DMP & Mutual Support Thread - Part 10

Karen777 wrote: »

pride comes before a slap in the face from a creditor..... I feel like a living example of the dmp rollercoaster today! I was having a good day (debt now under 10k for first time in many many many years) when I thought I would check up on the progress of a complaint that had been reopened by a creditor who I shall call.. Hellish! So apparently the things I was told had been done two weeks ago (interest and charges stopped) has not been done (I was going to write in but when I spoke to someone two weeks ago they said that would take ages and better to deal with it over the phone. ha. Yes I know I am an idiot) and no one has reopened a complaint. No one knows why. Oh and no they don't think I am experiencing financial hardship.

I feel like they expect me to know the inner workings of their multiple databases, teams and buzz words and am being penalised because I have no clue which team has been dealing with my account at various stages over the last 2 years (because every time I contact them I get put on call centre merry go round.)

Am too tired and cross to be tired and cross so am just waiting to see how this incident is resolved before I decide how I feel about it and what my next steps will be.

Jon81 wrote: »

Thank you blisteringblue it's good to hear, I'm trying my best (we all are) and just felt like it was all going backwards

January2015 wrote: »

Sorry - should have thought of doing that when I originally posted.

Lending Code Section 224 states:

• Subscribers should consider reducing or stopping interest and charges when a customer evidences that they are in financial difficulties. Such reduction/suspension decision should be based upon an income and expenditure statement indicating that they are unable to make repayments sufficient to meet contractual terms. Where a customer is able to make only token payments, their debt should not increase as a result of interest and charges levied. The assessment should reflect the customer’s lack of ability to pay rather than the stage an account has reached in the arrears cycle or whether they are using free sources of debt advice. Where a firm declines to allow concessions, they should be prepared to explain why to the customer or their adviser if requested to do so.

The Lending Code states a token payment is "An offer of payment of a small amount, e.g. £1, made by a customer who has no surplus income available for their ‘non-priority’ creditors and whose circumstances have a realistic prospect of improving so that they will be able to resume full or increased payments".


My argument on this one has been that our DMP sees us through to retirement age and whilst we are making more than token £1 payments our payments are still not equivalent to the required amount for the account to be in order and therefore our payments still constitute a token payment (my logic being that anything less than the required minimum payment must be a token payment).

Section 225 states:

• It is inappropriate for interest and charges to continue to be taken where the result would be that the repayment period for the customer becomes excessive. In forming a judgement on what might be excessive, a subscriber should take into account the type of product and the individual circumstances of the borrower.

My argument on this one (the Hellifax OD) was that it was going to take more than 30 years to clear based on our token payments if they kept charging their daily fee. With no fees we could clear the debt by retirement age. I'm working on developing this argument into my complaint with BC re. interest charges. I need to be more awake when I do the figures, but if their interest is going to take us over the DMP period and into retirement then I think I would argue that makes the repayment period excessive - thinking cap needs to be firmly in place when I word my next missive to BC.

Section 227 states:

• Where possible, subscribers should have consistent policies for customers holding more than one product type in terms of charges and interest concessions.

My argument on this one was how can you agree our relationship has broken down and agree to default our OD but not our loans - you need to treat us consistently.

Edit: I should have said these were just the arguments I used based on my interpretation of bits of the Lending Code I thought applied to our individual circumstances and I do realise the arguments I made may not work for everyone (and indeed may not work for me with all of our creditors - but it did feel good to quote the code verbatim when some of them phoned us following our complaint letters - because different departments deal with complaints about different products even though it can be the same bank/creditor). I felt I knew more about it than the poor so and so's phoning me

January2015 wrote: »

How sad I am:o

I have been reading The Lending Code - knowledge is power as they say:D

I have quoted sections 224 to 227 in a couple of phone calls and letters:j