Statued bared defualt notice

[jsa986]

I noticed on my credit history a company called Arrow globals must have bought a statued bared debt from twelve years ago.

 

Nothing had been paid for about ten years no acknowledgement at all etc etc.

 

They are defaulting me on a monthly basis!

 

I want to challenge this but am concerned about any acknowledgement etc and starting the clock again.

 

As i understand it unless debt is acknowledged in writing or payment made i should be ok

but will this lead to harassment for payment?

 

If i send a statue barred notice this definitely wont be an acknowledgement will it?

 

They are also using the day they bought the debt as date of default, about 8 years after the actual date

 

How should I Best deal with this?

[fletch70]

If the debt is SB nothing they or you can say or do will unbar it. That said I would still be careful in your letter unless you are absolutely sure. Time and time again people have made assertions only to later discover that they have made a mistake. Just be careful is all I am saying

 

 

As for the default, that should not be on your credit file so a letter to their data controller telling them that the alleged debt was defaulted in whenever and please remove it should do the trick

[dx100uk]

have you proof it was defaulted earlier

 

dx

[dx100uk]

tell us about the debt please

 

dx

[jsa986]

Im not sure how I would evidence that.

 

im going to say no on that.

 

It would have been about ten/12 years ago when it first defaulted.

 

I don have any more information about the debt as i cant even remember what it refers to.

 

I have not had any credit for past 10 years

[jsa986]

Thanks for reply, allrecived, i shall tread carefully.

[fletch70]

So actually what you are saying is that you have no idea of what this debt is about?

 

Two options

Contact the CRA and tell them that

 

Contact Arrow Globals data controller and tell them just that , you could use an edited version of the prove it letter http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387363-You-know-nothing-of-the-Debt-Prove-It

 

Have they actually written to you in any way or is this just on your credit file?

[Bandit127]

In order to be able to legitimately report on your credit file,

 

the default must be within the statute of limitations. 6 years for most debts, 12 years for a mortgage.

 

If this default is over 10 years old then they are out of order.

 

A prove it letter might do to start with.

[dx100uk]

well p'haps not.

 

if its never had a default issued in the summary of the debt

 

it could stay there forever in mad way.

 

is there a defaulted date in the debt summary line?

 

dx

[twoman]

Hi jsa,

Once you have established the status of the debt and its SB i would make a complaint to the FCA,ICO,CSA and anybodY else that you can think of.

[fletch70]

Lets do first things first

 

Establish what the debt is for and if it belongs to you- A prove it letter followed by a CCA request to Arrow if necessary.

Establish when if was defaulted and if it is SB. Maybe a SAR to the OC which you will know after more details from Arrow

 

As for a complaint, it doesn't all have to be about confrontation. Maybe Arrow will do the right thing . Of course you need to exhaust their complaints procedure before doing anything else

[DonkeyB]

well p'haps not.

 

if its never had a default issued in the summary of the debt

 

it could stay there forever in mad way.

 

is there a defaulted date in the debt summary line?

 

dx

 

Not sure about this, DX

– they can’t record a default willy-nilly.

 

The ICO says that the data sent to CRAs must be a fair reflection of the way an account is run.

 

Normally, a default on the account should be presented within six months of the first missed payment, or from the breakdown of the relationship.

 

Failure to do this, and to record a default after this period would form an unfair relationship.

Creditors could simply not bother to report the account accurately and use the threat of recording a default as a debt collection tool

– ie. we’ll trash your credit record whenever we want – which, again, would be unfair.

 

So the ICO guidance is there for a reason. Here’s the relevant passage:

 

 

The link to the whole document is here.

 

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.ashx

[DonkeyB]

This is also a useful summary.

 

http://www.scoronline.co.uk/files/scor/high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf

 

There are exceptions to the main guideline, but we can’t comment on this as we – and the OP – don’t know what type of debt this was.

[dx100uk]

well you've seen the number of times I've post that PDF too

 

what I am saying is...they can place markers as much as they like

it doesn't really change anything

the bottom line is the default date in the debt summary.

 

I suspect..going by this line from post 1:

 

They are also using the day they bought the debt as date of default, about 8 years after the actual date

 

that the OC Defaulted the debt and sold it on .

[DonkeyB]

Absolutely, DX. But such tactics need challenging. Trashing people’s credit rating on such an unwarranted basis itself warrants reparation, as several past cases have established, and as the Durkin case has just reinforced.

 

The absurd thing is that the original creditor had no need to issue a default in order to sell the debt on (and that raises the question of who actually placed that default – the OC would not be allowed to reissue a default). Which makes the practice of adding grossly late defaults a deliberately nasty and underhand tactic.

[dx100uk]

well there are those here that will claim that say a bank on a bank account [OD] debt

as quite correct not to default people until they call the full debt in.

[sequenci]

Absolutely, DX. But such tactics need challenging. Trashing people’s credit rating on such an unwarranted basis itself warrants reparation, as several past cases have established, and as the Durkin case has just reinforced.

 

The absurd thing is that the original creditor had no need to issue a default in order to sell the debt on (and that raises the question of who actually placed that default – the OC would not be allowed to reissue a default). Which makes the practice of adding grossly late defaults a deliberately nasty and underhand tactic.

 

Let's just hope that the regime of suprious defaults becomes less widespread given the outcome of the Durkin decision.

[DonkeyB]

well there are those here that will claim that say a bank on a bank account [OD] debt

as quite correct not to default people until they call the full debt in.

 

Yes, and as the guidelines state, there are certain types of account where a longer period before issuing a default is warranted. But we don’t know if the OP’s account is one of them.

 

But even with an overdrawn bank account, I think it would be fair to argue that a medium term failure to pay in money

(eg. no payments in for three or four months without explanation, such that the account has effectively been abandoned)

should be noted by the bank as a change in behaviour and deterioration in the handling of the account, that should be reported to fairly reflect the conduct.

 

Bank accounts are a bit different in that the activity is probably not monitored in the same way as running credit accounts.

 

The ICO guidance is not CCA-specific. Its main tenet is that ‘the record of a default lodged with a credit reference agency provides a reliable reflection

of the individual’s credit standing to other lenders’, and then refers to the time constraints.

 

Mind you, selling a debt is not ‘calling it in’!

 

I think it’s just important that people don’t take this sh1te lying down. So many people don’t challenge it because they don’t know the rules or the possible redress.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This echo's the Welcome tactic of not defaulting old delinquent accounts until they are ready to sell them on, just seen one default 4 years after payments/contact ceased.

[DonkeyB]

Indeed Brig ... effectively trashing someone’s credit file for ten years!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed Brig ... effectively trashing someone’s credit file for ten years!

 

 

It is wrong that the regulators use term such should be placed rather than Must be placed etc.

 

 

Guidance is open to b huge abuses and until there is legislation with "teeth" nothing will change.

[DonkeyB]

In the meantime, there’s CPUTR and case law.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

In the meantime, there’s CPUTR and case law.

CPUTR is very useful but case law for the inexperienced individual in relation to matters in the lower courts, so many times LIPs cases fail because inappropriate/or overturned case law quoted in claims or defences.

 

 

Some judges dread seeing a foot thick bundle of case law quotes in a case for a £100 catalogue debt or other " low value" matters.