Date of Halifax default - inaccurate? Can it be changed?

skint_northern_lass

Hi,
The short story is that I entered into a DMP with Payplan in 2009.
We have 10 creditors. We are making good progress, have always paid on time, have increased our repayments year on year and will be debt free in the next year.
On contacting Experian recently and getting free credit report, only 3 marked file as defaulted. Two of those within the first 3 months of the DMP.
Halifax, however, decided to default the account late last year! 3 years into the DMP! This means that, despite falling foul in 2009 - meaning we expected bad credit files until 2015 - because of this one creditor, we will have this on our record until 2018!
This seems grossly unfair - if they considered that the fact of a DMP was the reason to mark the file as in default, then surely they should have done this in 2009?
Is there any way I can get the date amended or the default removed?
If so, how can I go about it?
Many thanks in advance of your replies

fermi

In theory, yes, it can be changed. Trick is getting the creditor to do it.

Read this link --> ICO Guidance - Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

Tells you what they should have done.

Basic points from that.

- Where there is a breakdown, then defaults should be filed within 6 months. They failed on that one.
- Default record should be an accurate representation of the payment history, which includes the date of a default. They failed on that one.
- Recording a default should not disadvantage you compared to someone who ,made no effort to repay, and would therefore have had a default recorded earlier. They failed on that one.

Many of those points are a bit subject to interpretation, but all together you should be able to present a good case.

Basically you write and complain, stating that your require the default to backdated and why.

You make it a formal complaint, and say that if they refuse then you will be taking the matter to the FOS and reporting them to the ICO.

Thrugelmir

skint_northern_lass wrote: »

This means that, despite falling foul in 2009 - meaning we expected bad credit files until 2015 - because of this one creditor, we will have this on our record until 2018!

The impact of the DMP will be with you for some years post completion with regards to personal finance issues.

skint_northern_lass

Thank you so much, fermi, I will try that tactic.
I fully understand that I did default, thrugelmir, and that the impact of the DMP will be with me for years.
I really just meant in respect of the defaults, they drop off after 6 years as you know, and to have one which will negatively impact on me for 3 years more than if I had just not paid at all does seem unfair.
I won't be looking at credit for years, except to try to get a better mortgage deal, as I am currently on a SVR but cannot remortgage due to my credit. Once bitten, twice shy!

skint_northern_lass

Halifax contacted me today and explained that they will change the date of the default to March 2011, they said they cannot take it back further as it is their policy not to record a default until 18 months have passed.
This seems strange to me, as one of my other defaults was from Lloyds, part of the same group, and they recorded it within 3 months.
She said that they would not have the same policy as they were different 'brands'?
Also, I asked then, as I had made arrangements to pay, and not just token payments, it wasn't a massive amount less than the contractual payments, was it obligatory to even record a default. She said that it was their policy and was applied across the board.
It seems strange, then, that my husband's credit card from Halifax did not have a default recorded. She said that the circumstances or amount of payment must have been different. They weren't, as we equitably distributed our excess income proportionately to creditors. She then announced that she found it hard to believe that no default was recorded. It is true, it wasn't - we have up to date copies of our credit files. His credit was stopped, card cancelled, and record said arrangement to pay, but he has no defaults.
I will be taking it to the FOS, purely because it is not fair that I will be in a worse position than someone who decided not to pay back what they owed. We did pay everything back, and worked hard and went without to do so, and are being penalised for this decision, it seems.
I will update, for anyone else in a similar position...

Thrugelmir

skint_northern_lass wrote: »

I won't be looking at credit for years, except to try to get a better mortgage deal, as I am currently on a SVR but cannot remortgage due to my credit. Once bitten, twice shy!

The DMP on file will impact you for at least 3 years post final settlement with regards to a remortgage.

Your options will be limited to either your existing lender or a specialist adverse lender. Adverse lenders rates are obviously higher than mainstream ones.

skint_northern_lass

In theory then, we would have been better off, in terms of our credit record, if every creditor had recorded a default in 2009. These debts would be wiped from our file in 2015, whereas the creditors who have not recorded a default but have marked us as being in a DMP will be on our file for 3 years from our final payments, so will affect us until at least 2016.
Strangely, it is only Barclaycard who have recorded on my file as AP (arrangement to pay) from the start of the DMP to the current date. Freemans have marked it as U since 2009 (unclassified/no payment due) and most recorded it as AP for a few months, then changed it back to greens - up to date.
My husband had no defaults on his 2 accounts, and Halifax have been recording him as green for last 20 months, but he is financially associated with me so we just have to wait it out, knowing we are paying £840 mortgage repayments a month when we could be paying £640. Painful.

Ken100464

Feel for you on this.

Something similar with Halifax for us also. Should of defaulted us but didnt. Now all adverse data is visible 6 years from settlement not from default some 4 years earlier.

All I can say from my experience of banks is that if you cant see yourself getting out of difficulties within a couple of months its actually best to just stop paying and get your defaults over with.

Banks and am sure some holier than thou people will say thats rubbish. But experience shows that banks do as they please and dont care if they add 4 years misery because they can.

