• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

'Interesting' default reporting procedure

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

    Hi all


    So straight into it...


    The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor, which were taken over by a 3rd party, however the earlier defaults were left on file and new ones added. 2 defaults for the same account. This duplication has been sorted but it showed some quite interesting discrepancies.


    The accounts had the same start start date but different default dates and amounts. I put this to the original creditor and received the following response, with account numbers removed to protect the innocent:


    1. We transferred your loan accounts xxx and xxx to Motormile Finance Ltd (MMF) in February, 2014 and we reported these accounts as transferred/sold to the Credit Reference Agencies (CRA). At the time when your accounts were transferred to MMF, the outstanding balances were £1448.00 and £673.00 respectively.


    2. Both the above loan accounts went in Default status with us on 02nd September, 2012 due to non-payments and we sent you a Notice of Default via email (on 04th September, 2015) as well as via Post to notify you about the same. Please find attached the Default notices which were sent to you.


    3. According to our reporting procedure, we give our customers 180 days post the account goes into Default to get the loan up-to-date or closed. Since we did not receive the payments within this time frame, we reported the same to CRA's on 30th January, 2013.


    At the time when we reported this to CRA's, the balance for your accounts were £1386.00 and £611.00 respectively. This is the reason, the Default date for these accounts are showing for 30th January, 2015 with the Default balance of £1336.00 and £611.00 respectively on your credit file.


    As these are genuine Default marks, we would not be able to remove them from your credit file.

    The MMF reported default gave default dates of 2 weeks after the NoD was issued and the balances reflected those on the default notices. The balances on the notices of default as issued on 4th September were £962 and £537 respectively.


    Credit file reports 3 missed payments then account into default, which is interesting given that one account went into default status on 2nd September, showing 3 monthly payments missed, having been opened on 5th July, less than 2 months previously.


    I have a suspicion that this reporting process is a big no-no. I also have a suspicion that they register a default with the CRAs promptly for the amount on the default notice then change the details on said default when they sell it on, this sale being completed on 14th February 2013. The technical guidance the ICOicon supply regarding report of defaults seems to bear this out.


    It's also fairly interesting to note that between 2nd September and 30th January isn't 180 days.


    It looks like this creditor plays extremely fast and loose with the reports they provide to CRAs. The 'reporting procedure' I've been given also appears to at very least not be followed.


    I have presented this to the main CRA, they previously asked this creditor if the data was correct which they have, of course, confirmed. I have supplied the additional information to them and suggested they should perhaps take proactive action given the creditor has told me that they, as a matter of procedure, don't follow proper process.


    The credit reference agency's response was to refuse to take any action beyond to ask the original creditor again whether the data is correct, despite evidence being presented to them that this creditor routinely misreports to them.


    It strikes me that the manner in which this creditor is conducting reporting of defaults is a big no-no, and the refusal of the CRA to do anything regarding the, by the creditor's own admission, incorrect data beyond ask the original creditor whether they want it to stay on the file as is isn't great as far as their obligations to present correct data goes.


    I would welcome the thoughts of those more knowledgeable.

    I look forward to reading here more often!
    Last edited by Ignition; 30th May 2015, 21:34:PM.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

    Originally posted by Ignition View Post
    The scenario is 2 defaults from the same creditor,
    Who is the original lender? Name & shame - it will help other people wrestling with the same issue

    Have you put in a formal complaint to the creditor, saying why their reply is unsatisfactory? And followed this up with a complain to the ICO? More about how to complain here: http://debtcamel.co.uk/debt-default-date/.

    The credit reference agency's response was to refuse to take any action beyond to ask the original creditor again whether the data is correct, despite evidence being presented to them that this creditor routinely misreports to them.
    This is normal. It's not the CRA's job to try to sort out who is telling the truth here, it is the ICOs. NB I am not saying that you aren't telling the truth just being practical - complaining to the CRA will hardly ever help.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

      The original creditor received this as a pair of responses:

      Good Morning,

      Thank you for the information.

      Your changing the details of the default is in contradiction of the UK Information Commissioner's Office Data Protection Technical Guidance on filing defaults with credit reference agencies.



      With this in mind I contact the ICO on Monday regarding this matter enclosing your official response that it is standard Lending Stream procedure to disregard this guidance by recording defaults then post-dating them.


