I feared as much........ I was discussing this point with a friend who has recently fallen into difficulties and has a CCJ. He wanted to try to pay it off as soon as possible, (within 8 months) Iv advised him to take his time, as its not going to change a thing for six years. And there for me sits the crux of the problem, once you have been defaulted, received a CCJ or any other markers on your file your stuck for six years. Paying them quickly gains you absolutely nothing. So where is the incentive for people to go out and strive to make their situations better? There simply isnt. I think a slinding Scale would surely be more appropriate, say after a CCJ if you pay off within a month, its gone. How about within a year it only lasts three years? Within 2 five years? 6 years is a hell of a sentance. Plenty of law breakers never see that kind of sentance for some of the terrible things they do. Rant over.......

If its older than six years then surely its not going to be relevant? If you paid more than six years ago and they are chasing you then surely its SB?

Just curious had bad these look to potential mortgage companies. I have 4 months of AP on my credit file, caused by my x wife not paying her part of the mortgage when we parted. In the end I stepped in and payed it. There are no defaults and for a year after everything was paid on time (green ticks) until the house was sold. This was late 2007/early 2008 and Im going to have to apply for a mortgage in March next year so its still going to be on my credit file. Im wondereing how bady they will be viewed. Im guessing as bad a s a default in this current climate........

Jumping out before knuckles start getting rapped...........

I cannot think of a single other industry that generates and processes or collects such substantial amounts of revenue, responsible for suicides, depression and sickness, that is so poorly regulated. I wonder if one of the University's or Government body's that pay for research into many a pointless exercise, were to look into it, would they draw the conclusion that it causes for more harm and cost to the tax payer in terms of sickness payments, and doctors help etc than its worth? There are and will always be, those who tried to avoid their responsibility, but the majority of us here, fell on hard times once or twice, through no fault of our own. There is a place in hell reserved for those who torture others on hard times to get their piece of silver, that more often than not, they were never entitled to have in the first place................

He means they would have a hard time taking this action further within a month, after this they would have to explain to a judge they had credible reason for taking no action in six years and apply to have the CCJ extended. its incredibly rare for this to happen.........

Thank you for the clarification on that brigadier. It's not always clear what the CRA mean and what they in turn do ;-) Cheers

Hi, Just a query. I'm led to believe that your credit file should hold data about you for six years. I had a joint mortgage with my wife for many years. She continued to live in the house for a good while after we were parted. She missed a few payments, and as a consequence there is a number of late payment markers on the file. Once I found out she had missed payments I immediately rectified the situation, and for the last year of the payment history its all green. The house was sold in 2009 and these late payment markers are for 2008. Equifax tell me they will display this data until 6 years to the date the account was closed. Thats the whole history. So if this is the case if say you had a mortgage for 20 years, and you got into a late payment marker in year 3 or 4 of your mortgage would this still be visible to lenders 17 years down the line? Just a little confused on the way this works.........

You amazingly replied to this post but completely ignored mine? I really do hope you don't end up on the receiving end of a DCA. Im 100% sure you would be back here eating humble pie and asking for help. Seen it so many times before.

Ill bet what they tell you they do and what they really do are polar widths apart. After all you never get to see exactly what lenders get to see............

Its a rotten system, Ill say it until I'm blue in the face. The regulation on something that affects people so much is so poor its an absolute joke.

I think you will find a lot of the time this advice is given because a person with problems is unable to come to an arrangement with the banks. There isnt a great deal of sympathy in the banking sector for people who have fallen on hard times (in a lot of instances through no fault of their own). Charges pile up and eventually the banks write the debt off to tax (which effectively means they loose absolutely nothing) and sell it to a DCA for a fraction of the amount. The DCA's are known to use extremely harsh and underhand tactics to obtain the full original amount (or as close as they can get to it), causing so much stress, heartbreak and sometimes suicide. The system is rotten to the core, there are always people who are going to try to get out of paying just as there are many many honest people who never asked for or wanted to be in this situation. I know quite a few people who offered to pay the banks a token amount until they got another job after being layed off. None were looking to shirk their responsibilities yet the banks choose to sell the debts off and where hounded by DCA's attempting to recover the full amount. they they very likely only paid a fraction of its face value for. Theses companies use every trick in the book, from SD, CCJ's by the back door, threats of courts, threats via phone calls etc the list goes on and on. What you see is a reaction to this injustice and rotten system. I really do hope you can come to some arrangement with your creditors and dont find yourself in a situation where a DCA is ringing you ten times a day, sending post cards through you door saying baliffs are going to call, threats of court etc. Its a nightmare of epic proportion. Id always advise that you come to the best arrangement with your creditors you can for the circumstances you find yourself in, but even then banks have been known to sell your debt on even after arrangements have been made. Its a murky horrible system and after you have been on the end of it once or twice you start to fight back.............

