Default notice removal (2nd steps)

happy_bunny_2

I would take it, pay and wait a reasonable time, maybe 28 days then if not removed go back to FOS and they can chase for you

drjones69

Hello again,
Have now received the letter from RWL, and I'm getting a feeling that I'm about to be taken for a mug on this. I've attached a link to both the FOS offer letter and the RBL offer letter below (personal details removed).

I can't help be feel the wording of the RBL offer is much weaker than that the of the FOS requirements (substituting 'partially settled' for 'Full and Final settlement' and not indicating that the default will be 'removed in its entirety') - feel free to have a gander and let me know your thoughts, any insights from people who have been down this route are particularly welcomed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ydy7h72puzu0hgd/RBL%20and%20FOS%20%28redacted%29.pdf

I have already referred this matter back to the FOS for clarification, but do welcome any feedback from users on here.
Regards,
Ryan

happy_bunny_2

I agree the RW letter does not meet the statement in the FOS letter. Did you copy the RW letter to the FOS?

Unless they mean remove the default and still mark the account as partially settled? Not sure if this is right. I smell something fishy...

awayinchina

Hi,
I might be tempted to forward the FOS letter along with the RW letter to both the FOS and RW. Highlight, were RW are not following what the FOS have agreed.
Also, then point out to the FOS that even if you pay this, how cant they gaurantee that the RW will comply with the conditions that FOS have laid out?
Also question, the facts that are FOS say one thing and RW seem to ignore the FOS.
see what comes back.

drjones69

Good evening all,
happy_bunny : Yes, I have sent the RW letter back to the FOS, complete with an explanation saying that I do not believe it satisfies the requirements of the offer. I am awaiting a response from the FOS on this.

awayinchina: Thanks for the suggestion, I've not done this yet - but will do so.

This matter has also got me thinking about a few things, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I on such matters can help me out (again!),

1) Throughout my complaint to the FOS I have been very careful to insist that any offer must not involve marking the default as 'satisfied' (something I learnt on these forums) - however, since they offered me a status of 'partially settled', I looked into this and found that as far as CRAs are concerned the word 'satisfied' and 'settled' seem to be synonymous - is this right? Which then me thinking, just exactly what states can an account be given on a CRA? Is 'Default' a state of account, or merely an extra piece of information on an 'Open' account? What status should I be asking for? Is 'Settled in Full' a state, or simply extra information on a 'Closed' account? I thought I'd learnt about CRAs over the past 9 (!) months, but am starting to think I need to carry on studying!

2) If I make payment and RW don't hold up their end of the bargain (or more to the point, their end as it is implied in the FOS letter), do the FOS have the authority to request actions directly from CRAs, or are they limited to just trying to get the DCA to comply?

3) Is there a large difference (in terms of credit worthiness) between an account being mark 'Partially Settled' and 'Fully Settled'? If so (even if that was the outcome I was seeking), surely I'd be better off paying the full amount (I believe it to be around £60 more than the settlement figure) and having it show as 'Fully Settled'. On a similar note, if I send RW the full amount, are they required to accept it and mark the account 'Fully settled', or are they likely to try and mark it as 'Partially settled' and attempt to refund me difference (obviously I see no logic in this, but in the whole matter I've seen very little logic from DCAs)

4) Finally (and this is entirely just me pondering rhetorically) - Why would the DCA put up such a fight against removing a default? Surely their purpose is to make money for their shareholders, and as now they seem to have accepted they were in error in filing the default (the assertion I made to them in Sept 2011) - surely the removal of the notice with CRAs is just a matter of the DCA sending a few letters to the CRAs? They were offered full payment, and even without the months of letter writing, their own records would surely have shown them to be on shaky ground - so why not simple accept the full offer of payment (which I would imagine is substantially higher than DCAs make on most debts), send a letter to the CRAs and then count their money?

Anyway, I seem to have rambled on again. Any answers to 1-3 are appreciated, and opinions on 4 are equally as welcome. I will keep the thread updated when I hear back from either party (it may well prove of use to someone in a similar situation searching the forums).

Regards,
Ryan

plunt

any update on this thread by any chance?