So this case was brought under the fitness to hold a certificate provisions? Why do you think you obtained an award? Was there an action for damages also? What exactly did this order say? Presumably you have it. If so it is just a matter for enforcement.

Hi just to answer Andys point re when the record can be applied. The creditor has 6 years to record the debt from the notice so its seven months. If he does not use the slot he loses it. Remember the not filing a notice of default is not actionable, nor is recording a default late, although they should remove it. Filling a section 87 default notice incorrectly has the effect of rendering the proceedings void, if the judge agrees

Thought I had just done that. The cause of action under a regulated agreement starts after the debtor has failed to pay the default note, issued under the section 87 88 and 89 of the Consumer credit act within 14 days, this was confirmed incase law. No the permission the credit needs in order to record your data on a credit file, is made under the Data protection act. This is when the creditor feels that the relationship between creditor and debtor have 'broken down'. There is a guideline from the DPA and FCA which says the debtor has 28 days warning before the credit file is updated The recording of data, 28 days has nothing todo with the warning of impending legal action given under the consumer credit act under section 87.

I think the op needs to be aware that there are two different notices. One under section 87 and one under ICO and FCA guides. One gives two weeks grace before the debtor can enforce, this runs after the 87 notice is issued by the creditor, the other has 28 days before the data can be recorded on your credit file they are separate and should not be confused. The case referred to by dx was an important one in that it defined the start of the SB date as the day after the section 87 fails to be payed. This cannot be anything to do with recording of data Firms like Vanquis and Lowell are getting away with murder miss-quoting the regulations and sorry excuse for the advice they give. I have just won 2 complaints against these firms, and they came out with the most appalling tripe. I had two accounts against one families debts just last week, both had their balances written off some £4k , this after a five year struggle. Even the ombudsman was proven to not understand the new provisions. I am expecting a large bottle of Merlot for that one.

With respect Dx you are confusing enforcement with actions taken by the authority leading upto the issuance of a liability order. A liability order cannot be changed even if it is questioned, it can be withdrawn from enforcement but that is an issue apart. You also contradict yourself in saying first it is not about fees, then it is, and "you should not pay blindly." .I have to say, if it isn't about fees,why not pick up the phone and pay the bailiff? Peter

Hi Yes indeed, subject of much debate look at my threads and posts. Situation is that the cause of action occurs when the creditor can enforce for a repududiatory breach of contract. This right lasts for six years, unless the right is reset by the debtor providing an indication that he still acknowledges the debt via payment or plain written acceptance..

No , dx I am sorry. You can try if you like. But they should not accept, once the power has been transferred to the bailiff via the act. Not the LO. The LO.m3erely confirms the debt, and cannot be cancelled. .

You cannot pay the the council direct Dx unless there has been new case law i am not aware of. ?

Hi It seems many banks and DCAs have thrown the book away on the correct procedure when dealing with defaulted accounts. No one seems to understand the 2018 regulations, so all of them seem to missprepresnt it and what it says For a start they often misrepresent the start date of the notice of default This is not the default notice its the notice of intention to record that the relationship between the creditor and debtor has irrevocably broken down, it should give the debtor 30 days notice to remedy. So you need to find it and check if six years have passed since it was sent If you dont find it, you may have a problem. Many creditor like vanquis and link for instance, are saying the account is still live Yes this is despite it being on a plan for twelve years. Most people will have gone through bad patch in the past and may only have a couple of old accounts like this on their file . This gives them a pot of leverage against the debtor. They could now file a default and the account will be defaulted for another six years. As for the ombudsman really dont waste your time, they just talk to the creditor , if they say piss offx then off he pisses. If you talk to him he is very quiete, this is not because he is in deep thought about your problem, oh no, it is because he hasnt a clue what you are talking about. As a parting thought after a consultation he said I think if you owe someone money you should be on the register, no matter what. I would go to the ico.

Hi all DX is quirte right. The notice can come from the assignor or the assignee. You must recieve one of these if the agreement is "absolutely assigned", in other words the new creditor can enforce the debt in court, that is without the company of the orriginal creditor. As for the defence issue, i defer to DXs superior practical knowledge.

Just wanted to reply to Darius (Mark Bowley.) I trust I answered your question regarding;;",Where does it say that vat can be added to fees" Perhaps you missed it because there was no acknowledgement. Anyway the answer is that there isnt. Just that busnesses require to be registered if they meet certain conditions. If I may comment, you betray your FMoTl heritage. Laws dont give permission in general. If it did, there would have to be a law saying we must brush our teeth every morn. Sure you make requests to do something, but that is only because, if you didn't there would be another law making the act unlawful. Free country, human rights etc. Sorry GCE STUFF BF. Common sence too.

Hi yes I bet they have Also there will be adjustment the VAT Act but not by SI. I think much of the confusion is because the HCEO we see are the variety taken on by the chancellor under section 2 of the courts act. High court enforcement officers proper cannot claim or charge VAT. As they are employed by the court . The value is not for a business or trade. They are salaried.

