difference between default dates and start of arrangment to pay on credit file

happy_bunny_2

Costs you nothing. Interesting how the ICO guidance says you should be no worse for attempting to pay, so after 6 years and 6 months it should not be a problem when it is.

Arrangements are supposed to be short term, 6 months say, as mentioned in previous post and ICO doc.

I would complain.

Arrangements are less of an issue than a default in my opinion, but still I think they are wrong and would refer to FOS.

Google FOS an you will get the form to fill out.

crazyhaggid

Thanks I'll start my FOS complaint

crazyhaggid

Ok I finally got my answer from the FOS, they said MBNA had acted within their terms and conditions. I tried to explain to them that MBNA had left me in a worse position now than if they had simply defaulted me. I also said they never told me how much of a problem this arrangement to pay would cause me in the future. I said surely during the time I was repaying the debt there was a point where I was paying more than the minimum anyway. The FOS said as the interest was frozen it was still an arrangement to pay. I explained how every time I contacted MBNA they took at least two months to reply to my letter with a proper response, a deliberate bit of time wasting.

I have now managed to get a mortgage, the mortgage broker told me that this marker being on my credit file has resulted in me having to pay a higher interest rate, this is equivalent to £300 per year for the term of the mortgage (25 years) A condiderable amount!

The FOS say as I am not happy with the outcome they are referring my complaint to proper OMB and I have 14 days to submit any other information I think relevant. Does anyone have anything I can say to try and strengthen my argument?

happy_bunny_2

did you include any extracts from the ICO guidelines in your communications with the FOS?

In my experience with the FOS (4 complaints), the quality of the adjudicators varies a lot. If I knew what I knew now, I would never have accepted the result of my first experience with them, which interestingly enough was with MBNA.

I thing the MBNA departments who deal with the FOS must try and push back on the FOS, making their life tricky and taking longer to close cases, thus making their stats look bad.

crazyhaggid

Thanks for the reply I did quote from the ICO guidelines but the FOS just told me they were just that guidelines. I always thought that companies were expected to follow these to get their credit license, but apparently not.

happy_bunny_2

Me too. Maybe an ombudsman will take a different view. What's the point of guidelines if everyone can ignore them

nottoolate

fos dont know their arse from their elbow on these matters

have you contacted the ico for an opinion? if the ico say that its wrong then the fos will find that much harder to ignore. you can also complain to the ico.

crazyhaggid

Yes I've got a complaint running in parallel with the ICO which I started in April but I'm still waiting on a reply

crazyhaggid

Finally got reply from ICO, who said it is 'likely' that MBNA have processed my information correctly. They ended the reply saying thank you for bringing it to their attention and they now consider the matter closed. I have written back to them rejecting their decision, again making reference to the six month guideline but have heard nothing back.

Bit lost now who else could I turn to?

crazyhaggid

Well got final reply from FOS today, guess what they sided with MBNA!
They said that having something not as bad as a default on your credit file but having it there almost twice as lone was ok and again the ICO guidelines were just that and not part of banking regulations.

What a complete waste of time that was