Does the Size of a Default Change Which Lenders Will Consider You?
- Aug 5
- 15 min read
Find out why the amount of a default matters far less than borrowers expect, and what actually decides your options.
Quick Answer
Only at the very bottom of the range. Some lenders disregard a default below a stated value, usually somewhere between £200 and £500, and a few ignore it entirely. Above that line the default value largely stops working, and how many you have and how recent they are take over.
The threshold is real and it is published, but it is rarely a plain number. It is often conditional on what the account was for, and it is frequently applied to the combined total across your file rather than to each entry separately. Those two conditions decide most cases.
Two mainstream 2026 product ranges we reviewed place no limit at all on the value of a default. Their only test is how long ago it was registered. On ranges written that way, a very large old default can be acceptable while a very small recent one is not.
Reviewed by Ben Stephenson, FCA authorised (FRN 496907) · 25+ years' experience · 4.9★ on Google. Updated: 31 July 2026.
Who Is This Guide For
Best for buyers with a default of under a few hundred pounds, remortgagors carrying several small entries from one difficult year, and applicants with an old phone or utility default, who all want to know whether the amount alone changes their options.
Key Points
Published disregards cluster between £200 and £500
Count caps are small integers and bite first
Some ranges state no limit on default value
Table of Contents
Why £960 and £9,600 Often Produce the Same Lender List
Size changes the answer only at the very bottom of the range. Below a line lenders draw somewhere between £200 and £500, a default can be disregarded outright. Above that line the amount does far less work than almost anyone expects.
We went through published criteria in July 2026 expecting a sliding scale. We found a switch instead. Under the figure, the entry can be invisible to the product tiering. Over it, £960 and £9,600 are frequently read the same way.
Two mainstream product ranges we reviewed go further still. Their published wording places no limit whatsoever on the number or value of defaults, and the only test is how long ago each was registered.
On those ranges a £40,000 default registered 25 months ago can be acceptable, while a £96 default registered 23 months ago is not. Twenty-four months of calendar does what forty thousand pounds cannot.
That is the argument of this article in one comparison. Value is a threshold, not a dial. The variables that keep scaling are how many defaults you have and how recent they are, and recency is covered elsewhere in our bad credit mortgage guidance.
The Published Cut-Offs Run From £10 to No Limit At All
Start with the floor, because there almost isn't one. The industry data quality guidance published by the Credit Information Governance Body (2026) says only that it "may be inappropriate" to report a default for a minimal amount, and that the agencies "may impose a minimum default balance of £10".
Both of those are permissive. There is no mandatory floor and nothing resembling the £100 or £300 industry rule repeated online. Experian (2026) puts it plainly: a default can occur regardless of how much you owe, whether that is a few pounds or a few thousand. The only value-shaped exclusion in the reporting principles is about composition rather than size, since a default should not be filed where the balance is made up solely of fees or charges.
Move up to lender criteria and the verified figures cluster tightly. Disregards sat at £200, £250, £300 and £500. Above those, tier caps appeared at £1,000, £1,500, £2,000 and £5,000, usually attached to a time window rather than the file as a whole. Then the range runs out, with some published ranges stating no value limit at all.
At the opposite extreme, one mainstream lender requires zero defaults in six years with no value test written anywhere, so £96 fails there exactly as £9,600 does.
One technical point saves confusion. Two figures sit on the entry: the default amount, frozen at registration, and the current balance. Criteria saying "maximum £X" are read against the first, satisfaction off the second.
£200 Each or £200 Combined: One Word Flips the Answer
This is the most consequential distinction in the subject, and it turns on a word most borrowers skim past. Some criteria apply the threshold to each default individually, others to the combined total across the application.
Both wordings are live in the 2026 market and there is no convention. One lender ignores "two individual defaults up to and including £200.00 each". Another ignores "all other combined judgments and defaults up to £300 per application". Same idea, opposite arithmetic.
Under the per-default wording, five entries of £150 are five separate ignorable items. Under the combined wording they are £750, which blows a £300 cap without coming close on any single line.
Here is the sharpest verified example we found. At one lender the £300 disregard is combined per application. Four defaults of £80 come to £320, exceeding the disregard, so nothing is ignored and all four count against a tier requiring none in 36 months. One default of £299 is ignored and the application passes.
Read that twice. £320 spread across four entries is worse than £299 in one, at the same lender, on the same page of the same document.
There is a second trap in the per-default wording, because the disregard can itself be count-capped. One lender ignores two individual defaults of up to £200 each, and only one on its shorter-window product, so a third small utility default counts in full even though it sits under the value line.