Worth complaining to FOS for the simple fact it will cost the bank the referral fee. Even if you dont win by complaining then have the satisfaction of costing them.

Skint, Halifax told us that they dont do retrospective defaults. So bank speak with forked tongue cause they do as they offered you one. Keep at em. Banks can do as they want if they want. Yes they should report things correctly but they shouldnt be a bar steward aswell.

PS nothing against real Bar Stewards

Thrugelmir

Ken100464 wrote: »

.

Worth complaining to FOS for the simple fact it will cost the bank the referral fee. Even if you dont win by complaining then have the satisfaction of costing them.

That's a myth. The complaint has to become "chargeable" for the fee to be incurred.

Daft attitude anyway. As the cost will be incorporated into the charge to the customer. So doesn't cost the lender anything.

Ken100464

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a myth. The complaint has to become "chargeable" for the fee to be incurred.

Daft attitude anyway. As the cost will be incorporated into the charge to the customer. So doesn't cost the lender anything.

Hmmm so I have nearly the exact same complaint as the OP and have gone to FOS who have accepted it as a valid complaint, but you know the inner workings of the FOS charging structure and in particular my complaint so you know it wont be chargeable?.

I also had a very similar complaint with another bank ruled in my favour this year by FOS where the default was moved and the bank had to pay a couple of hundred £ in compensation.

So to complain is wrong because the bank doesnt pay to fix the complaint the consumer does.

So why arent you on the PPI board telling everyone dont complain it will cost all of us because the bank wont pay?

Tosh mate.

Banks are just getting to grips with reporting to CRA's. They by no means have got this right yet. The great British public have not really woken up to the damage faceless corporations are inflicting on them.

As the economy picks up more and more people are going to realise wrong entrys are on these credit files put their by people who dont understand the data principles by which they are governed to process data.

At present alot think the issue is with the rating agencies. Another bank smoke and mirrors job. The data comes from the creditor and can be amended by the creditor. Simples. The agency just reports what its told.

But expert board bank apologists dont want people to know that they would rather we just took it like the good serf that we are.

Go for it Skint. I have had success, not with this shower but I am hopeful I will. Just from the fact my contact at Halifax said they dont move defaults. So seems that Halifax staff dont really know what they do other than make it up as they go along. As they are willingto move yours even if its not quite to where you want it it shows my contact is as confused as yours about data principles.

matttye

Ken100464 wrote: »

Hmmm so I have nearly the exact same complaint as the OP and have gone to FOS who have accepted it as a valid complaint, but you know the inner workings of the FOS charging structure and in particular my complaint so you know it wont be chargeable?.

I also had a very similar complaint with another bank ruled in my favour this year by FOS where the default was moved and the bank had to pay a couple of hundred £ in compensation.

So to complain is wrong because the bank doesnt pay to fix the complaint the consumer does.

So why arent you on the PPI board telling everyone dont complain it will cost all of us because the bank wont pay?

Tosh mate.

Banks are just getting to grips with reporting to CRA's. They by no means have got this right yet. The great British public have not really woken up to the damage faceless corporations are inflicting on them.

As the economy picks up more and more people are going to realise wrong entrys are on these credit files put their by people who dont understand the data principles by which they are governed to process data.

At present alot think the issue is with the rating agencies. Another bank smoke and mirrors job. The data comes from the creditor and can be amended by the creditor. Simples. The agency just reports what its told.

But expert board bank apologists dont want people to know that they would rather we just took it like the good serf that we are.

Go for it Skint. I have had success, not with this shower but I am hopeful I will. Just from the fact my contact at Halifax said they dont move defaults. So seems that Halifax staff dont really know what they do other than make it up as they go along. As they are willingto move yours even if its not quite to where you want it it shows my contact is as confused as yours about data principles.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG1.pdf

when does a case fee become chargeable?
Fewer than one in six of the initial complaints and enquiries we receive at our front-line customer contact division become chargeable cases. The other complaints and enquiries usually involve matters we do not deal with – or matters that that can be resolved very early on, just by clarifying misunderstandings and sorting things out informally.
All businesses are entitled to a number of “free” cases. We do not charge businesses for the first 25 chargeable cases closed during the (financial) year. We charge only for the 26th (and any subsequent) case.
Since April 2012 we’ve also charged a supplementary case fee for each payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling case – but chargeable only on the 26th (and subsequent) case during the year.
From April 2013 we introduced a group-account fee for the four largest banking groups.

how much is the case fee?
The standard case fee (which we charge for
the 26th and any subsequent “chargeable”
case during the year) is £550.
The supplementary case fee for PPI
mis-selling cases (chargeable only on the
26th – and any subsequent – case during
the year) is £350.
The £550 standard case fee becomes
“chargeable” when our customer contact
division passes a complaint on for further
work to one of our casework teams. But the
fee does not actually become payable until
the case is settled and closed. Our finance
team sends out an invoice for the case fee
to the business concerned at the end of the
month in which the case is closed.

It sounds to me like the initial letter sent to the business, outlining your complaint, will not be chargeable, but if the business doesn't resolve the complaint and the FOS has to do an investigation, then it becomes chargeable.

I think it's worth complaining not just to spite the business, but because you should win!