Default still showing from 2 years ago :0

Gordon_Hose

With another, valid, default on your file you're still unlikely to get credit.

fevlo

You say there was an error on your credit report.
Was the Default the error or the fact that a lagitimate default is still showing the error ?
If the latter, is the default actually due to drop off your report ? Technically it could still have 4 years left to run if its from 2 years ago satisfied or not.

The_Boss

matttye wrote: »

Compensation culture when your spilt coffee burns you but isn't marked as hot is ridiculous, but not when someone is deliberately and wilfully reporting false information about you. Compensation is entirely warranted in that case IMO.

Clearly companies would have a better opinion of someone who has only one default.

But 'better' is a comparitive term. It doesn't mean it would have originally been 'good' (the positive form) or more relevantly 'sufficient'.

One default in itself would still be enough to fail most lender scoring algorithms. There really is no case as they do not have access to the relevant lenders scores matrix to be able to prove their case.

The_Boss

0_0 wrote: »

I have noticed a error on my credit report that was settled two years ago. I didnt notice until last month when i checked my credit report due to being turned down for credit, i contacted the company concerned and asked for this to be removed, to which they replied it will be off within a week! but this is still on my report :mad: I have tried to get credit in the past with no luck, i now think this must be part to blame. I do have another default on there which is being paid off.

I am looking to pursue this further and try to claim some kind of compensation from the company, can this be done?

Any advice appreciated

Thanks

What was the issue with the default still being there? When was the date of default? Was it supposed to be marked as 'satisfied' or removed entirely?

Thrugelmir

matttye wrote: »

One default could be cash flow issues, but multiple is more likely to indicate a flagrant inability to manage finances properly.

Or unemployment -- but that's what a notice of correction is for

From a lenders perspective the borrower can then be catergorised as a spender not a saver. With a high likelihood of defaulting again if misfortune were to strike. Why no savings, no emergency fund? :think:

Hence why mortgage lenders are particularly stringent when vetting potential borrowers. As a 25 year mortgage , requires 300 on time monthly payments.

You can as much you like. Won't change the way in which lenders operate. It's borrowers that need better education of financial matters if they are not going to be disappointed when making credit applications. :cool:

billybear1

The_Boss wrote: »

And there's no precedent for this. All it would do is give someone a laugh. Compensation cultire is ridiculous.

The precedent is the case of Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] C.L.C. 510 with regard to the level of damages to be awarded.

Should you not be aware of the case, appropriate damages were set at £1000 plus the default amount for reporting incorrect information.

If the OP has applied for credit and was rejected on the basis of the incorrect default, then took credit at a higher rate than necessary the increased credit terms form the basis of additional compensation. The OP was disadvantaged due to the companies incompetence or negligence.

The_Boss

billybear1 wrote: »

The precedent is the case of Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] C.L.C. 510 with regard to the level of damages to be awarded.

Should you not be aware of the case, appropriate damages were set at £1000 plus the default amount for reporting incorrect information.

If the OP has applied for credit and was rejected on the basis of the incorrect default, then took credit at a higher rate than necessary the increased credit terms form the basis of additional compensation. The OP was disadvantaged due to the companies incompetence or negligence.

How is a case relating to a dishonoured cheque relevant to this? The 'other' default on the credit file is correct. Where was that covered in Kpohraor v Woolwich? Where did the claimant access a scoring matrix that proved that one default still enabled access to credit?

billybear1

That wasn't covered, however I was referring to defamation of character being the amount of £1K + original default amount.

I went on to say any FURTHER compensation would be based on increases in cost due to an incorrect default being registered. Would they have to provide these matrix's? Doubtful.

Ultimately the lender is reporting incorrect information and can be forced to pay damages in a court of law. So to state that there is no precedent and that is laughable is factually incorrect. There is and it isn't.

The_Boss

billybear1 wrote: »

That wasn't covered, however I was referring to defamation of character being the amount of £1K + original default amount.

I went on to say any FURTHER compensation would be based on increases in cost due to an incorrect default being registered. Would they have to provide these matrix's? Doubtful.

Ultimately the lender is reporting incorrect information and can be forced to pay damages in a court of law. So to state that there is no precedent and that is laughable is factually incorrect. There is and it isn't.

Where has there been a defamation of character in a closed environment where there is no general access to the data thanks to the DPA? All applicants are entitled to apply for credit from the same company further down the line without prejudice. How does this compare to a public trader whose reputation was tarnished in public, which could indisputedly affect their operational business? How does the OP prove that it wasn't the 'other' default that resulted in rejection. (I note you continually ignore such a crucial point).

It's not really similar at all when you think it through, is it? Besides, the OP still has not confirmed whst the 'error' was. It could be as simple as the account not being marked as 'satisfied'

billybear1

I state this because in case law the schematics hold true. Whether the reputation is public or accessible to a niche (in this case the proposed new lender) is irrelevant. The principle of the case is that incorrect information was reported and a persons integrity has been compromised resulting in the award of damages due to negligence, be it in a macro or micro environment is again, irrelevant.

Setting these damages is always difficult and so we must present the facts as best we can. I agree getting access to lenders matrix is impossible so we must use what IS available. Incorrect reporting, regardless of any further discrepancies on this individuals file would force a normal person to take sub prime credit over prime credit. The differentials in rates are freely available and so an amount of compensation can be set. The key to this is HAS the person (I cannot remember specifics) applied and been rejected for a prime lender - can this be attributed to the incorrect default?

As you say with further negative information on the file you cannot SOLELY attribute an incorrect default to the rejection - but what you can do is demonstrate a case law example of damages being awarded for defamation and distress as well as damages amounting from increase in lending. Through causation we have to ask ourselves "Had the original lender not incorrectly registered the default, would the OP have had a realistic chance of obtaining better credit terms and a higher chance of being accepted for credit?" If the answer is yes, which it most certainly is (1 default does not stop you getting prime credit) then blame can be attributed in terms of compensation.