Three (Hutchinson 3G) default on credit file

lghw

To cut a long story short...

My wife disputed a charge on a cancelled Three contract. They sent it to debt collectors, despite the dispute. The debt collectors were harassing her so much that she gave in and paid up. This was a couple of years ago.

We have now discovered the default on her credit rating. We wrote to Three who simply said that the default notice was an accurate reflection of the account.

I have since noticed that the default notice is recorded with two credit referencing agencies. On the first, it is marked as in default for two months, unknown for two months and satisfied in the fifth month. With the second CRA, the default is marked in the first month and it is listed as satisfied in the second month. Surely this discrepancy means that the information held in the credit file cannot be an accurate reflection of the account? Since the two files show the dates differently, would we have grounds to fight it on that? The ICO guidance states that default notices should be accurate, regularly updated and should be marked as satisfied once settled.

Oddly, the default on the first CRA file (the one over five months) seems to have disappeared... although the default with the second CRA remains. This has ocurred since we wrote the letter to Three. Why might this have happened?

chanz4

they may be just updating it, always best to pay a disputed bal then dispute it at the sametime otherwise your credit history is trashed

aimzrabbit

Thers a big debate on this , a mobile phone comes under a fixed communication contract and is not technically regulated by the CCA act and shouldn't really be a proper default

I have the same problem with virgin media a few years ago over broadband and a £60 disconnection fee of which i refused to pay and they defaulted me

the crazy thing is that they dont send you a proper default notice like a cca act 1 , but they will say that they are allowed to report the conduct of your account to the cra's

the problem is that they do the same damage as a normal default on your credit file

i got mine of experian and call credit quickly , using a template off here stating the fixed communications act and that i never recieved a default notice blah blah

the problems i had was with equifax who would not budge you will have to go the whole hog to shift this all the templates , SARS etc etc

its a pain

rabbit

Curr946

how many month it was defaulted for doesn't matter. So long as the date of the default is correct.

as rabbit says you can may be able to get it removed, if you can prove that it was three error in the first place (ie you shouldn;t have been given x charge)

Good luck.

lghw

ICO guidance states:

Default records should show the original amount of the default as a snapshot in time and should reflect subsequent payments by showing the current balance of arrears. A common cause of disputes relates to the accuracy of the current balance. The current balance should be filed both by those who file monthly account information and those who file only defaults. It should be updated regularly. Defaults should be shown as satisfied where all payments have been received. If the individual no longer owes any money to the lender the balance should be shown as zero. The satisfaction of defaults is discussed at paragraphs 49 to 51.

To me, this sounds as though the number of months it shows as defaulted for DOES matter, as "defaults should be shown as satisfied where all payments have been received" and having the wrong number of months on one account shows that this wasn't done.

Regarding default letters, the ICO has some interesting guidance. Although the CCA doesn't apply, this might?

Lenders should tell their customers about filing information with a credit reference agency as part of the account opening procedure, in line with the requirements of the ‘fair processing code’ 4 . This explanation will not normally refer explicitly to defaults and will often be distant from the events which cause them. Therefore we strongly recommend that a notice of the intention to file a default should be served. Many lenders now subscribe to trade association codes of practice which require this. This practice helps the transparency of the credit reference process and may even prompt payment, so avoiding the need to file a default at all.

Buzby

Sadly a non starter. As noted earlier a credit Default is a statutory term and describes the process a lender must take with he debtor. A mobile phone default (note the lower case 'd') is a statement of fact, not a legally binding benchmark.

Your mobile account - if you do not pay it - is 'in default'. It is the CRA's who championed this way of working, as at a stroke, more than a quarter of the population were suddenly made a pariah with court CCJ's and non-court CCA Default notices along with mobile phone defaults being lumped in as one and he same. But it is a con.

In the first two instances, you have due process of the court, or the ability to resolve the issue of a Default Notice by bringing the account into order as in both these cases, you can pay up quickly after he event and avoid be stigma.

With a mobile default, the network is judge, jury and executioner. Even if you pay up (assuming you've been advised), the default stays on file as a 'matter of fact' and will not be removed unless inaccurate.

The solution is NOT to enter into one of these contracts, as you are disadvantaged from the outset if there is an issue, and no right of appeal. It will only change when consumers stop signing up, and the networks have to resolve the problem they created.

The matter is in the hand(sets) of the customer. Ignore the problem, and it will not go away.

lghw

So are you saying that the ICO guidance quoted above does not apply? Surely it does, as the ICO guidance is regarding personal data held about you (i.e. on your credit file) and therefore there is no difference between "Default" and "default" as far as the Data Protection Act goes?

Bravehearted_2

ICO guidelines are just that - guidelines. Not followed by some of them.

Also, 3 arent technically lenders as such so dont really follow CCA etc.

Always pay then dispute. You win, you get your money back. Lose and your file isnt trashed.

SCO

Three are one of the only companies i refuse to do business with.

Does not surprise me you have has problems with them.