Removal of AP Markers - Barclaycard

stevemLS

No, what I was trying to say is that Barclaycard can, within reason, put their own interpretation of what it means by no detriment to the debtor.

If they say that their lending criteria are such that they regard APs more favourably than defaults, even if that is unusual, but not wholly unreasonable, within the finance industry as a whole and other lenders would interpret the data differently, that is not in my view sufficient to say they had breached the ICO guidance.

Hatecreditors.com

stevemLS wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you that it seems unfair.

Your above quote speaks volumes. Aren't they supposed to treat customers fairly?

stevemLS

Indeed, the problem is that "fair" is such a subjective word?

Hatecreditors.com

stevemLS wrote: »

Indeed, the problem is that "fair" is such a subjective word?

Yes it's very subjective, but I think if you gave any sane person my scenario above they're going to agree that it is unfair to Person B.

stevemLS

As I said before, I agree - what I am trying to do is say how it may not be as clear cut as you might want it to be.

I wish you well with it.

eyeopener2

stevemLS wrote: »

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

My fault, predictive text fail! Should have been AP.

matttye

ICO guidance says this on arrangements to pay:

"Where such 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."

I normally wouldn't recommend not paying a debt at all, but it seems like it might be the only way to get these clowns to do the right thing. I would be tempted to put all of the monthly payments to one side until they defaulted me, then pay what I had saved up and resume the previously agreed payments.

matttye

stevemLS wrote: »

No, what I was trying to say is that Barclaycard can, within reason, put their own interpretation of what it means by no detriment to the debtor.

If they say that their lending criteria are such that they regard APs more favourably than defaults, even if that is unusual, but not wholly unreasonable, within the finance industry as a whole and other lenders would interpret the data differently, that is not in my view sufficient to say they had breached the ICO guidance.

Barclaycard cannot actually believe that continuously reporting AP markers for years is preferable to a default, because it's absolute nonsense.

They have managed to find a way to crap on debtors that the ICO doesn't seem to do anything about.

Arguably, a short-term arrangement to pay is preferable to a default because it allows the debtor to keep the credit facility open and APs are seen as marginally less serious than a default. The problem is that, whilst a default is more serious, a default will drop off six years from the date of issue. If it took 6 years to pay off the debt, then the default would be on a credit file for 6 years but continuous AP markers would be on the file for a total of 12 years (I'm not saying that 12 years of AP markers would show at one time; but that the last AP markers, added just as the debt is being paid off after 6 years, would be displayed on the file for a further 6 years).*

Where there is no hope of a debtor coming back into the contractual payments and they are going to be making reduced payments for the lifetime of the debt, then a default is clearly preferable.

* Barclaycard absolutely cannot think that the latter scenario is acting in the debtor's best interests. It's nonsense.

Bettingmad

The other variable in this situation has the potential to make you significantly worse off.

A person through favorable circumstances is able to pay a relatively large DMP to Sharkley's for fours years. Suddenly due to losing their job, they then are only able to continue making small token payments for an indefinite period.. Sharkley's being upset at the smaller payments could issue a default as you have breached your repayment agreement and you are then totally screwed over for the long term

In my view the only reason Sharkley's use AP's is to keep a tight reign on you, as you exist under the cloud of a default for the duration of your plan. The threat of a default for someone who has been on a plan for a number of years is a significant one.

Also being cynical it obviously has nothing to do with being able to continue applying interest with AP's as opposed to a default where in all the cases I have seen interest is stopped when a default is issue.

cms-help

My MIL has a CC debt with BC. Due to ill health she fell into arrears and ultimately stopped paying. This was in 2008. They have applied the 6 months late payment markers to her account ever since. We had intended to raise this in 2015 (well after the SB point) to have them removed as the default would then fall off her credit file. Not that anyone would ever give her any more credit as she has no real income and certainly no assets so it wasn't an issue to leave it.

However, out of the blue this morning, she has received a letter from them stating that they have been incorrectly applying the late payment markers and will now update the CRAs to show that the account defaulted in 2008.

They have also asked for a repayment proposal which she has no real means of undertaking beyond a token gesture every month and will likely pass away before any sort of dent is made in the debt. She's had a few letters from DCAs over the years, which she has always ignored and hasn't heard anything from anyone for a while now.

Anyway, it does seem like BC are beginning to recognise the error of their ways in this regard.