What is worse? Default or Arrangement To Pay?

getmeouttahere

Following on from my previous thread about Vanquis bank refusing to default my account as a condition of agreeing a reduced payment arrangement, they are trying to justify their reason by saying that a Default will have a more detrimental effect on my credit file than if they show that I have entered into a payment arrangement.

They are suggesting that a payment arrangement will look better than a default.

So, what I would like to ask is, which is worse? If a payment arrangement lasts 3 years until it's settled, my understanding is that it stays on my file for 6 years from the date settled, where as a default will disappear whether it's paid in 6 years or not.

Am I being silly wanting the account to be defaulted?

dumpyboy

I have found the arrangement to pay markers worse in the long run ,got in to trouble at the end of 2007 lost job then relationship Brooke down because of it left with big debts went on a d m p all bar barclays and mbna defaulted the accounts .in 2010 d m plan ended barclays returned accounts to normal payments settled at the end of 2011 on credit file as such settled all bar one of the defaulted accounts all been removed from credit file on 6 years the one with money on was a pain but not showing now on my credit file, but mbna A r markers are still be reported ,stopped me getting a phone contract and current account dare not apply for anything else for fear of be turned down went to fos lost told they can report the arrangement for 10 years the agreed term plus 6 so be war of the a r markers

solentsusie

That sounds terrible. Looks like you would have been better off just not paying and getting a CCJ.

Isn't it crazy that by trying to repay your debts you end up in a worse position than someone who just walks away from them.