Three £96 Defaults Versus One £1,400 Default
The widely repeated idea that several small defaults are gentler than one large one is not just wrong, it is backwards. Value caps are often absent or generous. Count caps are near universal, and they are small integers, so they bite first.
One lender's tiers permit two defaults in 24 months, with a maximum of £1,500 in the last 12 and no limit thereafter. A single default of £1,400 at eight months old sits inside both tests and passes. Three defaults of £96 at eight months old total £288, nowhere near the value cap, and fail on the count.
The failing case carries one fifth of the money of the passing case. Nothing in the arithmetic explains that. It is the row count doing the work.
Another lender's near-prime range allows a total default value of £1,000 inside 36 months alongside a maximum of five defaults, satisfied or unsatisfied. Six entries of £50 come to £300, clear the aggregate comfortably, and fail the count. One entry of £999 passes both.
We also found a tier permitting five defaults in 24 months with no value limit stated anywhere. On that wording, six defaults of £50 fail and one default of £30,000 does not.
Our page on multiple defaults covers the count axis properly. It matters here because borrowers with several small entries think of themselves as low-value cases, and criteria almost never agree.
There is an underwriting logic behind this, offered as reasoning rather than fact. One default reads as one event, which can be explained. Five reads as a pattern across five separate relationships, a behavioural signal rather than a size one. Criteria encode that by counting rows, not pounds.
What sits on the credit file | How published criteria tend to read it |
One default of £1,400, eight months old | One entry, inside a two in 24 months count cap and inside a £1,500 value cap |
Three defaults of £96, all eight months old | Three entries, £288 in total, outside the same two in 24 months count cap |
One default of £999, two years old | One entry, inside a five default count cap and inside a £1,000 aggregate |
Six defaults of £50, all two years old | Six entries, £300 in total, outside the same five default count cap |
One default of £299 registered last month | Ignored entirely on at least one published range, regardless of age |
Four defaults of £80 from mixed sources | £320 combined, above a £300 combined disregard, so all four are counted |
A £4,000 Phone Bill Ignored While £96 on a Credit Card Counts
Origin does not merely adjust the value treatment. At several lenders it overrides it completely, and this is the strongest published carve-out anywhere in adverse credit criteria.
We verified four lenders whose published wording disregards communications defaults with no value ceiling at all. One does not take communications or insurance defaults into account. Another states that all communication defaults are acceptable. A third records that communications and utilities defaults are not adverse for product selection.
One goes further, saying a mobile phone default can be ignored even if only recently registered. Recency and value are both switched off by category alone.
Now set that against the same guide's treatment of ordinary credit, on the same page, published in July 2026. A four-figure mobile phone default registered last month is disregarded. A £96 credit card default registered last month counts, and fails the top two tiers, which require none in 36 months.
That is roughly forty times the value resolving the wrong way round. If you take one example from this article, take that one, because it shows better than any threshold that lenders price what the default says about you rather than what it cost.
The ladder is consistent across the criteria we read. Telecoms and communications sit at the top of the forgiveness order, often at unlimited value, with utilities next and usually value-capped, then mail order. Credit cards and loans are carved out of the carve-out, with one lender naming "excluding credit cards" in terms.
Our guidance on a mobile or utility default covers that category properly. Two cautions belong here. Being ignored for tiering is not being ignored altogether, because several guides append a line about the lender's internal credit score, which can still see an entry the criteria set aside.
The second is that borrowers stretch the phone bill logic too far. A telecoms default is often a disputed final bill or a service stopped after a house move, which underwriters read as administrative. A credit card default is a facility actively drawn down, a much closer proxy for mortgage behaviour.
Nobody Publishes What a Typical UK Default Is Worth
We should be straight about a gap rather than paper over it. There is no published UK dataset giving the distribution, median or average value of credit defaults registered with the credit reference agencies.
The reason is structural. County court judgments sit on a statutory public register maintained on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, so volume and value can be published. Defaults are private contributed data shared under a closed reciprocal arrangement, with no public register and no statutory publisher, so aggregate value statistics are not an output of that system.
We are not going to estimate around that gap, and you should be wary of any page that does. Where you see an "average UK default" quoted, ask which dataset produced it, because there is not one to produce it.
There is a comparator, and it needs labelling as one. Registry Trust (2026) figures for the 2025 calendar year put roughly 1.2 million county court judgments registered across the UK and Ireland, with a total value of £2.88 billion, a median of about £500, and 43 per cent below £500.
