Sorry to correct you dx but one of the main things a prospective creditor will examine is the credit history of the applicant. "https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/how-lenders-view-your-credit/

If the bailiff has received the LO, they can charge the Compliance fee £75. If they are to continue, they have to send a NOA. Are you sure you have not received correspondence from them? if not you owe £75 if you have its £310

I hope this wasn't your last word on this Paul, because there is Zero chance on either of the above. As far as I can see there have been no breaches of the DPA, and there was no such Judgement in Durkin. The English court could not make one, and damages were thrown out, unless you mean the derisory damages awarded by the Scottish Court. Good luck anyway.

Hi UB I think you may be incorrect here. As far as i know, if the couple were legally Married all assets would be split 50/50, upon divorce. The thinking being that even though one party made the money, it may be that the other provided support for him/her to be able to do so. Think of a professional couple, where one agrees to look after the kids whilst the other works. Regards Peter

Yes addam and you are right too worry. Firstly you have to appteciate that what is on your credit file has absolutely nothing to do with the requirements oftbe consumer credit act to send a default notice u der section .87 whether one of these has been issued or not has nothing to do with what it says on your file. Secondly and not wishing to upset anyone specifically. Whilst the form of the report issued to an inquiring creditor is different to what you see on your credit file. It does contain ALL the information that you see. I can tell you this first hand. sadly the DCACan and often do register a D on your file. If you enter into an agteed plan with the creditor then no default is recorded. However if, down the road you miss a payment they can. On one missed payment if you had two or more missed payments previously. Or three if you had no previous missed payments. This is why they tend not to default immediately.. it is a disgrace. You can fight it as being unfair. But really the law needs to be changed.

Sorry Adam for not getting back to you earlier. I am afraid DX is wrong in this. If you are on a DMP, the new owner can, of course record missed payments and defaults on our credit file. It is also true that a debt purchaser, who has undertaken an assignment of the debt from the original creditor can issue a section 87 default notice, and proceed to court action. the latter is not something DCAs do often, but they certainly can. I suspect what DX means is they cannot issue two DN 87s. Which is true, but they can still enforce off the old one if it has not been remedied.

Andy this is old news, I am afraid you are going to have a look at the GDPR Higher procedure for recording defaults on arrears or arrangements. I am afraid it is not so simple anymore. I am sorry but I am to busy to hold your hand through it, and I am told not to post legal explanation. OP Sorry. Perhaps that call to the ombudsman will clear it up for you.

Wont work I am afraid, at least not in itself. Broadly, a creditor can record a D on a re arranged debt under certain circumstances. Yes I know, completely unfair, and needs challenging, in court desperately. I would make your complaint, and when you get the final response go to the FCA ombudsman, The number is freely available, you ring in the first instance and he will tell you what he needs. Generally, if you make a fuss they eventually cave in to avoid court action, but it requires perseverance and can take a while. I think i stated the situation elsewhere on this forum. @ London. The Section 87 notice is a requirement of the CCA, and has nothing to do with data recording. Although you should check if a warning of filing the debt was issued 28 days before it was placed on the record. @Andy A notice of correction is a mixed blessing to say the least. All they do is disrupt the initial search from a prospective lender, generally they do not proceed to to examining the account, if the search is "footprint free" the creditor cannot see it without registering the search.

That would be me. Any signs of the response yet?

Paul. The word expert is very subjective, we have seen a few "experts" on here. There are some on the team.

Depends on the expert.

Paul. I understand what you say, but this was a large judgement and 90% of the claim was thrown out, this issue was referred back to Sparkie and Black horse for out of court negotiations or for another court to decide if sanctions were appropriate. As said everything i have read both before and since agrees with the ICO quote above. Have their been ANY successful claims using the "precedent " since. it was 2014 after all. There was no costs awarded, no sanctions, and the claim was not picked up in the later GDPR. Look if you want to leave it in then do so, I dont think it will harm your case, it is just a distraction. I was asked for my opinion, that's it.