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate implications are involved and its more a question of curiosity in this case, I'm just really wondering if anyone has gone for this option before in the past and the outcome of such.

Wonder if anyone with greater knowledge can help advice me on this. Ok lets take this example. A DCA is taking payment from you for a year regarding a debt at a previous address paperwork is received, moneys taken, your on the register, they know where you are. You miss a couple of payments and they enter a CCJ at your old address and get it by default. My understanding is to get it set aside you not only need to prove that they did this very sneakily but you also need to prove that had you had your day in court you would have defended it or settled it to stand a good chance of success, and further this has been know to be on the whim of the Judge on the day. My question is this, rather than attempt a set aside has anyone just gone straight to the jugular and took the DCA to court seeking damages for what they have done? surely if you have documents from them via SAR etc and proof that this is the case is it not possible to seek damages for the implications to your credit files etc? If set aside may not be possible maybe damages would be? Any thoughts? Regards Mr Ink.

Thank you for that clarification

Shocking behavior indeed........

Does this mean a DCA can demand the money but does not have to prove, until a judge orders them to do so, that they have the rights to collect? Sorry if iv got this wrong, but that seems very backward.

Really? I wasnt aware of that. How come? court ruling or something? Seems an odd state of affairs that.

Be nice if it did though wouldn't it? Especially if you have say a squeaky clean record, years and years of green ticks and a CCJ from a DCA who sneakily got it by sending to your old address (typical Bryan Carter technique). Be nice if you notice said "papers sent to wrong address after account was in dispute, and therefore no chance to defend. Currently seeking set aside in this" and people would read it and make a sensible informed decision.......

But highly unlikely. Unless he or she is a whistle blower.

I was told by my Business manger at the bank it makes little difference. In my case I was busy fighting court cases and battles with DCA's. In the end I got every default off as it had all been caused by an ex and it was all proven in the end. However I still struggled to get any credit until everything was removed. Business manger said NOC is really just your word against someone else's at the time. Not likely to sway anyone too much I dont think.

Ahh I see. Im really dotting the i's and crossing the t's on this. The DCA have been extra naughty in this case and they have unfortunately hung themselves. Its not a lot to do with Egg as such, but the original accounts were sold by them to a DCA. I was just trying to get every last scrap of paper I could so I had every bit of information to hand. Im 95% sure Iv got them, as is my solicitor, and Im certain they will try to settle out of court................. Im having to keep it a touch quiet on here as Im positive its been checked out.

Its me thats taking them to court. They have been very sneaky, said a lot of things that simply were not true and they have dropped a serious clanger. Im going for damages in this case and costs. The DCA admits they had no CCA, no accounts, never produced a default notice etc. I SAr'd the DCA and it brought up all sorts of nasty things and costs. Im no trying to find out exactly what Egg did or didnt know and Iv asked for a full Data SAR from Egg. It would be extra power to my elbow in this case if I found Egg didnt even have a CCA in the first place. Really Im trying to arm myself for any anything that may crop up. The more I have the better my case will be.

Sent a SAR to Egg, who are squirming as much as possible to get out of sending me anything. They are claiming under section 78 of the consumer credit act they dont have to send me a copy of the credit agreement as its a closed account. Im arguing that a SAR means they have to send me everything. So if one doesnt show up then that should mean they dont have one would you agree? They sold the account to a DCA and I can't say too much but this is going to court. My argument is that the credit Act does not over rule the Information Act and upon application of a SAR they are duty bound to disclose all information they have about me. Do I have this correct? Any advice on my course of action with Egg on this would be hugely appreciated.

That would be the cherry on the cake as far as complaining. They can send who they like, they have no right of access to your house, you can tell them politely where to go and then ring the police stating harrassement. That should just about do it........