Judgments sit further down the enforcement chain than defaults and cost the creditor a court fee to obtain. If nearly half of those are under £500, it is fair to infer that small adverse markers are the norm rather than the exception, and that lenders setting disregards at £200 to £500 are legislating for a large share of real cases. That is an inference from judgment data, not a default statistic.
Leaving a Small Default Unpaid, and What Settling It Actually Buys
Most borrowers assume paying off a small default is the urgent fix. On the criteria we reviewed, that is often the wrong way round.
At several lenders satisfaction is expressly irrelevant. One states a maximum of one default in 24 months, none in 12, "satisfied or unsatisfied". Another says there is no distinction between satisfied and unsatisfied defaults. A third considers defaults over 36 months old regardless of repayment.
Where satisfaction does interact with value, it typically unlocks a higher ceiling rather than removing the entry. One lender's criteria carry two rows, one for defaults by registration date and one for unsatisfied defaults, the latter attracting an extra cap of £2,000 on one tier and £5,000 on another.
Satisfaction, in other words, buys a value allowance. At £96 that allowance is worth nothing, because £96 was never going to breach £2,000. At £6,000 it is the entire case, so satisfaction matters in proportion to size, which is the opposite of what most borrowers assume.
A real minority runs the other way and is harsh at low values. One building society permits one default in three years, capped at £500, which must have been satisfied, and states that unsatisfied defaults are not acceptable. A £96 unsatisfied default is a decline there, while a £96 satisfied one is considered.
Two facts belong alongside this. Experian (2026) confirms a default stays on file for six years from the default date whether or not you pay it off. And a reduced settlement produces a "partially settled" flag rather than "satisfied", under the reporting principles published by the Credit Information Governance Body (2026).
That catches small defaults hardest, because small balances are the ones creditors accept part-payment on. Someone settling a £96 default for £40 usually believes they have cleared it, and lenders requiring satisfaction read partially settled as unsatisfied. Our page on the worst status on a credit file explains how these markers are recorded.
When the Account Has Closed but the Default Has Not Gone
Closing the account changes nothing about the clock. The reporting principles published by the Credit Information Governance Body (2026) state that the fact an account was previously in default remains on the file for six years from the date of default, not the date of closure.
A closed account is marked by how it ended, fully paid or partially settled, and those markings sit on top of the default rather than replacing it.
Debt sale is where small defaults get genuinely expensive. Guidance from the Credit Information Governance Body (2026) sets out four permitted ways of moving a sold account from seller to purchaser, and the binding rule across all of them is that only one active default may exist for the same debt at any one time, with date and balance held consistent.
Under the most visible method the original creditor's account is closed with a "debt sold" flag while the purchaser loads its own account carrying the live default. That is one debt, correctly reported, appearing as two rows. Under another the seller deletes and the purchaser adds, which is why a small default can seem to move or re-date between refreshes.
Two active defaults for one debt is a data error rather than a second adverse event, and it is challengeable. Experian (2026) confirms a sale must be made obvious so it does not look like two.
Under count-based criteria that is not cosmetic. A duplicate row is the difference between one in 24 months and two, which at several lenders separates accept from decline, so a £96 default double-counted can cost more than a £2,000 counted once.
An illustrative case study
A secondary school teacher and their partner in Scotland came to us with a single £96 default from a closed catalogue account, registered 19 months earlier and part-settled for £40, so it showed as partially settled rather than satisfied. They were buying at £188,000 with a 10 per cent deposit of £18,800, borrowing £169,200 at 90 per cent loan to value on a joint income of around £63,500. Two lenders declined at decision in principle stage despite the amount sitting well below both of their published thresholds, one on the partially settled marker and one on the 24 month window.
The case was placed with a lender whose tiering excludes defaults under £500 entirely, where affordability was assessed at a stress rate set materially above the pay rate on the product itself. This is an illustrative composite rather than a specific client, and not a prediction of what any application may achieve.
Applying Now on a Tier That Overlooks the Amount, or Waiting for the Date to Move
The real decision facing most readers is not about the amount at all. It is whether to apply now to a lender whose criteria disregard a default of your size, or wait until the registration date is old enough to open cheaper ranges.
The case for going now is straightforward. Where your default sits under a published disregard, particularly where it came from a communications or utility account, there are lenders for whom the entry is invisible to product selection. Waiting to solve a problem those criteria already solve costs you time.
The case for waiting is usually about price. The ranges that disregard small defaults most generously tend to sit in the specialist tier, where rates and fees are typically higher than mainstream pricing, sometimes materially so. If your entry is 30 months old and a mainstream 36 month test is the only thing in your way, six months of patience can beat clever placement. That weakens where the file carries several entries, because ageing them out takes as long as the most recent.
