Removal of AP Markers - Barclaycard

Bettingmad

cms-help wrote: »

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.

They are not seeing the error of their ways, the circumstances are completely different. In your MIL's scenario they have been adding 6 markers(late payment), quite different to their use of AP's.

cms-help

Bettingmad wrote: »

They are not seeing the error of their ways, the circumstances are completely different. In your MIL's scenario they have been adding 6 markers(late payment), quite different to their use of AP's.

I am quite aware of that, thanks.

There have been reports on this forum for a while of BC's "incorrect" (dependant on opinion) use of both 6 markers and AP markers. My point was, merely, to highlight something seems to be happening.

Bettingmad

cms-help wrote: »

I am quite aware of that, thanks.

There have been reports on this forum for a while of BC's "incorrect" (dependant on opinion) use of both 6 markers and AP markers. My point was, merely, to highlight something seems to be happening.

You may be right that something may be happening with regard to 6 markers, albeit they are far easier to challenge and correct than an AP marker.

My point was in relation to AP markers and I have seen no evidence that anything is happening with regard to these markers. If anyone on here can evidence that Sharkley's are changing their approach to AP's markers then I will be all ears. Until that time I would be wary of rasing the hopes of those who are victims of Sharkley's AP's.

rizla_king

Bettingmad wrote: »

My point was in relation to AP markers and I have seen no evidence that anything is happening with regard to these markers. If anyone on here can evidence that Sharkley's are changing their approach to AP's markers then I will be all ears. Until that time I would be wary of rasing the hopes of those who are victims of Sharkley's AP's.

Did you read the posts I quoted?

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?

eyeopener2

I'm going to try and get my AP marker shifted yet again. I will report back when, or if, I hear anything.

Bettingmad

rizla_king wrote: »

Did you read the posts I quoted?

I have read the posts previously and TBH they are the only examples I have seen littered amongst the hundreds of post I have seen in the many forums where they won't remove them.
I tackled Sharkley's in the same manner you have done and they would not entertain the removal. I also complained giving detailed evidence to the ICO same result, whitewash.

Perhaps you were lucky as I have alluded to in an earlier post, your payment had finished therefore you were not on the end of their string. They seem to me to use AP'son people as leverage to ensure you toe the line for the duration of the payment plan.

Could you provide the name of the person that resolved the matter for you and I can have a try again?

Hatecreditors.com

Well after months of waiting for a response from the ICO it would appear that their involvement has had no effect whatsoever. Barclays have responded stating:

'I am writing further to an email received from the ICO concerning a complaint you have made with regards to the marking of your credit reference file by ourselves.

Our records show we have already written to you on xxx regarding this matter. We believe our response to you of xxx addresses your complaint in full and I have enclosed a copy of this response for your reference'

So no further forward and the ICO appear to carry no weight at all. It would appear that creditors can do what they like as the ICO won't even interpret their own guidelines.

I've lodged a further complaint with the FOS. They will get back to me within 3 months!! Not that I'm that fussed about timescales as it would all appear to be in vein!

The words banging head and brick wall spring to mind!

fermi

Example of successful removal --> barcleycard AP removal

Hatecreditors.com

Thanks for that Fermi.

I've seen examples on here before. But they are far outweighed by the number of people stuck with APs after complaint to Barclaycard and ICO. The problem I see it is it depends who is dealing with your complaint at Barclaycard. So there is no consistency whatsoever. It's almost as if Barclaycard staff are left to their own devices and just decide what's right and wrong as and when.

Sigh

Hatecreditors.com

Also, it seems like those who have had success in this regard are those who have had a positive response from Barclaycard with the initial complaint, not when referred to the ICO or FOS. It would appear that if the initial Barclaycard handler makes the initial decision to disagree with your argument, then your screwed. Even if you refer to ICO or FOS.

Strange system!