Default vs AP markers

crazy_cat_lady

Hi all
Looking for a bit of advice from someone more in the know than I am please.
I had an ongoing issue with Natwest bank :mad: When I first set up my DMP I had an overdraft with them approaching £3000, which went onto the DMP. They initially did not acknowledge the DMP and sent loads of threatening letters etc, and eventually defaulted me in Nov 2012 (I started the DMP in April 2010). I put in a letter of complaint asking them to move the default date back to 2010, closer to when I actually did mess up - and they came back and agreed with me in terms of dates, but said they would remove the default altogether as it had been applied unfairly. Brilliant (or not).
Fast forward to February this year, when I checked my credit report to find that Natwest had reported a default on my account for December 2014. I rang up to query it, and they said it was because I had made a reduced payment in November via my DMP. This was true, but I said that I had rang to advise them of this before I did reduce my payment, and I also pointed out that if they had left the previous default on then I wouldn't be getting defaulted 5 years after I started getting into trouble. Again they agreed with me and said that they would remove the fault, which they did again. Then by May, lo and behold the default was back again, this time dated March 2015. No idea why this time - but I complained again. This time they told me that they had closed my account and written of the remainder of the debt off as a 'goodwill gesture' and hopefully to prevent the default being reapplied.
Anyway, I was checking through my credit report again last night - and the default has definitely gone. It's been replaced with 3 years of AP markers, ending in April this year when the account was closed.

Am I right in thinking that this is still unfair of them? And I have cause for another complaint? I swear, dealing with Natwest has been a nightmare from beginning to end. If so, could anyone point me in the direction of a suitable letter to send this time.

Thanks.

Movingon5464

Sorry i can't link to any letters but yes you should complain. If you don't the AP markers will remain visible for 6 years from the settled date so till April 2021. I would write to them saying that you really do appreciate them writing off this debt as a gesture of goodwill but the way this is reported on your file means that this record will now show until 2021 which is 11 years after starting your dmp. I would ask them if they would agree to remove this record in 2016 which is 6 years from the start of your dmp so that you are not disadvantaged compared to someone who did not pay their debt and who presumably would have been defaulted in 2010. You could include a copy of their response to your first complaint when they agreed with you about the dates.

Bobarella

What a pain CCL. I'd recommend the ombudsman service as you seem to be knocking your head against a brick wall. Really sorry. It does all seem ridiculous.

sourcrates

You could write and complain again, but I would say they would argue that the AP markers are a true reflection of how the account was conducted, but its always worth a shot.


On the plus side, you have had the debt written off, which was a more than fair outcome in itself, and you did, after all, break the terms of your agreement, and the AP markers are a fair reflection of this.


I think that would be the stance Natwest would take, and also what the FOS would say, if you progressed your complaint that far.

redux

Some people seem to dislike the AP or AR markers more than a default, because it may be recorded for longer.

On the other hand there's a chance it may be slightly better for reference purposes while it's there, as the credit limit is shown by some agencies as available but not all used. Though this may not apply to yours if it's marked as closed.

Then when 6 years is up some firms have agreed to remove it, accepting the argument that it's unfair to leave a marker in for potentially longer than a default on someone who'd made less or even no effort to pay.

This does need some need checking and perhaps some discussion at the time, according to certain threads on here. It can do no harm to extract a promise from them in advance, as per the suggestion in post #2.

crazy_cat_lady

I should point out that the amount of debt they wrote off was £76.43 - it would have been paid off in full this month anyway. So whilst I benefitted to the tune of £76.43 I still would have been better off with the 2012 default in the long run.
I thought that I'd seen somewhere that they weren't allowed to use AP markers as an alternative to a default if it left you in a worse position for longer. I complained to them via resolver a fortnight ago for still sending me threatening letters saying I have a £0 balance outstanding on the account.
And in spite of asking 3x I have never received written copies of my last complaint resolution. I have had no reply at all. I may just get the fos involved very soon indeed.
Thanks for the advice so far.

fermi

ICO's guidance to their own staff and the credit industry released under FOI

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ivviixi14ryq3zt/ICO%20-%20CRA%20Lines%20To%20Take.pdf?dl=0

CRA Arrangements to pay - fairness of them registering a default

As stated in the old default guidance, where an arrangement to pay breaks down, a default may be filed when the total value of the arrears is equivalent to three monthly payments under the original terms. However, this should not result in the customer being placed in a worse position than someone who had made no effort to pay whatsoever.

Whether an individual has been left in a worse position or not is something that we will have to consider on a case by case basis. However where we feel that the arrangement to pay has left the individual in a worse position than someone who simply stopped paying, we would normally consider this to be unfair under the first principle and ask the lender to amend the default so that it was the same as if the individual had simply stopped making payments without entering the arrangement to pay.

dumpyboy

redux wrote: »

Some people seem to dislike the AP or AR markers more than a default, because it may be recorded for longer.

On the other hand there's a chance it may be slightly better for reference purposes while it's there, as the credit limit is shown by some agencies as available but not all used. Though this may not apply to yours if it's marked closed #2.

This is the worse thing about a r markers I have 2 accounts being marked liked this ( as my threads show) it reports to credit file that I have 21000 pounds credit limit ,it stops me getting a full bank account any credit cards and because it was 12 years agreement this will effect me for 18 years you must do every thing to fight these markers till the people in charge of regulation take notice people will suffer for a long time

crazy_cat_lady

Thanks very much Fermi - I knew that I'd seen something somewhere. I'll get back onto them. Might be time to use the resolver again.

Good luck with yours dumpyboy

redux

dumpyboy wrote: »

This is the worse thing about a r markers I have 2 accounts being marked liked this ( as my threads show) it reports to credit file that I have 21000 pounds credit limit ,it stops me getting a full bank account any credit cards and because it was 12 years agreement this will effect me for 18 years you must do every thing to fight these markers till the people in charge of regulation take notice people will suffer for a long time

I was basing my comment on reading things here and advising someone personally.

It seems that most firms will stop reporting at 6 years, but not necessarily all of them.

We'll find out on the report updates in the next month or two, as the account in that situation reached 6 years in August, and definite promises were made in March and last month about removing it.

dumpyboy

It seems that most firms will stop reporting at 6 years, but not necessarily all of them.

We'll find out on the report updates in the next month or two, as the account in that situation reached 6 years in August, and definite promises were made in March and last month about removing it.[/QUOTE]

Good luck ,may I ask what company's it with and when you paid it of please and thank you