      I will also reach out to all three credit reference agencies and inform them of this policy to ensure that they are aware, and that they may need to check the reliability of any default data you have recorded.


      I have resolved outstanding issues with Motormile Finance, but thanks for the information. I appreciate it.


      Thank you again for your quick response on this matter.




      Further to the previous, your claim of a standard reporting procedure with 180 days post-default for remedy doesn't seem to work either.


      You registered default originally on 18th September 2012. You then by your own admission re-registered it on the 30th of January 2013.


      That isn't 180 days.


      You also list the start date on one of the accounts as being 5th July, yet claim it went 3 months into arrears by 4th September?


      It's fair to say there are issues here. I'm sorry that you've insisted the entries are correct. I've relayed your 'reporting procedure' to Experian and Call Credit.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

        Originally posted by Debt Camel View Post
        Name & shame - it will help other people wrestling with the same issue
        Lending Stream.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

          Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
          CRA Defaults - Recording of defaults relating to debts that have been sold.

          The practice of selling/buying debts is widely used. As long as the information is correctly recorded on a credit file by the lender selling the debt and the lender buying the debt then two entries relating to one account would not be considered to be a breach of the Data Protection Act provided that:-

          both record entreis are should as being in relation to the same acccount/debt.

          the original debt entry should be shown on the credit file as being either settled or zero balance and should show that the debt has been 're-assigned;'

          The new DC who shows the debt in their name SHOULD MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL DEFAULT DATE and the correct balances

          the retention period for maintaining the information on a credit file should be based on the original default date regardless of who is responsible for the entry/debt.

          from ICO guidance. http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...230#post546230
          #staysafestayhome

          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

          Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

            Thank you!

            Seems clear, then, that the 'reporting procedure' is indeed a no-no, and it should use the original default date not some arbitrary date in the future.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

              Hello,

              So they've responded insisting that they have done basically nothing wrong.

              Due to the non-payment on both the account for a stipulated time, the Default notices were issues to you at your registered email address and were sent to your postal address as well in September’2012.
              In line with the credit reporting guidelines, the defaults status is updated on the customer’s credit file after 180 days of missing the first payment on the account. We see that the default should have been posted on your credit profile on 27th January’2013 instead of 30th Jan’2013, which we can surely rectify.
              They appear be under the impression that they can issue default notices claiming that they 'may' issue a CRA default within 14 days (which is against the guidance, should be 28 days to remedy the breach of conditions), then can issue the CRA default with date and amount at the time they decide to sell the account. As long as it's within 180 days they seem to think they've adhered to the guidance.

              I disagree

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

                How I love going back through things and finding credit reference agency files.

                In line with the credit reporting guidelines, the defaults status is updated on the customer’s credit file after 180 days of missing the first payment on the account. We see that the default should have been posted on your credit profile on 27th January’2013 instead of 30th Jan’2013, which we can surely rectify.


                Really?

                Perhaps they'd be good enough to explain why I can see this on my credit file for both accounts.



                Checked with the CRA and they have status that can go 0-6 with 8 reserved for default.

                Then there's the issue of how many payments were missed prior to default notice. I believe unless there are certain circumstances this must be 3, and certainly their reporting to the CRAs indicates this, but...



                The default notice was dated 4th September after 2 payments were missed.

                Now they may claim one was triggered by the default on the other, and that the other had gone 3 months into arrears. In which case they issued a new loan when an existing one was in arrears and hence lent irresponsibly.



                Doesn't justify their misreporting to the CRA in question of course.

                I've brought this to their attention and am waiting for their full and final response.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

                  Bad stuff gone from credit file. Mission accomplished

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

                    Awesome - well done!!

                    What happened?
                    "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

                    I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

                    If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                    If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

                      Originally posted by Celestine View Post
                      Awesome - well done!!

                      What happened?
                      I asked them if they could explain themselves, highlighted their contradictions, and indicated a desire to consult with the ICO on whether this was a reasonable record of events.

                      They didn't seem to fancy this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 'Interesting' default reporting procedure

                        Brilliant - good to hear as loads of people have problems with incorrect CRA data, please feel free to share your learned wisdom with others xx
                        "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

                        I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

                        If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                        If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

                        Comment

                        View our Terms and Conditions

                        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                        Working...
                        X