Hi Darrius. Answering your question, I hope. That's because as the law stands it should The VAT act says that if the business is registered has a turnover above the prescribed limit and that income for busines, they must pay VAT on their income, offset by any payment of output TAX by the person he provides the service for. This applies to the judement debtor as you say. I am sure that this meant money taken initially by the the HCEO when they were originally approached by the creditor or items acquired by the Hceo in the employ of the court. However when the under sherif who is not an employee of the court but a self employed busines man takes over the enforcement for "valuable consideration" The fees become his income and he is responsible for any tax calculated on that income. Nothing new here. We all pay VAT and we all cannot claim it back, that is unless we are a registered business. The only way to get around this is to Zero rate enforcement fees This was explained as being the case before 2014, I see nothing since, that alters the situation. Other than changing VAT requirements in the Act., as in Magistrates court and Council.tax enforcement I have tried many times to get authoritave information from sources who are usually very helpful, why is that? Answer on a post card please. Peter

I cannot find my orriginal post relating to this subject, it may have been removed appologies if it hasn't. It was completely correct of course. The position up until the first of August was that these charges could be added to fees. In fact, if you want to be pedantic it still is. Until modifications are made to the TCE regs and I suspect the VAT act, it still is possible, I am completely ambivalent on this matter but my initial analysis was correct. It seems that because the advice sector has a view, the legislation should be ignored or altered to fit, it will have to be. As I say the impact of this is very minimal, but I hate to see bandwagons being cited in place of logic Anyone considered why these charges came to exist or increase. Purely by the actions of the debtor. Just by the way.

I had a similar problem. It is upto your tennant to sort this. Does he have a mobile number, he really cannot permits bailifs to bang on your door for a debt you don't owe. Tough talk with him is required.

Re the above. Vanquis removed the marker the same day as my last post, no contact no apology yet again. That restores my 100% success rate. Bad news is that I will not be able to use this case, It would not be fair on the debtors, who are very elderly and have had enough, dont blame them. However at least they now have a clean CF.

On pre 2007 agreements?

DX. I really think you should try and get your head around this. The buisiness, does not have to send a section 87 CCA part v default / chance to pay part v notice to register a default. The D on your credit file and on the calendar section which reports the state of the account with codes, for instance P D U to illustrate whether the account is now in default, that would be the D. This marker only shows that there has been a "Breakdown" in the contractual relationship and nothing more. Summary info, does in fact show accounts which are in default, as it effects your score. Nothing on you credit file effects enforcement, just your credit score.

I am currently commencing a Harassment action against vanquis, concerning 2 vanquis accounts put on a DMP in 2011. I have previously managed to get both these account defaulted and then the default moved back to 2012. Despite both accounts maintain agreed payment, the company have falsified missed payments in order torepalce the account and add a d marker within two years of the current date. I recently had the Ombudsman advise them to remove an again re appearing D and pay £100. Two days later the D appears on the husbands account stating missed payment's. Coincidence? Three times they have PROMISED to keep the record clear on these accounts. Despite having to act on the last occasion they have not contacted the debtors with any explication. Forgive me but this needs sorting now, whatever it takes, they are taking the piss. It suits them to pretend the account is active, so they pretend it has not been defaulted, they even send statutory notices to enforce the belief, then when it comes they want to sell the account, they are stuck, so they have to invent some reason to default.

Why are you rocking the boat? When vanquis sell these to arrow or whoever, they usually default the account and backdate to when the arrangement was made. I say usually, not always, that's where the trouble starts, when they do not backdate they default, then you have to remind them. peter We? Dx the credit rating is based on what the CRA think the creditors will make of the report. So if it affected the score, they must think the data is available to the prospective creditor. Simple logic.

Dx would know, this. Once they were an easy win. The procedure would be to ask the creditor for a a copy of the Default notice and a notice of assignment, they would have had to be send both before selling the debt, or do a request under GDMPR and see what turns turns up. Fuel for a set-aside application.

I suppose you could query the Default notice, perhaps if you were having your mail forwarded, you could contend you did not receive one. If you didn't send a DN they shouldn't have enforced. Ask them for a copy and when the Section 87 Default notice was sent. I dont know what the success rate for claiming no DN is these days on a set aside application?

The situation is this. If the debt had a default recorded before a payment arrangement is made. And the creditor agrees to an arrangement, then a D. should not show on the file. However, if one month is missed the creditor is permitted to mark it with a D. What you have to argue is that this is unfair, especially if some other marker, had been applied in the interim. What you want is the marker on the account then for it to be backdated. A default or missed payment is always viewable to any prospective creditor, if it wasn't, there would be no point to having one.

It should be, of course. There should also be mention of it on the information page.

Where are you getting this from DX, it is completely opposite to the information I have from Experian. I would think a prospective creditor would want to know, say, how old a default is?