What can I do when RBS refuse to remove a late payment from credit profile?

meer53

RBS don't have to prove you've received new t & c's, they just have to prove they sent them. T & C's rarely stay the same, in 6 years i would bet there has been more than one change to yours OP.

** cross posted with YB !!

RBS_Sucks

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

During that time, I'd imagine they've sent you at least 6, and maybe 8 or so if they're anything like some of my card providers, sets of T&Cs*. Are you saying you can't lay your hands on any of them?

By the way, in reference to an earlier post of yours, RBS will not have to prove (to the FOS) you've received the notices of variation...merely that they've sent them.


* Covering such things as changes to positive payment hierarchy, the impact of the PSRs, and general re-wording/clarification.

If we start playing the game of "we sent it so you must have received it then we enter into an unruly set of circumstances".

"I sent a letter asking for your payment details as I lost access to all forms of communications but you ignored it so I couldn't pay"

This could go exceptionally south for all involved.

As someone who is involved in a business which relies heavily on logistics and works with various companies I can assure you the vast majority of businesses would not accept that. Can you imagine buying something from Amazon and you didn't get it but they said they sent it so you must have received it.

This is a simple situation which has been blown in various directions. They may well claim to have sent new sets of terms and conditions but the fact is that I've never received any set which advises me differently the the original terms of the 2 specific aspects which matter therefore with that in mind I believe they've either not been sent, have been lost in delivery or do not exist.

YorkshireBoy

So is that..."I can't lay my hands on any of them"?

Or..."Despite 6 years passing, I can only find the ones that (I hope) help my cause"?

Many here are trying to play devil's advocate, and trying to convey the FOS's likely investigation/adjudication, to help prepare you. But you don't seem to be seeing what others are seeing.

RBS_Sucks

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

So is that..."I can't lay my hands on any of them"?

Or..."Despite 6 years passing, I can only find the ones that (I hope) help my cause"?

Many here are trying to play devil's advocate, and trying to convey the FOS's likely investigation/adjudication, to help prepare you. But you don't seem to be seeing what others are seeing.

I thoroughly see what's being conveyed here but equally i'm being cautious and hope you see this too.

At this stage I've requested a copy of the most recent terms and conditions therefore it would be unfair to comment much further in relation to the difference in terms until that's received.

bairn7

RBS_Sucks wrote: »

At this stage I've requested a copy of the most recent terms and conditions therefore it would be unfair to comment much further in relation to the difference in terms until that's received.

Thank you!!:T

RBS_Sucks

bairn7 wrote: »

Thank you!!:T

... for what? I had already requested a copy of the terms and conditions before starting the thread. I think you chose to assume otherwise. Besides, I thought you were out

Thrugelmir

RBS_Sucks wrote: »

If we start playing the game of "we sent it so you must have received it then we enter into an unruly set of circumstances".

RBS will no doubt maintain internal records of mass mail outs to avoid getting into such arguments and conform with regulatory responsibilities. People not reading their mail is normal.

chattychappy

On the issue of variation and consent (which you raised earlier):

RBS_Sucks wrote: »

If we start playing the game of "we sent it so you must have received it then we enter into an unruly set of circumstances".

"I sent a letter asking for your payment details as I lost access to all forms of communications but you ignored it so I couldn't pay"

This could go exceptionally south for all involved.

As someone who is involved in a business which relies heavily on logistics and works with various companies I can assure you the vast majority of businesses would not accept that. Can you imagine buying something from Amazon and you didn't get it but they said they sent it so you must have received it.

The vast majority of businesses do accept that, even if they don't realise it! At least in terms of contractual documents. It works because generally it doesn't go wrong and when it does, businesses typically sort things out without going to court. Oh and by the way, I have actually been to court on a very similar issue.

So on the "binding when sent, not received" issue:
This is a "civil" case - proof only has to be on the balance of probabilities. A fiction or not, it's long been accepted that if something is posted, it will probably arrive. Therefore if you can show you sent something, then a court will believe it was delivered. If there is a dispute, they will believe it is more likely that you received it and "forgot" rather than it wasn't sent or the post office lost it. In terms of civil litigation, this is actually written into the procedure rules. Search "deemed service" for more information. Also there is something called the "postal rule" in contract law. So plenty of precedent. But in your case, you already have a contract - and parties are always free to agree alternative methods to achieve variation. T+Cs I have in front of me simply says changes can be notified in writing. What does the set you have say? I'm guessing it's sufficient for them to send a variation by post.

On the "consent" issue:
Consent isn't always needed to a variation, but a term that allows a unilateral change could be unenforceable unless it is constrained in some way. Eg inflationary increases or changes to bring a contract into line with changing regulation are probably OK. The way CCs get around these constraints is to give you the option to reject changes. Ie they give you the choice telling you that by continuing to use the card you agree to the changes.

In summary: if they can show they sent a variation, then there is a presumption you received it. If you then continued to use the card, then you indicated your acceptance.

SLZ

RBS_Sucks wrote: »

Trimmed

RBS don't have to remove any late payment or over limit markers from your credit profile. However I have found that you can get a one time reprieve if you're polite as I had all charges removed and no credit file marks on an account with RBS.

You must have been doing it wrong, same applies to Barclaycard and losing promotional offers (plus late payment markers on credit profiles).

RBS_Sucks

SLZ wrote: »

RBS don't have to remove any late payment or over limit markers from your credit profile. However I have found that you can get a one time reprieve if you're polite as I had all charges removed and no credit file marks on an account with RBS.

You must have been doing it wrong, same applies to Barclaycard and losing promotional offers (plus late payment markers on credit profiles).

They removed the charge but just wouldn't remove the missed payment. This would be the only one I've ever had so looks like you got a better deal than I dead. Not sure how that would fall under the 'treating customers fairly' guidelines but seems they chop and change their mind as they please from what I can gather.