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

happy_bunny_2

fermi wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Just annoying that it depends on who you get at the other end.

speedbird1

Well there's a glimmer of hope then,agree entirely depends who you get!

In hindsight should never have paid a penny,then got the fault,then starting repaying back.

In my case I rec'd Default notice then sent to DCA, I got NatWest to take the account back,then agreed AP,

So the relation did break down at that time!


All points to argue.

speedbird1

I kept notes of my last telephone call with NatWest last August,remember Triton used to be their in house debt collection agency,now no longer .
So it was Triton personnel who failed to set the default.

The lady at Nat West clearly told me should couldn't understand why the account had not be defaulted much earlier.
However when she told me that,I at that time didn't argue in her favour believing the arrangement was the lesser of two evils,.
I was told back in 2009 by Triton that having AP markers would not seriously impact my credit rating.
Triton have got a very bad record so in my opinion they purposely kept me on an arrangement to pay and failed to express that continuation of that route I would be seriously worse off in terms of CRA reporting and therefore damaging my credit standing for much longer than ICO guidelines purport.

So I shall contact Nat West on Tuesday and politely request specific dates about my account firstly when the bank decided that the account had gone into default.(date at which non contractual payments not met)
I shall clearly express the impact the mis use of AP markers and in particular the usage of code 6 markers have impacted on my credit file.

I shall state is it policy to default a credit card at 3 months and a Private account at 3 months and "fail" to default a loan account held by the same organisation.

I shall reiterate that the above two defaults were subsequently paid off shortly after default,and that the current loan shall be paid off in full.

On the proviso that the Default is registered at the correct date back in 2009 and that a rapid update is marked on all 3 CRA.

Looking at current forums it is blatantly clear that I and many others are at a greatly disadvantaged position because of the non Default.

Even bankrupts from 2009 who have never repaid a penny of debt are in a better position,having their " slate" cleaned totally after 6 years and no record of past deminors.

I thought the whole process of CRA reporting is to highlight those individuals who are high/low risk.Given a bankrupt of 2009 with say 25k of debt and a clear record after6 years,he is perceived as low risk as against customers on APs incorrectly who are paying all there debts as I'm my case,even turning down reduced settlements!!

This whole reporting business is a farce and something fundamentally needs to be done about it..

I shall fight this case til the very end,its common sense needed here .

Thrugelmir

speedbird1 wrote: »

Even bankrupts from 2009 who have never repaid a penny of debt are in a better position,having their " slate" cleaned totally after 6 years and no record of past deminors.

Finance houses can maintain their own records. These will impact far longer than 6 years. There's no obligation to provide credit again in the future. Likewise on mortgage applications there's normally a question regarding previous bankruptcy etc. Depending on the lenders criteria this can result in a decline.

speedbird1

Whilst I do agree with you the clear point is a Bankrupts credit file is totally clear from "any" adverse data after the 6 year anniversary,so although those creditors who were involved with the original BR obviously have their own inhouse records regarding that customer,Any new potential creditor searching that file would see it clear,and would make a credit decision based upon that.

That compares to another customer on an AP, paying monthly for many years,whom because of this is disadvantaged compared to the satisfied BR..

dumpyboy

speedbird1 wrote: »

I kept notes of my last telephone call with NatWest last August,remember Triton used to be their in house debt collection agency,now no longer .
So it was Triton personnel who failed to set the default.

The lady at Nat West clearly told me should couldn't understand why the account had not be defaulted much earlier.
However when she told me that,I at that time didn't argue in her favour believing the arrangement was the lesser of two evils,.
I was told back in 2009 by Triton that having AP markers would not seriously impact my credit rating.
Triton have got a very bad record so in my opinion they purposely kept me on an arrangement to pay and failed to express that continuation of that route I would be seriously worse off in terms of CRA reporting and therefore damaging my credit standing for much longer than ICO guidelines purport.

So I shall contact Nat West on Tuesday and politely request specific dates about my account firstly when the bank decided that the account had gone into default.(date at which non contractual payments not met)
I shall clearly express the impact the mis use of AP markers and in particular the usage of code 6 markers have impacted on my credit file.

I shall state is it policy to default a credit card at 3 months and a Private account at 3 months and "fail" to default a loan account held by the same organisation.

I shall reiterate that the above two defaults were subsequently paid off shortly after default,and that the current loan shall be paid off in full.

On the proviso that the Default is registered at the correct date back in 2009 and that a rapid update is marked on all 3 CRA.

Looking at current forums it is blatantly clear that I and many others are at a greatly disadvantaged position because of the non Default.

Even bankrupts from 2009 who have never repaid a penny of debt are in a better position,having their " slate" cleaned totally after 6 years and no record of past deminors.

