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

happy_bunny_2

RBS used to issue a new arrangement letter every 6 months.

I guess Natwest did the same?

If not,that may help.

fermi

matttye. I was responding to the issue of what guidelines applied for that time period, not the application or interpretation of them.

fermi

happy_bunny wrote: »

Just like the FOS then

Does not mean it's not worth complaining and taking to both the FOS and ICO though.

Inconsistency cuts both ways, and some companies do seem to backdate depending on circumstances.

One thing is for certain, if you don't complain, you will definitely be stuck with it.

speedbird1

Thanks for all the info guys,much appreciated.

So my take on this is the ICO changed their guidelines in 2014 and whether that applies to my current situation is thus to be seen.

From date of first AP in 2009 NatWest contacted me every six months,however last August they made the latest agreement for 12 months,it was at that time they marked the account as delinquent with the CRAs.

I have paid half the debt down since 2009 and if they disagree with my request for the retrospective default then I am definitely in a disadvantaged position compared to someone who was defaulted in 2009 and then only made lower/token payments or indeed nothing at all.

Before any one gets on the bandwagon I intend paying the whole debt back to NatWest as I did with the other accounts with them.
Back in 2009 I was told that this AP would have "little impact" on my credit worthyness".

Also perhaps a Valid point,back in 2009 after the D notice sent my account was sent to Capquest,but I complained and Triton took the account back,I have kept all the correspondence.

Its clear in my mind that this should have been defaulted at the 6 month arrear,
NatWest Defaulted my Private account at 3 months and my Gold Card also at 3 months.

I did at that time make complaint to a Senior Guy in London,I tried to get both defaults removed as I had repaid both accounts in full shortly after default.

NatWest should in my opinion change the AP markers,in fact 6 code markers which have been reported for near on six years,with a default.

I shall then continue to pay down the debt in full til settled.

Again I am severely disadvantaged in the way they have conducted themselves,.

fermi

speedbird1 wrote: »

So my take on this is the ICO changed their guidelines in 2014 and whether that applies to my current situation is thus to be seen.

The guidelines that apply are the ones I linked to. That is from the ICO legal/technical section.

dumpyboy

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.

May I ask who confirmed that , with my complanet after rejected by FOs and the ico I wnt to my mp and he supplied me with a letter from the treasury which stated that the January 2014 guidelines the 4 data princples are the one it should have been looked at even thou my complanet was made and registered in 2010 and took 4 years to reach a conclusion as a foot note have you ever heard of any one haveing any luck in the courts with this

matttye

speedbird1 wrote: »

Thanks for all the info guys,much appreciated.

So my take on this is the ICO changed their guidelines in 2014 and whether that applies to my current situation is thus to be seen.

From date of first AP in 2009 NatWest contacted me every six months,however last August they made the latest agreement for 12 months,it was at that time they marked the account as delinquent with the CRAs.

I have paid half the debt down since 2009 and if they disagree with my request for the retrospective default then I am definitely in a disadvantaged position compared to someone who was defaulted in 2009 and then only made lower/token payments or indeed nothing at all.

Before any one gets on the bandwagon I intend paying the whole debt back to NatWest as I did with the other accounts with them.
Back in 2009 I was told that this AP would have "little impact" on my credit worthyness".

Also perhaps a Valid point,back in 2009 after the D notice sent my account was sent to Capquest,but I complained and Triton took the account back,I have kept all the correspondence.

Its clear in my mind that this should have been defaulted at the 6 month arrear,
NatWest Defaulted my Private account at 3 months and my Gold Card also at 3 months.

I did at that time make complaint to a Senior Guy in London,I tried to get both defaults removed as I had repaid both accounts in full shortly after default.

NatWest should in my opinion change the AP markers,in fact 6 code markers which have been reported for near on six years,with a default.

I shall then continue to pay down the debt in full til settled.

Again I am severely disadvantaged in the way they have conducted themselves,.

The issue they have is that they shouldn't put you in a worse position than if you hadn't made the arrangement, but at the same time arrangements can only last six months.

That's a catch 22 which suggests they should keep on renewing the arrangement until the debt is paid so long as you are keeping to thmyself terms of the arrangement.

speedbird1

So on the face of it the ICO guidelines effective pre 2014 apply to my case then.

Seems strange that NatWest last year (August) put me on a 12 month arrangement,could that be due to the new guidelines.

Just seems to me that the lady from NatWest last year was surprised that the account had not defaulted back in 2009,looking into this now she was probably aware of the banks failure to issue the default but kept stum!

So in essence my argument therefore is the ICO guidelines pre 2014 apply to me and therefore that's the point of argument.

Obviously the bank can see that I am disadvantaged currently against another customer who in the same position was defaulted back in 2009.

In my case if I were to maintain the current level of repayment then that would be several years until settlement,,then additionally 6 years of reporting.


I have seen lots on this forum about Barclay's back dating defaults would be interesting to hear from anyone with an experience from Nat West.

fermi

speedbird1 wrote: »

So on the face of it the ICO guidelines effective pre 2014 apply to my case then.

No. It is the previous ones I linked to. At least they apply to any reporting that was done prior to 2014, which is where your problem and dispute lies.

speedbird1

Thanks for that,

So what would you suggest I do first.

Contact them and argue my case on the basis of the ICO in particular being worse off on an AP .
Thanks in advance

As I see it that may work, also the fact that I never missed one payment during the entire arrangement period.
Also surely following an AP any reporting should be against the new agreed repayment and not based on the original contractual payment,as my report is continually reported with late code 6 markers