account was unauthorised overdrawn, or because such payments being made would create an unauthorised overdraft, or because the unpaid item fee in itself had created an unauthorised overdraft, then my understanding/interpretation of the Experian guideline examples is that the account history would indeed show as 321000...

I would be interested to know which bank you think the OP is referring to and which banks report overdraft status codes in the manner you suggest

No idea...to both.

Dr_Cuckoo3

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

Criteria for a "2" status code are as follows

"Agreed repayments are two to three months behind.
• Your overdraft balance has been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months.
• Cheques, direct debits and standing orders may have been bounced for a second month to keep the account in order."


In the case of "Your overdraft balance has been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months."

my interpetation is that the "overdraft balance must have been greater than your overdraft limit for two to three months continuously and has not been within the authorised overdraft limit at any time in those two months - if the balance has been within the authorised overdraft limit for at least one day in that period a "2" status code is not justified

Do you agree with that or not ?

I will then move on to the other reasons for recording adverse status codes , one question at a time to keep things simple

YorkshireBoy

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

Do you agree with that or not ?

That would be how I would interpret it yes.

It could be based on the balance at statement date/CRA reporting date though (as I questioned in my earlier post), as with credit cards. For example, I was told by Halifax that they report credit card account status (including balance) at statement date. Other credit card providers may choose to report account status as at the date the monthly CRA update is sent.

Dr_Cuckoo3

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

That would be how I would interpret it yes.

In that case why would a harsher status code be given when a cheque is bounced once a month where the account is within its agreed overdraft limit at least once a month or indeed for most of the month

My interpretation is that this applies to cheques bounced because the account has remained over the agreed limit continuously for more than two months