Default still showing from 2 years ago :0

The_Boss

billybear1 wrote: »

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.

You can only speculate with a generalisation though. You'd need access to specific scoring matrices to see if this default alone was responsible.

For example, a score is attached to data from the report. I'm also gong to speculate as an illustrative purpose here but say the matrix assigns 0 points for no defaults, 5 points for one default and 10 points for two defaults. I've just weighted this question on it's own for the purpose of example - the actual weighting for a default is likely more severe than this in relation to other questions.

In the above example, how can the OP prove that their score would have been sufficient with only one default? They'd need access to the scoring matrices to see how they came out. They'd need to see what else was scored and possibly even the weighting factors. They'd need to see the lending criteria. None of this is available.

The OP was rejected without prejudice and are free to reapply down the line to these places and be considered as a new application. That could not be assured in the case of a trader whose reputation was harmed.

Completely agree that if the OP can prove that only one default was sufficient then they could have a case, but it's all lots of ifs, buts and anecdotal evidence.

nottoolate

billybear1 wrote: »

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,

correct. as in the principle behind this case.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8098674.stm

Mike's solicitor told Aktiv Kapital that unless it paid damages and apologised, there were grounds for him to consider suing for defamation.
That was because details of the debt Mike did not owe could now be accessed by any finance company checking his credit record, adversely affecting his reputation.

reporting incorrect information to the cras can be defamation.


but as also said there you might have to show that they had been 'reckless' in recording the incorrect information