Arrangement to Pay (AP)

green8890

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?

Yes and a supplied that to the energy ombusman and they happy to take that as the version of events and the decision was 100£ compensation which for your family to deal with the mistake for 6 years is not good enough why should I be punished for someone not doing there job properly 

eskbanker

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?

Yes and a supplied that to the energy ombusman and they happy to take that as the version of events and the decision was 100£ compensation which for your family to deal with the mistake for 6 years is not good enough why should I be punished for someone not doing there job properly 

In which case, it seems likely that when they get round to examining the case the ICO will agree that the data processing was unlawful and from there should advise E.ON to update Equifax to remove the AP reference from your credit file.  Have you checked your files with the other credit agencies too?

green8890

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?

Yes and a supplied that to the energy ombusman and they happy to take that as the version of events and the decision was 100£ compensation which for your family to deal with the mistake for 6 years is not good enough why should I be punished for someone not doing there job properly 

In which case, it seems likely that when they get round to examining the case the ICO will agree that the data processing was unlawful and from there should advise E.ON to update Equifax to remove the AP reference from your credit file.  Have you checked your files with the other credit agencies too?

No only equifax as this is only one my mortgage lender uses hopefully that is the case 

Willing2Learn

FYI - The original ICO guidance stated:

"As stated in the old default guidance, where an arrangement to pay breaks down, a default may be filed when the total value of the arrears is equivalent to three monthly payments under the original terms. However, this should not result in the customer being placed in a worse position than someone who had made no effort to pay whatsoever.

Whether an individual has been left in a worse position or not is something that we will have to consider on a case by case basis. However where we feel that the arrangement to pay has left the individual in a worse position than someone who simply stopped paying, we would normally consider this to be unfair under the first principle and ask the lender to amend the default so that it was the same as if the individual had simply stopped making payments without entering the arrangement to pay."


In your discussions and negotiations with the ICO and Eon, I would be referring to the old guidance, as well as the latest principals.

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

FYI - The original ICO guidance stated:

"As stated in the old default guidance, where an arrangement to pay breaks down, a default may be filed when the total value of the arrears is equivalent to three monthly payments under the original terms. However, this should not result in the customer being placed in a worse position than someone who had made no effort to pay whatsoever.

Whether an individual has been left in a worse position or not is something that we will have to consider on a case by case basis. However where we feel that the arrangement to pay has left the individual in a worse position than someone who simply stopped paying, we would normally consider this to be unfair under the first principle and ask the lender to amend the default so that it was the same as if the individual had simply stopped making payments without entering the arrangement to pay."


In your discussions and negotiations with the ICO and Eon, I would be referring to the old guidance, as well as the latest principals.

I will definitely be keeping this up my sleeve for a plan b if they will not remove it all together. As far as I can see the arrangement to pay is far worse than a default .things need to change in this regard 

eskbanker

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?

Yes and a supplied that to the energy ombusman and they happy to take that as the version of events and the decision was 100£ compensation which for your family to deal with the mistake for 6 years is not good enough why should I be punished for someone not doing there job properly 

In which case, it seems likely that when they get round to examining the case the ICO will agree that the data processing was unlawful and from there should advise E.ON to update Equifax to remove the AP reference from your credit file.  Have you checked your files with the other credit agencies too?

No only equifax as this is only one my mortgage lender uses hopefully that is the case 

Up to you but if E.ON's actions are held to be unlawful and the ICO instructs remedial action then IMHO it would be worth insisting on the relevant corrections being applied consistently wherever necessary - if, for the sake of argument, Experian also recorded the AP, why would it be appropriate to leave it there?

Willing2Learn

eskbanker said:

Up to you but if E.ON's actions are held to be unlawful and the ICO instructs remedial action then IMHO it would be worth insisting on the relevant corrections being applied consistently wherever necessary - if, for the sake of argument, Experian also recorded the AP, why would it be appropriate to leave it there?

@green8890
If you are only trying to get a mortgage via a high street bank then you might be okay with just an AP marker.  If you have other negative markers on your three files, then I recommend you approach a good mortgage broker who specialises in adverse data.

