Removal of AP Markers - Barclaycard

Hatecreditors.com

@bettingmad you're right it is a joke and I have a feeling ill get the same outcome as you.

@fermi I haven't pursued a complaint to the FOS. Do you think this is worth pursuing? I had assumed they'd just refer to the ICO anyway?

fermi

The FOS can take into account ICO guidelines, but they do not go and ask the ICO (usually). They also look at complaints from a different angle to the ICO. The ICO looks at accuracy and compliance with the Data Protection Act and principles, whilst the FOS looks more at whether you have been treated fairly.

"Fairly" may take reference to the law and guidelines, but it doesn't have to.

For example in this case whether or not it is legal to record the AP markers for the long term, it may not be fair to do so, as it is putting you at a long term disadvantage on your credit file compared to someone you simply did not pay and was defaulted straight away.

There are examples of FOS decisions were they have ordered creditors to backdate defaults.

If you have a complaint like this that both the ICO and FOS can look at, I would nearly always suggest doing both as the best "belt and braces" approach.

stevemLS

The ICO guidance is here http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.ashx pp 9 - 12.

I think the difficulty is in interpreting the "should be no worse a position than someone who has made no effort to pay".

The AP markers, reviewed six monthly, do accurately reflect the state of the account.

Barclaycard are saying that, in their view, an account where an arrangement to pay has been made is less detrimental than one which is defaulted. It could also be argued that a long history of sticking to an arrangement shows reasonable financial responsibilty.

In the face of those arguments, I do not believe either the ICO or the FCA/FOS or whatever they are now called, would find that you had been treated unfairly.

As far as I can see, the instances where the ICO has ordered backdated defaults are those where the creditor has registered a default after an unreasonably long period after the last payment has been made, rather than one where reduced payments continued to be made.

Sorry.

rizla_king

Worth putting as much presure as you can on BC via the ICO and FOS. They do change these if you complain enough.

susie8221 wrote: »

I complained to BC regarding their use of AP markers as they did it for 6 years. The debt is settled now and sent them a letter with a number of reasons as to why they should have defaulted back 2007.

1) default would be off now.
2) worse position then someone who did default/IVA
3) no missed payments whilst in AP
4) AP should only be short term - I argued that even though they may be reviewing every 6 months ICO state that arrears should still occur so my monthly statements should have been 1,2,3,4,5,6 with an AP marker on the side this would then take them to the period of them reviewing it and ultimately even if a new arrangement has been agreed arrears still should show and because there are no more numbers they would have to report '6' all the time but then ICO also states that the number '6' should not be used instead if a default.
5) I explained why I fell on hard times (redundancy).

They called me today to confirm that they are going to back date a default and account should be off within 24 hours (I will post again to say if they have) They said they do not wish to put their customers in a worse position then another person who made no effort to pay and because the payment plan is 6 years old they would remove it. The guy was very nice. I used the customer relations address given on the first page. Although I do think that by having the debt settled helped hugely!

I hope this helps someone else.

sirwiggum wrote: »

Similar to mine, I was able to use the argument that had they defaulted 6 months into the AR, the account would be gone by then.

Greybear - can you wait until the account is 6 years 6 months into the arrangement, settled, and then try?

Hatecreditors.com

@stevemLS Thanks for your comments and taking time to reply.

Can I just put this scenario to you:

Person A has £5,000 debt in 2010
Person B has £5,000 debt in 2010

Person A pays nothing back in 2010, gets defaulted, default drops off in 2016.

Person B agrees to pay as much as they can over a 5 year period. AP markers applied until 2015. Last AP marker drops off in 2021.

Both persons apply for a mortgage in 2017.

Mortgage underwriter can't even see that Person A had a distressed account.

Mortage underwriter can see Person B's distressed account littered with AP markers.

Who is in the driving seat? Who has been treated 'fairly'??

rizla_king

The argument that a history of AP markers is better than a dropped off default is total bollux.

eyeopener2

A default drops off your credit file and no record exists, but an AP marker will still be there. How is that less detrimental?

I have defaults that will clear in 3 years but Barclaycard will be showing AP for the next 5 and a half, so I'm not even being treated the same between my own accounts, never mind being compared to anybody else.

I do not see how anybody can make a case that this is fair.

rizla_king

eyeopener2 wrote: »

I do not see how anybody can make a case that this is fair.

People can make the case. It just happens to be complete nonsense. :rotfl:

stevemLS

Hatecreditors.com wrote: »

@stevemLS Thanks for your comments and taking time to reply.

Can I just put this scenario to you:

Person A has £5,000 debt in 2010
Person B has £5,000 debt in 2010

Person A pays nothing back in 2010, gets defaulted, default drops off in 2016.

Person B agrees to pay as much as they can over a 5 year period. AP markers applied until 2015. Last AP marker drops off in 2021.

Both persons apply for a mortgage in 2017.

Mortgage underwriter can't even see that Person A had a distressed account.

Mortage underwriter can see Person B's distressed account littered with AP markers.

Who is in the driving seat? Who has been treated 'fairly'??

I absolutely agree with you that it seems unfair. The problem, as I see it, is that creditors are free to set their own lending criteria - no external body can interfere with that.

If Barclaycard maintain that in their position that an AP account is looked at more favourably than a default, then they can say that they have complied with the guidance and the ICO will be unable to act.

I have no experience of the FCA but on the face of it, if Barclaycard continue in that vein I don't see what they can do.

I hope you prove me wrong.

A further difficulty is that neither Barclays, the FOS or the FCA would be able to second guess what a hypothetical mortgage provider would have as their critieria - I hear what Rizla King and Eyeopener say and maybe it is the case that the FCA are able to take a more rounded view, I am a lawyer by training so apply the literal expressions contained in the "rules" (and it is debatable about whether the ICO can issue Orders on the basis of failing to comply with guidance - which in legal terms is just that, guidance rather than being obligatory.

Sorry if I haven't helped, just wanted to offer an opinion.

I don't know what the marker SO means, by the way.

Hatecreditors.com

The problem, as I see it, is that creditors are free to set their own lending criteria - no external body can interfere with that.

You're correct that they can set their own lending criteria but this has nothing to do with reporting to credit reference agencies. And external bodies can interfere with this if they are doing it incorrectly.

Are you saying that if Barclaycard said 'we accept applications from people with defaults so we just default people as it's the same as applying one late payment marker'??