Should we apply again?

rizel23

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Your logic is misguided, I am trying to be constructive.

So you go to a lender that manually underwrites a mortgage application, to mitigate the "computer says no" traditional bank response. This seems logical as you can demonstrate good behaviour in the last 3 years - it will need to be 3 years to get the defaults overlooked.

So the conversation goes:

Lender - Its all looking good here, can see 3 defaults from 2-3 years ago to credit card companies - what happened there - loss of job, marriage split, illness?

You No - I actually realised thanks to some people online that the money I had used may have an invalid contract. Did not pay and going to legally have it all sorted

Lender Nice work - close the door on your way out please..

In answer to your thread title - no its not worth re-applying elsewhere and given your forum usage, surely you would have realised that HSBC application was nothing short of stupidity.

You again seem to be implying that i do not want to repay low value default and presume everyone who gets a default is because they run out of money or other situation and do not want to pay, this is and was not the case for me.

I have and did follow the correct procedure for requesting documentation i should have been sent through the legal channels of CCA requests and SAR request, i do not see anyone questioning why i was not provided with these documents just posts saying i have stolen money, not the fact these lenders flaunt the law and ignore or fob off consumers, so I'm very proud to stand up to them.

I shall pass on your comments to HSBC when i next go into my bank, as strangely they were the people who advised me to apply for mortgage with them as i bank, credit and save with them.

I guess its ultimately the lenders decision of what they look at and for and the reasons why.

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

The actual defaults are defective (if you look at the thread properly), and I'm in the process of having them removed, this is not a case of not wanting to pay, its a case that the information requested was not provided to which the lender has a legal obligation to provide me with. They did not and could not do that, and rather than come to an agreement they hounded me for for full payments and then just defaulted me via a third party in house group.

I do not see those tactics as fair or even legal, my credit score despite these defaults is good and shows i repay any legal debt i have on time.

I do not want this to become an argument, I'm fully aware of the legal background on consumer credit, I was asking for peoples opinions on if it was wise to apply for a mortgage again now, or simply just wait another couple of years, enjoy ourselves, save and then get a mortgage, but its just a case of when not if.

Ultimately it will be my decisions anyway what i do from here, but i thank those people in the know for there constructive comments.

I have looked at the thread properly and I know what the CCA is about. And doubtless, legally, you are in the right over your CCA dispute. Legally being in the right means that the debts cannot be enforced against you in court. You got away with it, bully for you.

But factually, you got away with £2000, and now you are expecting the Credit Referencing Agencies to hide the fact. That, to my mind is an ask too far.- the defaults are factually correct and I doubt the Information Commissioner's Office will side with you on the issue of whether the information on your credit records is factually correct. You might win again on a technicality of whether the defaults were correctly applied.

Apart from the fact the CRA's don't record it this way, it would be quite legitimate for the Creditors to record your debts now as 'settled - CCA defective'. That I think would be far more toxic to your ability to get a mortgage thab what is on the record at the moment.

I say watch out. Don't ever try to get credit of any sort form the companies who have lost out due to CCA, nor with associated companies. Your CCA successes will not be forgotten - and companies are entitled to keep records of their own customers indefinitely - there is no 6 years limit - so depending on the lenders, this could live with you for a very long time.

Dave_Ham

rizel23 wrote: »

You again seem to be implying that i do not want to repay low value default and presume everyone who gets a default is because they run out of money or other situation and do not want to pay, this is and was not the case for me.

I have and did follow the correct procedure for requesting documentation i should have been sent through the legal channels of CCA requests and SAR request, i do not see anyone questioning why i was not provided with these documents just posts saying i have stolen money, not the fact these lenders flaunt the law and ignore or fob off consumers, so I'm very proud to stand up to them.

I shall pass on your comments to HSBC when i next go into my bank, as strangely they were the people who advised me to apply for mortgage with them as i bank, credit and save with them.

I guess its ultimately the lenders decision of what they look at and for and the reasons why.

There is a huge difference between legally and morally correct. The banks certainly are not faultless, it is legalised theft. Maybe a bit strong, but I I robbed someone's house tonight on the way home from the office knowing they were covered by their Home Insurance - does that make it right?

Ok - so that is an extreme example, but you must question yourself having 4-5 qualified, professional people telling you something is up...

Oh - and if that is the case in HSBC, you may as well complain for compo (probably right up your street) as that is terrible advice. 3 defaults under 3 years would never go through their application and I suspect they knew that!

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

You again seem to be implying that i do not want to repay low value default and presume everyone who gets a default is because they run out of money or other situation and do not want to pay, this is and was not the case for me.

I have and did follow the correct procedure for requesting documentation i should have been sent through the legal channels of CCA requests and SAR request, i do not see anyone questioning why i was not provided with these documents just posts saying i have stolen money, not the fact these lenders [STRIKE]flaunt[/STRIKE] flout the law and ignore or fob off consumers, so I'm very proud to stand up to them.

This is breathtaking. You are not saying that you can't pay or that you won't pay. You are saying that you spotted a legal Antarctica and crossed it because it was there.

Well done, you have won. Now like the people who crossed Antarctica because it was there, you have lost some bits of yourself to frostbite. You don't hear many of them demanding that their body parts are restored.

The_J

Don't be silly Dave, of course they didn't mention them because "they didn't happen".