I thought the whole process of CRA reporting is to highlight those individuals who are high/low risk.Given a bankrupt of 2009 with say 25k of debt and a clear record after6 years,he is perceived as low risk as against customers on APs incorrectly who are paying all there debts as I'm my case,even turning down reduced settlements!!

This whole reporting business is a farce and something fundamentally needs to be done about it..

I shall fight this case til the very end,its common sense needed here .

Good luck it s a hard fight I went 4 years with mbna had it rejected by both FOs and the ico was told they have the right to display a r markers for 18 to 20 years

meer53

speedbird1 wrote: »

Whilst I do agree with you the clear point is a Bankrupts credit file is totally clear from "any" adverse data after the 6 year anniversary,so although those creditors who were involved with the original BR obviously have their own inhouse records regarding that customer,Any new potential creditor searching that file would see it clear,and would make a credit decision based upon that.

That compares to another customer on an AP, paying monthly for many years,whom because of this is disadvantaged compared to the satisfied BR..

If you are ever asked the question "have you ever been made bankrupt" by a lender (and many do ask this question) it's usually game over. It certainly is where i work, not just bankruptcies, but IVA/DRO's too.

speedbird1

Agree there,in my profession you would be barred.

However just in terms of a clear credit report to start afresh 6 years later it does seem that an ex BR is treated more favourably as a lesser risk than others who take full responsibility for there debts,and in particular where a debtor enters into "apparent" less damaging arrangements with their creditors for full debt repaymemts,but are then totally and unjustifiably penalised and in fact punished for these actions,ruining an otherwise perfect credit rating.

Clear concise guidelines should be given ,not wishy washy statements from ICO .

Rules thus should be stringent.

Eg, Defaults given at point where Max 6 non contractual payments not paid.
(Not 3 months,) Given the severity of the 6 Year ruination of the individuals credit file.

Perhaps also if after default,where the debtor repays in full,not just marking credit file as satisfied but then legally reducing the time the Default is placed on the credit file,this would give customers incentive to pay and would benefit both creditor and debtor.

Regarding the reporting of AP Markers needs to be overhauled.

The usage of code 1to 6 Markers on there own are enough,

If a customer in agreement falls into difficulty and knows the rules on default and subsequent effects on his/her rating then very clear guidelines should be enforced.

This is how I see it .

Eg, customer has a loan, everything goes well then can't afford payment,so he contacts the bank,they are aware and they say we will default in 6 months,so you continue to pay what you can afford but at the 6 month point you need to be less than 6 months in arrears,so customer would need to increase repayments to do this.

Then debtor fully understands situation from the start,if he/she believes that contractual payments will never be met then the agreemement defaults.

So no stupid AP markers,only late code payment markers,to 6 then default.

The AP Marker reporting is currently abused by the financial industry,
You either are in default or not in default,if you do not meet contractual payments you are in default.

One more thing,

Rbos Defaulted in 2008 were they given a black mark,no,we as tax payers baled them out.!!

Thrugelmir

speedbird1 wrote: »

That compares to another customer on an AP, paying monthly for many years,whom because of this is disadvantaged compared to the satisfied BR..

Don't buy this argument. BR has severe implications in so many ways. Not least employment.

You have to ask the question why people spend many years on an AP? Is it because they treat it like an interest free loan. So rather than repaying it promptly they delibrately extend it out. Doesn't apply to all. However there's considerable abuse.

My personal favourite. After the AP is completed. A deposit for a mortgage magically appears. :think:

speedbird1

Agree on the points re BR.

Perhaps many do abuse the system in the manner you imply.

In my case I was unaware that they were going to freeze the interest.

All along I wanted to repay my indebtedness to NatWest.

I repaid my credit card in full after default,also my Private account.

Point I am not happy with is the fact they should have defaulted the loan,I would have then continued making payments until it was fully satisfied based on the default balance.
I and many others are severely penalised for doing this as opposed to others who defaulted from the start of their crisis.


I was in no way wishing for an interest free loan.

You hear of many getting defaults removed after full payment,that depends on the creditor of course and the person you are dealing with in particular,then they don't suffer the consequences.
As you previously stated the whole point of reporting these markers is to warn off potential new creditors to that persons repayment behaviour,but surely there must be more transparency for the creditor to weed out those who blatenlyy refuse to pay,as opposed to those who including myself have done the utmost to repay their due debts.

In conclusion once a contractual payment is not met then that account is in default.
Creditors should default at latest the 6 month point.

AP markers are used in my opinion as obviously an alternative to default,that is where they are used long term,I guess it gives the creditor of the initial agreement the upper hand.

Just to reiterate I never borrowed to then never pay back.

But fully appreciate your views.