RBS set off - is it slightly unfair....

tanyadrhodes

I'm not looking for advice or judgement....

But I think RBS / other banks shouldn't always automatically set off redress amounts against written off debts...

I entered into a trust deed with 9 months to run on an RBS loan of 60 months. The PPI was front-loaded single premium of £1549. Therefore, had it not existed, the debt would have been on a shorter term potentially, and paid off by the time I signed the trust deed.

I fully respect their right to claw back unpaid debts and am not fighting the set off, but think they should consider such cases more to address what it means to return a person to a position "as though the PPI had not been missold".

They benefit by getting all their money back, but it won't even show in my credit record that I paid them back in full, as it was already zeroed out after my trust deed discharge.

The trust deed wasn't a result of financial carelessness or profligacy, but very bad luck in the employment market after I became pregnant with my eldest daughter in 2009.

dunstonh

They had a debt you failed to repay. Reason has nothing to do with anyone here but if we stick to the facts, you did not repay your debt.

Why should they pay you more money when you never paid them what you owed them?

tanyadrhodes

I'm not at all saying they should - and you'll note that I have already made that point. I'm just suggesting that banks work with circumstances in mind, including the level of remaining debt.

I don't personally feel that they should retain the interest, for example, but that's another issue.

And you're right - the reason has nothing to do with anyone, but there's a judgemental streak on this site from time to time, particularly where debt is concerned.

tanyadrhodes

To be honest, it's not the money that bothers me, but that my debt to them is clear - genuinely, not just written off - without it being visibly so.

Insider101

tanyadrhodes wrote: »

To be honest, it's not the money that bothers me, but that my debt to them is clear - genuinely, not just written off - without it being visibly so.

I'm no expert in this side of things but can you not ask as part of the settlement that your credit file is amended to reflect the satisfaction of the debt (assuming that the PPI redress is sufficient to cover it)?

In terms of returning you to the position you would have been in, with the best will in the world this is not an exact science. They have offered to pay off the unsatisfied debt and pay any surplus presumably to your trustee. This leaves you with no debt to them but no extra money in your pocket the same way it would have been if you had not taken PPI and paid off the loan earlier.

tanyadrhodes

I don't know if there is a way - because technically the account is satisfied - can they add a note to say it's fully paid? My trust deed is discharged, so it was written off - then un-written off for the purpose of the set off.

The surplus will actually come to me, because my trustee is also discharged.

Insider101

tanyadrhodes wrote: »

I don't know if there is a way - because technically the account is satisfied - can they add a note to say it's fully paid? My trust deed is discharged, so it was written off - then un-written off for the purpose of the set off.

The surplus will actually come to me, because my trustee is also discharged.

I honestly am not 100% but there's nothing wrong with asking. Maybe your former trustee could also provide you some assistance?

-taff

tanyadrhodes wrote: »

I'm not at all saying they should - and you'll note that I have already made that point. I'm just suggesting that banks work with circumstances in mind, including the level of remaining debt.

I still don't get where this idea that banks should be supportive of past mistakes etc, or at least forgiving of personal circumstances.

What you are forgetting, and what most people who descend into debt are forgetting, is that banks are exactly the same as pay day loan companies, they are only there to make money.

The days of having a personal relationship and a hand up in difficult times are long gone.

Approach your transactions with banks from now on as purely business, and not only will you not be disappointed, but you'll probably be better off because you won't be falling for their endless bull***t of 'just going through your account, would you like a lona/credit card/ overdraft'?


This is not berating you, this is just to say to you and anyone else who reads this see that banks are not your friend, they are a business that wants your business so they can make money from your business...

tanyadrhodes

-taff wrote: »

I still don't get where this idea that banks should be supportive of past mistakes etc, or at least forgiving of personal circumstances.

This is not berating you, this is just to say to you and anyone else who reads this see that banks are not your friend, they are a business that wants your business so they can make money from your business...

Taff, I'm really not as naïve as all that, I am just suggesting banks be a little more intelligent in making reparations for their past mistakes - in my case, it's a blight on my credit record that didn't need to be there, as the timescales and sums involved would have meant it wouldn't. I couldn't give a toss about the money, as, like most people who've entered sequestration, I have rebuilt my life and am looking to the future - but a person's credit file has a pretty big bearing on that.