TSB - 'arrangement to pay'

JETSET_2

Hi all

Well, as the knowledgeable amongst you will know, there is such thing as an 'arrangement to pay' (AP) whereby a lender (of any kind) can take reduced payments for an outstanding debt. An AP can be viewed negatively by lenders when recorded on your credit file.

On this point, I've kind of been screwed by TSB. Until a couple of years ago, I had around a £200 overdraft with TSB, and seldom used it; only occasionally. However, TSB then decided to start reducing it on a monthly basis.

They did inform me, but naturally did not have to ask me. My regular bank account balance was then used to cover this monthly reduction.

TSB has recorded this with the credit reference agencies as an 'arrangement to pay'.

Any advice? Clearly, there was no 'arrangement', and now I am being penalised for nothing.

Thanks!

eskbanker

Sounds very odd that they'd report a routine overdraft limit reduction as an AP - make a formal complaint to them (http://www.tsb.co.uk/help/complaints/) asking them to correct what they've advised to the credit agencies.

JETSET_2

Already done it. They have said they believe it to be accurate, but I know it isn't. Possible ineptitude in their complaints department.

SnowTiger

I'd guess TSB called in the overdraft and asked you to pay the money back immediately.

Perhaps you contacted them, said you couldn't, and arrange to pay it back over a period of time. That would be an arrangement to pay.

Alternatively, perhaps they offered that option in their letter.

Do you still have it?

xfoxuk

If it was a one way agreement, and they took the money automatic, just take it to the financial ombudsman. AP should really be a two way agreement, like you agreed to repay via phone or letter. For example, if you spoke to their debt collection department, and said spread the payments.

Ben8282

JETSET wrote: »

I had around a £200 overdraft with TSB, and seldom used it; only occasionally. However, TSB then decided to start reducing it on a monthly basis.

They did inform me, but naturally did not have to ask me. My regular bank account balance was then used to cover this monthly reduction.

It is really difficult to accept what you are saying at face value.
You say that until about 2 years ago you had a £200 overdraft facility which you seldom used; only occasionally. Your words. Then you say TSB decided to reduce this facility on a 'monthly basis'. By how much did they reduce the facility every month? If it reduced to nil over a period of 2 years the reduction would have been £8.33 per month, so in the first month your overdraft facility would have been £200, next month £191.66 and so on. I cannot believe this. Banks and overdraft facilities simply don't work this way.
In order to have had any effect on you and create a debit balance, the moment when they decided to start to reduce the facility must have been one of those seldom occasions when you were actually using the overdraft.
You then go on to say that your 'regular' bank balance was used to cover the monthly reduction. Do you mean that you were constantly using the overdraft up to the maximum limit then each month when they reduced the limit by £8.33 you paid in £8.33 from your 'regular' bank account to this account to cover this? If not then what exactly do you mean?
If this was not your 'regular' bank account and was not receiving your income it is no surprise that the facility was withdrawn. Banks cannot be expected to maintain overdraft facilities on accounts which do not receive any payments into them.
An overdraft is repayable on demand. The amount of your overdraft limit was very small only £200. You chose not to repay this amount when asked to do so (overdraft seldom used; only occasionally you said) even though the amount in question was only a maximum of £200. Presumably TSB were aware of your poor financial situation and inability to make full repayment of £200 so they gave you 2 years to repay the £200 which was very generous of them. Exceptionally generous in fact. You are very lucky to have only an AP rather than a default.

JETSET_2

Ben8282 wrote: »

It is really difficult to accept what you are saying at face value.
You say that until about 2 years ago you had a £200 overdraft facility which you seldom used; only occasionally. Your words. Then you say TSB decided to reduce this facility on a 'monthly basis'. By how much did they reduce the facility every month? If it reduced to nil over a period of 2 years the reduction would have been £8.33 per month, so in the first month your overdraft facility would have been £200, next month £191.66 and so on. I cannot believe this. Banks and overdraft facilities simply don't work this way.
In order to have had any effect on you and create a debit balance, the moment when they decided to start to reduce the facility must have been one of those seldom occasions when you were actually using the overdraft.
You then go on to say that your 'regular' bank balance was used to cover the monthly reduction. Do you mean that you were constantly using the overdraft up to the maximum limit then each month when they reduced the limit by £8.33 you paid in £8.33 from your 'regular' bank account to this account to cover this? If not then what exactly do you mean?
If this was not your 'regular' bank account and was not receiving your income it is no surprise that the facility was withdrawn. Banks cannot be expected to maintain overdraft facilities on accounts which do not receive any payments into them.
An overdraft is repayable on demand. The amount of your overdraft limit was very small only £200. You chose not to repay this amount when asked to do so (overdraft seldom used; only occasionally you said) even though the amount in question was only a maximum of £200. Presumably TSB were aware of your poor financial situation and inability to make full repayment of £200 so they gave you 2 years to repay the £200 which was very generous of them. Exceptionally generous in fact. You are very lucky to have only an AP rather than a default.

I'm afraid you misunderstood. The whole point of this situation is precisely that it is exactly as I say. It would be rather counterproductive on a forum to do otherwise. There is nothing generous about TSB, nor have I been in a 'poor financial situation'. This is misguided supposition.

As the saying goes, give a man a gun, he robs a bank; give a man a bank, he robs the world, give a man a forum, and he attacks the person who posted the original thread.

missile

JETSET wrote: »

I'm afraid you misunderstood. The whole point of this situation is precisely that it is exactly as I say. It would be rather counterproductive on a forum to do otherwise. There is nothing generous about TSB, nor have I been in a 'poor financial situation'. This is misguided supposition.

As the saying goes, give a man a gun, he robs a bank; give a man a bank, he robs the world, give a man a forum, and he attacks the person who posted the original thread.

Unfortunately forums are populated by these morons.
I would make a formal complaint and pursue via FOS. Hope you get it sorted out. :beer:

System

The issue that you'll come against is that overdrafts are repayable on demand. When they are withdrawn, they will normally ask/demand repayment within say 28 days. A repayment plan could be seen as as an arrangement to pay.

PeacefulWaters

missile wrote: »

Unfortunately forums are populated by these morons.
:

A tad unnecessary.

eskbanker

JETSET wrote: »

Already done it. They have said they believe it to be accurate, but I know it isn't. Possible ineptitude in their complaints department.

They should be prepared to provide some sort of evidence of its accuracy, i.e. records of correspondence, phone calls or whatever.

However, if you're at stalemate from the formal complaint process then, as recommended by others above, escalate to the ombudsman, but you may also wish to submit a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to get them to supply you with all the details they have about you - if they've said to you in their response to your complaint that there was an AP then they're obliged by law to give you information about this if you go through the SAR process.