Incorrect Default Compensation.

Willing2Learn

I would not complain about 'lies' as this is very subjective. You could argue that were given information, that was later shown to be incorrect and/or misleading.

[Deleted User]

x32z8 wrote: »

Similar cases, I'm merely asking a question here, as to whether something's worth pursuing or not.

What I mean in terms of interest rates, is previously I could get a loan from my bank or a bank, at a fairly reasonable rate. However with a low credit score, I was rejected and when I needed to borrow some money had to resort to short term, high interest lenders instead.

Clearly it's going to be a struggle to demonstrate this empirically.


I'm not struggling anymore, but thanks for the concern.

Again, you weren't rejected because of your low credit score as it's not a "thing".

And lenders won't tell you the reason for rejection as they have their own confidential lending criteria.

It's more likely down to the fact you've had loans in the past and you didn't fit the criteria they were looking for at the time you applied.

You can try complaining to the FOS but I doubt very much they will side with your or you will get much back.

spadoosh

x32z8 wrote: »

Similar cases, I'm merely asking a question here, as to whether something's worth pursuing or not.

What I mean in terms of interest rates, is previously I could get a loan from my bank or a bank, at a fairly reasonable rate. However with a low credit score, I was rejected and when I needed to borrow some money had to resort to short term, high interest lenders instead.

Clearly it's going to be a struggle to demonstrate this empirically.


I'm not struggling anymore, but thanks for the concern.

I think youre going to struggle to compel them to give you recompense. Theres different routes you can take and i cant see anything concrete that will force recompense. So anything you do do will be a risk in the sense youre putting in more work with a likelihood of no compensation.

So you can complain to the company, they might or might not give you compensation. If theyve settled your initial complaint they probably wont feel the need to.

You can complain to FOS, theyll want all the details and whilst they have done things wrong the result could be a bit of a slapped wrist for them, a fine or being ordered to pay you recompense.

The third option is to sue. Youll have to show a qunatifiable loss. This isnt being rejected for loans. This might cover emails and telephone conversations which normally isnt a huge amount.

You just cant easily say its their fault you didnt get accepted for loans. Lots of factors are taken in to account and you admit yourself that you where in financial difficulty. I think youre more likely to be lent money with a default on your account than if you where in financial difficulty. At least witha default you can show its affordable even if you have a bad history of paying, if youre in financial difficulty, you usually cant pay for things, so paying a loan is always a no-no.

You can only try with your complaint. Personally when i had a default incorrectly applied which led to being denied a mortgage and subsequently missing the house we wanted (as a result of fraud) i was just happy to be back at square one after 5 months of messing around. I missed out on a £100k house. The lender specifically highlighted the default as reason for rejection.

John_G_Jones

x32z8 wrote: »

Similar cases, I'm merely asking a question here, as to whether something's worth pursuing or not.

What I mean in terms of interest rates, is previously I could get a loan from my bank or a bank, at a fairly reasonable rate. However with a low credit score, I was rejected and when I needed to borrow some money had to resort to short term, high interest lenders instead.

Clearly it's going to be a struggle to demonstrate this empirically.

I'm not struggling anymore, but thanks for the concern.

If you could get loans from your bank why did you go with Satsuma?

If you needed to arrange a payment plan then it suggests that you were struggling at that point, before any mistakes were made by Satsuma, and were asking them to accept less than the payments that you had initially agreed. That being the case, you not being able to get good rates later could have been the case whatever happened.

What was the situation at the time that you made the request, and did Satsuma agree to reduce your payment to help you out in your time of need?

If they did, it’s a bit churlish to demand compensation when they tried to do the right thing but made some mistakes.

x32z8

I'm not on about the previous period. I've already said that was settled Satsuma, accepted my complaint and resolved it.

At the time, I couldn't make a payment and requested a restructured payment plan, not a reduced one. At no point did I ever suggest I would pay less.

That was in June 2017, and since the resolution in March 2018 my credit rating was improving, etc, up until August 2018 when the default was registered against me again.

All costs etc I have been referring to are in relation to the 5 months period since then, nothing prior.

x32z8

UPDATE:
I've received a resolution from Satsuma, in line with the already updated credit file I noticed. I still have issues with this though:-

The update they made to my credit file is still wrong.
They have removed the default but are showing the account only paid off in January 2019, which is when they realised that they had not updated it, not when I paid it off.

They have made no reference to being "mistaken" about buying the account back, they merely have referred to not making contact with me once they did.
They seem to have brushed over the fact I have evidence contradicting their claim and are simply not mentioning it.

So the timeline goes:-

Complaint #1 - Jan 2018
Resolution #1 complaint upheld. Default removed. Satsuma to reclaim account - March 2018
Default reported again - August 2018

Complaint #2 about default - September 2018
Resolution #2 complaint partially upheld. Default amended to March, credit file to be updated - November 2018

Complaint #3 - credit file not updated, still disputing default. - November 2018.
Resolution #3 - not upheld, Satsuma claim to have bought account back. January 2019.

Complaint #4 - evidence Satsuma did not take back account like claimed in Resolution #2 and Resolution #3, dispute default and credit file update. January 2019
Resolution #4 - upheld. January 2019.

They have stressed their apologies and offered me £75.00 as way of an apology.

For the record, this has taken me 32 separate e-mails, stretching over four separate complaints in total. Not to mention the stress of having a default on my account.

At this point, I'm more annoyed at the fact that this would be their attitude to other people, who might have let their first complaint slide.

Should I refer this to the Ombudsman, or is £75.00 a reasonable gesture?

System

x32z8 wrote: »

Should I refer this to the Ombudsman, or is £75.00 a reasonable gesture?

Only you can answer that. How much of your time has it taken up? How much do you value your time at?

I value my time at £200 per hour (no that's not what I earn lol) But its what I would value my time at if I was asked to do something I really didn't want to / shouldn't have to and took time away from my kids. i.e. this.

x32z8

beany_bot wrote: »

Only you can answer that. How much of your time has it taken up? How much do you value your time at?

I value my time at £200 per hour (no that's not what I earn lol) But its what I would value my time at if I was asked to do something I really didn't want to / shouldn't have to and took time away from my kids. i.e. this.

Honestly, I don't know. I know what I charge at work, but I don't know how relevant that is.
I've had to send 36 e-mails for 4 complaints stretching across 13 months.
Eight months of incorrectly reported default in total.

I would say at least 15 to 30 mins per e-mail as an average, having to check and re-check facts and scan/copy letters etc.

So maybe 18 hours, or more? Probably more given how many times I've had to do this. That would work out at £4.16/hr which isn't even minimum wage.

System

x32z8 wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. I know what I charge at work, but I don't know how relevant that is.
I've had to send 36 e-mails for 4 complaints stretching across 13 months.
Eight months of incorrectly reported default in total.

I would say at least 15 to 30 mins per e-mail as an average, having to check and re-check facts and scan/copy letters etc.

So maybe 18 hours, or more? Probably more given how many times I've had to do this. That would work out at £4.16/hr which isn't even minimum wage.

At 18 hours I would tell them to ram their £75.

[Deleted User]

£75 is a reasonable amount considering there has been no financial loss or otherwise