Nat West on AP for 6 years,Need a retrospective Default

speedbird1

Had a NatWest personal loan for £14400 in early 2009,contractual repayment amount£307 per month.Within 3 months encountered financial problems.
Advised Nat West but they issued a default notice around June 2009.(transfered to Triton)
I then agreed arrangement to pay initially set at £200 ,every 6 months they contacted me,to continue this agreement.
Eventually I reduced repayment to £50 per month which is current situation.

Last year around May again contact with NatWest at Brindly Place Birmingham(no longer Triton.
Lady couldn't believe the account had not been defaulted,but kept £50 arrangement.

Back in 2009 I held a NatWest Private Account,with 9k of limit,also a Gold Card with £4500

NatWest defaulted both end Dec 09,both accounts fully repaid.!!

Having now access to all my CRA reports NatWest have marked code 6 markers since 2009 on the loan account,and noticed since last May they now mark the account as "delinquent"

Obviously the 2 defaulted accounts fall off Dec 2015.

And now realise the loan account should have been defaulted in 2009 also.

I also have never missed one payment during the entire period on the ap.

Since 2009 never been able to gain credit.

Before had a 200k mortgage with NatWest but sold and repaid in full.

FYI have paid off 7000 since 2009 bal now 7200

But on CRA deinqucy marker now dated May 2014 with a balance in that field of 7700.

Also page upon page of 6666666 markers.

speedbird1

Any help on this would be very much appreciated.

fermi

Tomorrow if no one gets there 1st.

Thrugelmir

speedbird1 wrote: »

Since 2009 never been able to gain credit.

Don't you think that being on an AP may have something to to do with this?

Not wishing to state the obvious fact.

speedbird1

Absolutely.

But back in 2009 was given misleading info from them.

Actually my NatWest CV defaulted and I foolishly paid Moorcroft full balance soon after.
One had 3 missed payments,tried to get D removed but no luck.

My Private account similar,

Anyway that's not issue now but the AP Markers are and have been doing all the damage since late 2009.

OK looks like action next week to get some movement here.

Thrugelmir

speedbird1 wrote: »

Anyway that's not issue now but the AP Markers are and have been doing all the damage since late 2009.

But they are factually correct. The markers are to warn other lenders and providers of services on credit terms. They are not seen by anybody else other than yourself unless you apply for something. Which is their whole purpose.

fermi

ICO Guidelines that apply for the years in question.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100428141142/http://ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

You will need to read carefully, and they are not overly clear, but should be sufficient info in there to build a case or argument.

dumpyboy

fermi wrote: »

ICO Guidelines that apply for the years in question.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100428141142/http://ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

You will need to read carefully, and they are not overly clear, but should be sufficient info in there to build a case or argument.

If you take a complanet to the ico they will only look at it in context to there most recent guidelines and as in my case they said you agreeded there for they stay even if it's 25 years

fermi

That was looked at wrongly by the ICO then, as the new guidelines are not supposed to be retrospective. I've had that confirmed, but purely on common sense grounds they could not be expected to be applied retrospectively, as that would require creditors to reassess all their previous reporting for the 6 years and perhaps beyond, which would be a hugely complicated, impractical and expensive task.

ICO are not always very consistent in applying their own guidelines unfortunately.

happy_bunny_2

fermi wrote: »

ICO are not always very consistent in applying their own guidelines unfortunately.

Just like the FOS then

matttye

fermi wrote: »

That was looked at wrongly by the ICO then, as the new guidelines are not supposed to be retrospective. I've had that confirmed, but purely on common sense grounds they could not be expected to be applied retrospectively, as that would require creditors to reassess all their previous reporting for the 6 years and perhaps beyond, which would be a hugely complicated, impractical and expensive task.

ICO are not always very consistent in applying their own guidelines unfortunately.

The relevant part of the guidance is:

"If a customer fails to return to contractual payments after an ‘arrangement to pay’ has expired, then the lender can file a default immediately, as long as this would not place the customer in a worse position than they would have been in, had they not made the arrangement."

Unfortunately it's not helpful because it says that the lender can apply a default, not that they must. In addition, placing a default on someone's credit file after they've been through an arrangement to pay would almost certainly place them in a worse position than they would have been had they not made the arrangement, because it will stay on their credit file for longer.

As we've previously seen several times with Barclaycard, the ICO consider that renewing an arrangement to pay every 6 months is perfectly proper. Effectively they view it as a new arrangement to pay every 6 months and therefore no need for a default.

The only problem with this approach is that the only way to ensure a default is issues is to stop paying altogether as you could no longer be said to be in an arrangement to pay.