Here is the result of a query made to the ICO in 2015. The ICO has considered the circumstances in which the credit reference agencies should be permitted to record details of unenforceable credit agreements. In doing so we have had particular regard not only to the clear legislative intent that the absence of a signature on a credit agreement should no longer be an absolute bar to enforcement, but also to the following factors; 1) The question of whether a legal liability exists in relation to a credit agreement is quite separate from the question of whether such a liability may be enforced by the creditor. 2) Where a liability does exist, creditors have a legitimate interest in sharing relevant information about that liability, including information about whether the amount due has been repaid. Such information may properly inform responsible lending decisions, regardless of whether the liability is enforceable. 3) Responsible lending decisions are dependent upon lenders receiving accurate information about individuals ability (and/or inclination) to repay their debts. Where a credit agreement clearly existed and credit has been provided to the debtor but the debtor is not obliged to repay the loan due to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts, this does not mean that there was no agreement in the first place. It simply means that there was no enforceable regulated agreement. It follows that where the existence of the agreement is not in doubt we consider it to be appropriate for information about the agreement, including any failure by the debtor to repay his or her debt to be recorded with the credit reference agencies. Where a 'debtor' disputes the existence of any credit agreement, enforceable or other wise we would ask to see evidence of the agreement and its terms. This might include evidence of the provision of the credit facility or of a history of payments made by the debtor.

I think you said it Paul. The D should have only been registered after the debt was recalled. As far as the CRA is concerned, that is when the arrangement "broke down".

No but it isn't additional either. As said, the fact that you cannot make missed payment markers on an OD is a good argument, nothing to do with sparkies case though

The fact the report should record the correct marker is covered by basic dpa principles. You can use case law if you like, but really it is superfluous.

Hi Paul, I think this is confusing the issue TBH. Yes the file should have been degaulted, but the 6 ls a legitimate entry, which the Cra can place in grace the issue was about additional information, as well as the d, which indicates that not only the D(the fact the debt was defaulted) but the fact that the account is unenforcable. The CRA are still unable to record this extra informstion.

My bold. Yes here he is referring to a record of the unenforceability of the account, not the issuance of the default "D". He thought that it was unfair to just register D, when the debt was unenforceable, and that additional information should be recorded to reflect the fact that there was no imperative for the debtor to pay. "Accurate information cannot be accommodated" The way default data has not been altered to my knowledge, so the suggestion was ignored by the GDPR. But nothing was said about recording the default itself. Unfortunately Grace was unable to sue because the cause of action itself was SB(that is the placing of the D on the account by the creditor), and he would have had to prove the creditor new of the offence in order to extend the period under section 32 SOL hiding information.

Sorry about the spell, on my mobile .

This was regarding additional information as well as the default marker. The judge felt that a D alone was not enough when an account was unenforceable, and that changes should be made by cras to there systems to enable to acommidate this additional information. he also wondere if this should apply to An debts, nut made no comments. since this judgment and the shake up administered by GDPR, there has been no such ammendments by cras, because no such instructions have been ordered. if a subject thinks the lack of relevant information is unfair or inaccurate they should use principle one of GDPR. But I still fail to see the relevance to your situation. There is already ample legislation regarding what the initial D should indicate, and recording of a default which you can use. You don't need any unadopted case law which honestly refers to additional measures which should be applied.

The issue in grace was the recording of the default. Iit was avered by the claimant that if the debt was unenforceable the credit file should say so, as well as recording the default. The same could be said in the case of an account which was statute barred, although this was undecided. The bank loan bad been declared unenforceable for some time under a 127(4) issue if memory serves. The recording issue is the only one that wasnt thrown out. Sparkie was all over the place with daft ideas, which i tried to tell him at the time. Even this remaining issue was referred to future procedings or negotiation on the judge recommendation. This had nothing to do with your case in any way. Yours is a straight foreward SB

The account was declared unenforceable under a section 127(4)issue some time earlier. THere is a write up here. Risks around reporting to Credit Reference Agencies- Publications - Eversheds Sutherland (eversheds-sutherland.com)

Hi Paul On review, i would not depend on Grace. Despite this judgement being bigged up, it was lost by Sparkie i am afraid. The only saving grace(pardon the pun), was that the Judge did comment that CRAs should have an additional ability to record the account status regarding enforceability. He did not make a decision regarding statute bar. The GDPR came into force well after this in any case, and none of the recommendations were adopted, nor were CRA's instructed to create one. Just for clarity, CRAs still do not have the additional facility,

Its always a good idea to get a professional opinion from a barrister or above. unfortunately they cost, and there is sometimes a degree of self interest, if they think they are going to make money out of you. So be wary. Peter

Can you say which one?