Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

[TTiana99]

Hello,

I'm looking for some advice on an issue I'm unsure if I should pursue.

I have an excellent Credit Rating, no debts, no loans, no credit cards etc and have worked really hard to live on my own income. I've taken out one Payday loan which I have repaid last year.

However sometimes in life we do need help and require loans, which I now require, I have since been turned down for a loan with my own bank despite an excellent record of keeping my bank accounts in order, the bank manager couldn't understand the situation, he said my account is better than most people's, so couldn't understand how the bank relies SOLELY on your credit report to agree extra account facilities.

Anyway the refusal according to the underwriters is due to information on my credit file, the only issue on my file according to Experian is that LOWELL have put a Default on my file, which I have disputed with Experian and they have contacted Lowell to which they just state it's owed to a Mobile phone company, I disputed the original debt with the mobile company years ago and they never replied. Now it seems they have sold the debt of £500 to Lowell who search my credit file every 6 months (I assume they can see my new address on my file). They have not written to me to chase the debt but the DEFAULT on my file is harming any chance of getting future credit.


I will be checking the other CRA agencies to see what they have on file for me. My annoyance is that with such a seemingly important system as the Credit Report why on earth is the Government allowing several different companies to have access to people's data, there seems to be no end to new companies popping up offering access to your Credit Report, surely with such personal and important data there should only be 1 main body for companies to use, hence then no need for consumers to be running around trying to fix several different databases!!

My Question is: Is there anyway to get the Default Removed, as I said they are not chasing me for the debt? SO seems unfair they are allowed to just leave it there to blemish my report and cause me problems. As a result I can't even get an overdraft with my Bank which is JUST STUPID!!

The SB date is: late Autumn next year, but I really can't wait until then to get the credit I require.

Any advice would be appreciated please?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Hi and welcome

Usually you can only get a default removed if it was recorded in error. Not being chased for a debt is not a reason for the default not to be there. Mobile contracts are often the subject of endless misunderstandings. :ohwell: SBd date may well be earlier than default drop-off date as defaults tend to be recorded a few months after payments cease (with some exceptions of course).

There are three CRAs, however, any company that shares data with them is entitled to access your credit report.

Bear in mind different banks/lenders may have different criteria, some may only search the last three years of your credit record. It's not unusual to be turned down by one lender and accepted by another on the same day, I've had that experience myself.

[Kafka]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Please explain the nature of the dispute with the mobile company and what happened?

[TTiana99]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Hi KAFKA,
The dispute with the mobile company was due to them double charging me for text's when I was working abroad, also I paid for data bundles that didn't work and so they then charged excessive data charges. I was being charged twice and 3 times in some instances for what should have been one text and single phone calls for example, over a Weekend period, so it became very expensive on the total bill. They didn't accept responsibility for the errors unfortunately. I refused to pay the the extortionate costs and stopped using the phone, I was out of contract so that was that.

[TTiana99]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Hi FlamingParrot,

Thank you for your reply.

All your points noted. I was always told that the SBd date began from when the DEFAULT NOTICE was logged, I think I was also told this by EXPERIAN also when dealing with this case. The original date the debt was logged with Experian is 2009, there is no other history at all before that regarding the debt. LOWELL only have ZERO's logged for the last 2 years on my report apart from the odd 2 times where they have an entry it's just the £500 which coincides with the same dates they have searched my report. Again they search my report but make no attempt to contact me.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

I was always told that the SBd date began from when the DEFAULT NOTICE was logged,

You may have been told this but it is wrong. The statute barred six years should run from the last time you made a payment to the debt. This is NOT the same as the six years a debt remains on your credit record after a default. A debt can be statute barred and still appear on your credit record or it can not be statute barred but have dropped off your credit record.

[kidney69uk]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Going through a similar experience myself. It would seem that the default date on the credit report is 'magically' entered when sold on to a DCA. A default date (like in my case) was probably never entered and they have had to enter this before selling it on (as well as update the name to Lowell on the entry, they are legally required to do this under the data protection act). Even if SB'd did rely on the DN the entry on the credit file (as I'm learning) doesn't mean a DN was issued at that time.

Lowell will start chasing this eventually and a few thousand trees will be lost in the process.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Hi FlamingParrot,

Thank you for your reply.

All your points noted. I was always told that the SBd date began from when the DEFAULT NOTICE was logged, I think I was also told this by EXPERIAN also when dealing with this case. The original date the debt was logged with Experian is 2009, there is no other history at all before that regarding the debt. LOWELL only have ZERO's logged for the last 2 years on my report apart from the odd 2 times where they have an entry it's just the £500 which coincides with the same dates they have searched my report. Again they search my report but make no attempt to contact me.

That shouldn't be the case, however, there was a recent case where the judge decided that the cause of action was when the default notice was issued. It was a county court case so it doesn't set precedent, however, the defendant is in the process of appealing that judgment so it will be interesting to see how it develops.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

You may have been told this but it is wrong. The statute barred six years should run from the last time you made a payment to the debt. This is NOT the same as the six years a debt remains on your credit record after a default. A debt can be statute barred and still appear on your credit record or it can not be statute barred but have dropped off your credit record.

That's not strictly true either, the Limitation Act refers to the cause of action and the creditor would have had no cause to take any action when you had just made a payment, they'd have no way of knowing you'd make no further payments so the CoA would have to be at least one month after your last payment or when you first missed a contractual payment.

Things get more complicated with overdrafts because the cause of action is when the bank recalls the overdraft by issuing a final demand and that can be many months after the last time a payment was made into your current account.

[TTiana99]

Re: Lowell registered Default on CR but not chasing

Going through a similar experience myself. It would seem that the default date on the credit report is 'magically' entered when sold on to a DCA. A default date (like in my case) was probably never entered and they have had to enter this before selling it on (as well as update the name to Lowell on the entry, they are legally required to do this under the data protection act). Even if SB'd did rely on the DN the entry on the credit file (as I'm learning) doesn't mean a DN was issued at that time.

Lowell will start chasing this eventually and a few thousand trees will be lost in the process.

Thanks for your reply Kidney69uk,
Experian confirmed that the original company doesn't always update the CRA file and they don't have to have their details on the file after a DCA has taken over, so the dates could be anything, you can only confirm with the original company I guess. Well they haven't started chasing since conversations months ago with Experian and if they do I will deal with it if and when they try it :tinysmile_grin_t:. Strange thing is that there is no record of the orginal company to confirm details with and then suddenly the DCA starts putting things on your report at what ever point in time they choose. It's very hit and miss.