Do you have any other negative data recorded on your three files?

green8890

Willing2Learn said:

eskbanker said:

Up to you but if E.ON's actions are held to be unlawful and the ICO instructs remedial action then IMHO it would be worth insisting on the relevant corrections being applied consistently wherever necessary - if, for the sake of argument, Experian also recorded the AP, why would it be appropriate to leave it there?

@green8890
If you are only trying to get a mortgage via a high street bank then you might be okay with just an AP marker.  If you have other negative markers on your three files, then I recommend you approach a good mortgage broker who specialises in adverse data.

Do you have any other negative data recorded on your three files?

No my score is excellent and my partners is good and the reason for rejecting is the ap marker they view it as a major no no this is only problem we have whitch is very frustrating as the manner it came about 

green8890

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

green8890 said:

eskbanker said:

The ICO response seems to be a holding letter, effectively replaying what you've told them rather than actually agreeing (or disagreeing) with it, although they intimate that they plan to allocate it to someone to review it properly.

It seems to me that the whole things stands or falls on being able to demonstrate (to ICO and/or anyone else) that E.ON told you your credit file wouldn't be updated with the AP.  You've said that the call recording isn't available but have E.ON accepted in writing that you were misled by their employee - you'd previously posted that "eon couldn't find the call and that's one thing all parties agree on the advisor failed us" but what form does that agreement actually take?

Yes but the letter is also stating where the information can be found witch they have failed when speaking to ico on phone they told me if I asked the advisor how my information would be used and they used it in a different way it's a breach of data protection I just thought if they failed on any guidelines issuing it then it cannot stand as it's not under the principle of reporting it fair and transparent. All parties agree the advisor failed us and never told us the information even the ombusman are taking my word for it as eon have not responded with any evidence but are saying it's a customer service issue when the I.c.o are saying different and the ombusman decision is based on the I.c.o guidelines very confusing. We are left with such a major problem due to someone not doing there job properly and have to potentially deal with that for 6 years

When you say that "eon have not responded with any evidence", the onus is effectively on you to prove that you were told that the AP wouldn't be reported to the credit agencies, not for E.ON to prove that you were told it would, so at the risk of repeating myself, have E.ON clearly and explicitly stated in writing that they accept that their advisor misinformed you?

Yes and a supplied that to the energy ombusman and they happy to take that as the version of events and the decision was 100£ compensation which for your family to deal with the mistake for 6 years is not good enough why should I be punished for someone not doing there job properly 

In which case, it seems likely that when they get round to examining the case the ICO will agree that the data processing was unlawful and from there should advise E.ON to update Equifax to remove the AP reference from your credit file.  Have you checked your files with the other credit agencies too?

No only equifax as this is only one my mortgage lender uses hopefully that is the case 

Up to you but if E.ON's actions are held to be unlawful and the ICO instructs remedial action then IMHO it would be worth insisting on the relevant corrections being applied consistently wherever necessary - if, for the sake of argument, Experian also recorded the AP, why would it be appropriate to leave it there?

Yes I understand what your saying as I said the I.c.o have said to me there have unlawfully processed it as it's a data protection breach as I have the right to be informed under gpdr and because I asked the advisors and got the wrong information then this would be the case 

Willing2Learn

green8890 said:

Willing2Learn said:

eskbanker said:

Up to you but if E.ON's actions are held to be unlawful and the ICO instructs remedial action then IMHO it would be worth insisting on the relevant corrections being applied consistently wherever necessary - if, for the sake of argument, Experian also recorded the AP, why would it be appropriate to leave it there?

@green8890
If you are only trying to get a mortgage via a high street bank then you might be okay with just an AP marker.  If you have other negative markers on your three files, then I recommend you approach a good mortgage broker who specialises in adverse data.

Do you have any other negative data recorded on your three files?

No my score is excellent and my partners is good and the reason for rejecting is the ap marker they view it as a major no no this is only problem we have whitch is very frustrating as the manner it came about 

Your score is irrelevant.  A mortgage lender neither sees nor uses your credit score.

A mortgage lender scores you against their independent lending criteria and policies, using the data held in your three credit files, added to the data you provide in your mortgage application, added to the data they may already hold on you as an existing or returning customer. 

Has your potential mortgage lender told you they have seen all three credit files?  A good broker will look at all three and not just your Equifax file...