Late payment fees even though I pay each month

alexanderalexander

opinions4u wrote: »

Then, if they've agreed, ask them if they'll correct your credit file. I don't think they should. I don't think they will. But half a dozen late payments will shaft you if you need other credit in the not too distant future.

This probably isn't what the OP wants to hear, but by my understanding unless there is a manifest inaccuracy a lender cannot actually alter anything that has already been reported to the credit referencing agencies. As what will have been reported is not actually inaccurate, there is therefore no chance that Virgin will be able to "correct" it. It simply isn't possible for lenders to alter already-reported information as a 'goodwill gesture'. Best bet from a credit report point of view would be (i) to hope that future lenders would notice that each payment was only one month late and (ii) add a personal statement explaining that it was just a mix-up.

opinions4u wrote: »

No payment is being made between the issue of the statement and the due by date.

So it's late every month.

I am still confused by this – isn't the amount of time between the generation of a statement and the due date usually a full month, which means that one of the OP's payments would take place in that timeframe? (excuse my ignorance if it is sometimes less than that – I always immediately set up a DD for the minimum balance when I open a new CC so I never really check that….).

chattychappy

alexanderalexander wrote: »

I am still confused by this – isn't the amount of time between the generation of a statement and the due date usually a full month

Rarely in my experience. Barclaycard gives me a month. Most around 3 weeks. I get about 2 weeks on MBNA (which issues Virgin).

Also on some cards the dates move around a bit.

CLAPTON

it works like this

the OP is paying 150 per month
his minimum is probably about 120 per month

if he misses the first payment then his bill will be carried forward to the second period i.e. he will owe 120 +12 +interest lets say 135
in the second month this will be deducted from his 150 payment leaving ony £15 for the second months payment; this is less than the second months minimum payment of 120

so he is charged 12 + interest in the second month
so now owes 120 - 15 + 12 + interest lets say 121 which is crried forward to the third month

now in his third month his (second) payment of 150 is first deducted by the 121 leaving 29 which is insufficient to pay the minimum payment of 120

and so on
each month he pays the balance plus fees plus interest from the previous month first than then has insufficient to pay the minimum payment so gets a fee plus a bad mark


etc etc

alexanderalexander

Thanks, I get it now.

Catslovelycats

So do I now, Clapton, thanks - cos I couldn't see why OP was being charged for late payments every month either.
The people on this forum are a wealth of information and knowledge. :money:
Now, I wonder, does anyone know this week's lottery numbers...?

Tixy

alexanderalexander wrote: »

Tbut by my understanding unless there is a manifest inaccuracy a lender cannot actually alter anything that has already been reported to the credit referencing agencies. As what will have been reported is not actually inaccurate, there is therefore no chance that Virgin will be able to "correct" it. It simply isn't possible for lenders to alter already-reported information as a 'goodwill gesture'

Creditors can and often do agree to change credit reports, even if what was reported was technically accurate. It is definitely possible for them to change things as a goodwill gesture if they choose to.

alexanderalexander

Tixy wrote: »

Creditors can and often do agree to change credit reports, even if what was reported was technically accurate. It is definitely possible for them to change things as a goodwill gesture if they choose to.

I don't mean to sound like I'm doubting you, but this seems odd. From the future lenders' points of view, someone's credit report should be simple fact, and not based on an individual borrower's ability to sweet-talk their lender (or an individual lender's magnanimity about late payments). Putting myself in the shoes of a lender using credit referencing agencies, I would not be happy if I knew that previous lenders might have been reporting all-clears when, in reality, the prospective borrower had been in default. Also, at the less reputable end of the lending scale, wouldn't there be an opportunity for lenders to abuse their powers to change someone's credit rating on a whim? Even going to the extent of offering 'corrections' of previous defaults in exchange for the borrower taking up new products.

Tixy

alexanderalexander wrote: »

I don't mean to sound like I'm doubting you, but this seems odd. From the future lenders' points of view, someone's credit report should be simple fact, and not based on an individual borrower's ability to sweet-talk their lender (or an individual lender's magnanimity about late payments). Putting myself in the shoes of a lender using credit referencing agencies, I would not be happy if I knew that previous lenders might have been reporting all-clears when, in reality, the prospective borrower had been in default. Also, at the less reputable end of the lending scale, wouldn't there be an opportunity for lenders to abuse their powers to change someone's credit rating on a whim? Even going to the extent of offering 'corrections' of previous defaults in exchange for the borrower taking up new products.

It might seem odd - but it is the case that it happens plenty.

There are certainly cases of debtors even negotiating the removal of a default from their credit file in return for paying up in full months or years down the line - this is not mostly high street banks but debt collectors (if they've agreed with the original lender to reregister the default in their own name) and places like catalogues and mobile phone companies etc.