Three things tilt that balance, and none is the value: count, what the account was for, and whether an underwriter sees an event or a pattern.
Be honest about the cost side. Moving to a lender whose criteria accommodate your file often means a higher rate, a product fee, or both, and on a 90 per cent loan to value case that is not trivial. Our specialist lender route exists for files mainstream criteria cannot take, not as a first choice.
Check the entry itself before building any plan around it. The registered amount, the registration date, the satisfaction marker and any duplicate row from a sold debt can all be wrong, and each changes the answer more than the size does.
FAQs
Is there a minimum amount below which a default is not registered?
No, not as a rule. The industry data quality guidance from the Credit Information Governance Body (2026) says only that the credit reference agencies "may" impose a minimum default balance of £10, which is permissive rather than mandatory. Experian (2026) confirms that a default can occur regardless of how much you owe, from a few pounds to a few thousand. Any £100 or £300 figure you have seen is a lender criteria threshold, not a reporting floor.
Does a £96 default affect a mortgage application as much as a £9,600 one?
Frequently yes, and occasionally the smaller one is worse. Where a lender's range states no limit on the value of defaults and tests only how long ago they were registered, the two figures are read identically. Where a disregard exists, it usually sits between £200 and £500, so the £96 entry can fall away entirely while the larger one does not.
Are two or three small defaults better than one larger default?
Usually not, and this is the most commonly reversed belief in this area. Count caps in published criteria are small integers, typically none, one, two or five, and they bite before value caps do. Three defaults of £96 can fail a tier that one default of £1,400 passes, because the tier counts entries rather than pounds.
If I pay off a small default, does it come off my credit file?
No. Experian (2026) confirms a default stays on your credit file for six years from the default date whether or not you pay the debt. Settling for less than the full balance also produces a "partially settled" marker rather than "satisfied", which lenders requiring satisfaction may read as unpaid. Paying can still help, but it changes the marker rather than removing the entry.
Does it matter what the default was for?
Very much, and often more than the amount. Several lenders publish criteria disregarding communications defaults with no value ceiling at all, and at least one can ignore a mobile phone default even where it was only recently registered. Credit card and loan defaults are routinely excluded from those carve-outs, so a large phone default can be overlooked while a small credit card default is not.
My old account was closed and the debt was sold on. Is that two defaults?
It should not be. Industry guidance from the Credit Information Governance Body (2026) requires that only one active default exists for the same debt at any one time, with the date and balance held consistent. You may legitimately see two rows, with the seller's account closed and flagged as sold, but two live defaults for one debt is a data error worth challenging, particularly under count-based criteria.
Summary
The amount changes your options only near the bottom of the scale, where some lenders disregard a default below a stated figure of roughly £200 to £500. Past that point the number does very little, and several published ranges set no value limit whatsoever. How many entries you carry, how recent they are and what the accounts were for decide far more. If you are unsure where yours lands, it is worth having it checked properly.
Updated: 31 July 2026
Written by Ben Stephenson, CeMAP-qualified Mortgage Broker.
Manor Mortgages Direct is FCA authorised, FRN 496907, has traded for 25 years, is highly positively reviewed, 4.9 rated on Google, and has helped thousands secure the right mortgage. Bristol-based mortgage brokers, assisting clients nationwide.
Sources
Credit Information Governance Body (2026) - https://www.cigb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Data-Quality-Reference-Guide-v3-May-2026.pdf - accessed 31 July 2026
Credit Information Governance Body (2026) - https://www.cigb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Principles-for-the-Reporting-of-Arrears-Arrangements-and-Defaults-at-Credit-Reference-Agencies-v2a.pdf - accessed 31 July 2026
Credit Information Governance Body (2026) - https://www.cigb.co.uk/resources/principles-of-reciprocity/ - accessed 31 July 2026
Experian (2026) - https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/guides/defaults.html - accessed 31 July 2026
Debt Camel (2026) - https://debtcamel.co.uk/debt-default-date/ - accessed 31 July 2026
The Intermediary (2026) - https://theintermediary.co.uk/2026/03/ccj-volumes-hit-highest-level-since-2019-research-reveals/ - accessed 31 July 2026
Credit Connect (2026) - https://www.credit-connect.co.uk/news/consumer-collections/arrears-and-recoveries/countycourt-judgment-volumes-hit-highest-levels-since-2019/ - accessed 31 July 2026
Registry Trust (2025) - https://registry-trust.org.uk/blog/decoding-debt-unpacking-landscape-monetary-judgments/ - accessed 31 July 2026
Related Guides