I find it hilarious that all of this is over 2 grand. Why do it to yourself? If I had a 3 defaults registered against me, even if it wasn't my fault, I'd pay 2 grand to make it go away.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

This is breathtaking. You are not saying that you can't pay or that you won't pay. You are saying that you spotted a legal Antarctica and crossed it because it was there.

Well done, you have won. Now like the people who crossed Antarctica because it was there, you have lost some bits of yourself to frostbite. You don't hear many of them demanding that their body parts are restored.

HAHAHAHA this is one of the great analogies.

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I have looked at the thread properly and I know what the CCA is about. And doubtless, legally, you are in the right over your CCA dispute. Legally being in the right means that the debts cannot be enforced against you in court. You got away with it, bully for you.

But factually, you got away with £2000, and now you are expecting the Credit Referencing Agencies to hide the fact. That, to my mind is an ask too far.- the defaults are factually correct and I doubt the Information Commissioner's Office will side with you on the issue of whether the information on your credit records is factually correct. You might win again on a technicality of whether the defaults were correctly applied.

Apart from the fact the CRA's don't record it this way, it would be quite legitimate for the Creditors to record your debts now as 'settled - CCA defective'. That I think would be far more toxic to your ability to get a mortgage thab what is on the record at the moment.

I say watch out. Don't ever try to get credit of any sort form the companies who have lost out due to CCA, nor with associated companies. Your CCA successes will not be forgotten - and companies are entitled to keep records of their own customers indefinitely - there is no 6 years limit - so depending on the lenders, this could live with you for a very long time.

Thanks for your comments but if you agree that "legally, you are in the right" then how can a CRA record data that is not legal? Factually right or otherwise, its not been legally issued correctly and is there for invalid and not enforceable by a court and as such, law. A default is either legally correct or not, its like black & white, your almost saying creditors can ignore the guidelines they have to follow.

Also your assumption that I and others will not get credit from previous lenders where accounts were/are disputed is incorrect, an account with M&S (which at the time was underwritten by HSBC) was disputed and yet 2 years later i have a HSBC Credit Card?

I'm sure a lot of this is new to some people and its a mind field to get your head round, but to state clearly nothing i have done is illegal, I have followed the correct procedure on all occasions and now considering the best and most effect way to have defaults wrongly issued removed.

The_J

This gets better and better. Where is Thrugelmir when you need him?

rizel23

The_J wrote: »

This gets better and better. Where is Thrugelmir when you need him?

I'm glad you find it entertaining

I would welcome all constructive comments, i know my 'legal' position is quite clear, and frankly that's all I'm concerned about. Fortunately I'm able to put any moral views i might have/had to one side in this situation.

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

Thanks your comments but if you agree that "legally, you are in the right" then how can a CRA record data that is not legal? Factually right or otherwise, its not been legally issues correctly and is there for invalid and not enforceable by a court and as such law. A default is either legally correct or not, its like black & white, your almost saying creditors can ignore the guidelines they have to follow.

Also your assumption that I and others will not get credit from previous lenders where accounts were/are disputed is incorrect, an account with M&S (which at the time was underwritten by HSBC) was disputed and yet 2 years later i have a HSBC Credit Card?

I'm sure a lot of this is new to some people and its a mind field to get your head round, but to state clearly nothing i have done is illegal, I have followed the correct procedure on all occasions and now considering the best and most effect way to have defaults wrongly issued removed.

Stop grizzling.

You have not made out the case for the credit referencing agencies recording data illegally.

I turn left out of the bottom of my road every day into a one way street. I have not gained points or been convicted, I have no fines to pay. I do it on foot, so it is perfectly legal. I cannot complain if anyone records the fact that i turned left out of the bottom of my road into a one way street.

The facts of the matter are that you borrowed the money and you did not pay it back. Perfectly legal to record. It is a matter of fact that you defaulted. If there had been no technical errors in applying the defaults it would have been unarguable.

Don't conflate the 2 entirely separate processes of registering a default against you and legal recovery of the money. It is entirely possible to recover money legally without recording defaults. In the majority of cases this is what happens - if someone owes you or me money, we cannot record defaults against them, but we could take it to court and win.

Be careful what you wish for - if you press the point too hard and win so that procedures are changed, you can be certain that your debts will be marked 'settled -CCA'

GMS

Legally you may be coreect but in avoiding a debt of £2,00 you have/will cost yourself much more in increased borrowing costs.

I know of a case with a 'legally unenforceable' charge on a property. Basic admin error which the lender lost in court. Client was midway through laughing when the judge pointed out to him that whilst it may be unenforceable as a charge he should make arrangements with the lender to repay as he had willingly borrowed the money and used it for the purpose of placing himself in a better position (wont go into details). Debt became unsecured and liable to enforcement action if required.

In order to get to the point of a default you would have had to fail to maintain the credit agreement. By using the credit facility you have entered into a contract whether morally or legally. If you had paid it you would not have had a default. As it is you have missed payments on your credit file together with a default. This will harm your chances of obtaining credit in the future or lead to higher rates. Is it really worth it? If you didn't want the credit then why apply for it and knowingly use it? I assume there was no gun held to your head?

The sooner this country gets away from a blame culture the better.

I know of somebody who used to drive 25 miles to fill their car up because it was 3p a litre cheaper. Proud as punch with the saving yet never understood the fact that the fuel used actually meant it cost more. They were blinded by the 'bargain' price. Your £2,000 'gain' will be a costly one.