AP - Arrangement to Pay Definition Dispute

subflow

Hello. Looking for a little advice from you lovely people.

Dealing with VW Financial Services. I basically overspent a little at Xmas, and didn't have sufficient funds for the direct debit on Jan 1st on a car payment.

Out of courtesy I phoned them up, apologised and said payment would be made in a full a couple of weeks later - same calendar month. And it was. In full.

Upon checking my credit file, they have marked January as 'AP' - Arrangement to Pay. This to me does not seem correct. Sure, it didn't go out on the exact same date, so I was expecting a '1' if anything, even though you could argue that's a little harsh....but my understanding is that an AP is quite damaging.

I spoke with them and we seem to be stuck on semantics. They have stated the AP will remain as I called them up and made an arrangement with them to pay, however my understanding of the definition of an AP is:

"An Arrangement To Pay is recorded on a borrower's Credit File when the lender accepts a request to raise or lower the cost of one or more monthly payments at the request of the borrower"

At no point was there any discussion about a change in the amount being paid, or requesting concessions or anything like that. It was just a couple of weeks late. It's almost like I'm being penalised for actually having the courtesy to phone up, rather than just not bothering and potentially getting a less harmful '1'

Please let me know any thoughts on this before I formally write to them about this.

Many thanks!

[Deleted User]

It's not incorrect - and better than a default or late payment, if it will now be cleared.

I wouldn't try to get them to change it to something worse.

Gaz83

subflow wrote: »

Hello. Looking for a little advice from you lovely people.

Dealing with VW Financial Services. I basically overspent a little at Xmas, and didn't have sufficient funds for the direct debit on Jan 1st on a car payment.

Out of courtesy I phoned them up, apologised and said payment would be made in a full a couple of weeks later - same calendar month. And it was. In full.

Upon checking my credit file, they have marked January as 'AP' - Arrangement to Pay. This to me does not seem correct. Sure, it didn't go out on the exact same date, so I was expecting a '1' if anything, even though you could argue that's a little harsh....but my understanding is that an AP is quite damaging.

I spoke with them and we seem to be stuck on semantics. They have stated the AP will remain as I called them up and made an arrangement with them to pay, however my understanding of the definition of an AP is:

"An Arrangement To Pay is recorded on a borrower's Credit File when the lender accepts a request to raise or lower the cost of one or more monthly payments at the request of the borrower"

At no point was there any discussion about a change in the amount being paid, or requesting concessions or anything like that. It was just a couple of weeks late. It's almost like I'm being penalised for actually having the courtesy to phone up, rather than just not bothering and potentially getting a less harmful '1'

Please let me know any thoughts on this before I formally write to them about this.

Many thanks!

You're arguing semantics. You made an arrangement to pay, and received an arrangement to pay marker.

As you say, an AP marker occurs when you make a request to lower one or more payments.

You did make a request to lower a payment. You made a request to lower it to zero. Whether you paid it a couple of weeks later is irrelevant. You requested it to be lowered to zero.

subflow

Deleted_User wrote: »

It's not incorrect - and better than a default or late payment, if it will now be cleared.

I wouldn't try to get them to change it to something worse.

My understanding is that it the AP remains on file? But I'm not sure here, but certainly I wouldn't look to change it from something that disappears to something that remains.

[Deleted User]

Yes - all markers remain on file for 6 years.

But yours is one of the better ones.

Just clear the arrears and it will drift off into the past.

subflow

Gaz83 wrote: »

You're arguing semantics. You made an arrangement to pay, and received an arrangement to pay marker.

As you say, an AP marker occurs when you make a request to lower one or more payments.

You did make a request to lower a payment. You made a request to lower it to zero. Whether you paid it a couple of weeks later is irrelevant. You requested it to be lowered to zero.

Slightly harsh, but I get where you a coming from. Regardless of anyone's semantics, I am jut trying to establish formally what is correct and what the actual process should be here, as when I spoke to them, they did not seem sure themselves and we're using terminology such as "we think" and "as far as we're aware" don't fill me with confidence.

subflow

Deleted_User wrote: »

Yes - all markers remain on file for 6 years.

But yours is one of the better ones.

Just clear the arrears and it will drift off into the past.

If the general consensus is that an 'AP' is better than a '1' then that's fine with me.

Willing2Learn

I personally believe that a single AP marker and a single late payment marker are about equal, in relation to negative impact upon your credit file history.

[Deleted User]

You contacted them so you got an AP marker.
Had you not have contacted them you would have gotten a late payment marker.

Either way, something gets added to the account on your files that remains for 6 years.

The reporting is correct

Gaz83

subflow wrote: »

Slightly harsh, but I get where you a coming from. Regardless of anyone's semantics, I am jut trying to establish formally what is correct and what the actual process should be here, as when I spoke to them, they did not seem sure themselves and we're using terminology such as "we think" and "as far as we're aware" don't fill me with confidence.

They're call handlers, more than likely on an absolute pittance working in a call centre somewhere. They're not legal experts and will simply have scripts to follow.

If you want detailed, technical information or advice about a company, or their processes, you don't speak to the people on minimal wage employed to do first-level call-handling.