Satsuma loans - rearrangement plan

Turtle87

I have a 12 month loan with Satsuma loans. After a few months, I contact them to advise of an unexpected expense I've had and would like a rearrangement plan put in place to reduce the total I pay per month. Satsuma agreed and monthly payments were reduced from £160 to £100.

I have been paying the £100 per month on time but my credit report file from Satsuma shows my account as up to 3 months late. I telephoned Satsuma to ask how this is correct as I have been paying the rearrangement amount of £100 on time. Satsuma inform me the report is correct as the agreed payments of £100 per month are less than the contractual amount of £160 so it's reported as late. Its currently reported as 3 months late and will keep going up as i am paying £60 less per month.

My understanding is that Satsuma are completely wrong here. I am paying the agreed rearrangement amount of £100 per month on time so my credit report should state payments are not late (but also highlighting the account is on a rearrangement plan).

I telephoned the financial ombudsman, explained the situation and they agreed with me. The payments should not be considered late as I am making the rearrangement payment amount on time.

I have spoken to several different people at Satsuma and owner Provident Financial group highlighting how I think they are wrong and how I have explained the situation to the ombudsman who agree with me (in theory) yet I get the same response from Satsuma which is this is the correct way of reporting the situation.

I had a similar problem before with Pounds to Pocket and it was successfully removed after taking it to the ombudsman. I believe in this situation Satsuma are in the wrong.

Satsuma are giving me their "final decision" on this in an Email today to which I will be taking it to the ombudsman straight away.

I can't quite believe a well known "loan provider" is getting away with this behavior and putting people though the stress of having to deal with it.

Please let me know your thoughts.

[Deleted User]

Once you have their final decision, go to FOS. It should get sorted and marked as an AP.

Depending on how long you think it will take to clear though, consider whether a default would be preferable.

Willing2Learn

You are in an Arrangement to Pay (AP) as you are not complying with your original credit agreement. Therefore, having the account marked as AP would be correct. Similarly, having the account marked as defaulted would also be correct, as again, you not complied with your original credit agreement.

I agree, that the account should not be marked with late payment markers, as you have adhered to the AP. So you should escalate to the FOS if your complaint is not upheld and the late payment markers are not removed from your file(s).

Deleted_User wrote: »

Depending on how long you think it will take to clear though, consider whether a default would be preferable.

If I had to choose which way to have my credit file marked, either as an AP or a default, then I would choose to have a default as the negative marker is removed from your credit file sooner.

Edit: And welcome to the forum Turtle87

Exodi

Seems like a lot of hassle to escalate to the FOS - just the premise of using a PDL will impact lender's impressions of you. You say the FOS agrees with you in theory, why not just escalate to them?

Turtle87

Deleted_User wrote: »

Depending on how long you think it will take to clear though, consider whether a default would be preferable.

Willing2Learn wrote: »

If I had to choose which way to have my credit file marked, either as an AP or a default, then I would choose to have a default as the negative marker is removed from your credit file sooner.

Hi Guys, thanks for coming back to me. I am a little confused why considering a default would be better here. I thought a default would stay on my credit report for longer than rearranged payment amounts? There is no AP marking on my credit report from this (as I can see via Experian anyway). Is this something Experian show?

Many thanks

Turtle87

Exodi wrote: »

Seems like a lot of hassle to escalate to the FOS - just the premise of using a PDL will impact lender's impressions of you. You say the FOS agrees with you in theory, why not just escalate to them?

I plan to take it to the FOS, I am just waiting on the final decision to come through from the company. Reason for my post is that presumably Satsuma are doing this to other peoples credit reports once entering a rearranged payment agreement. People need to be mare aware this practice is wrong and they should inform the FOS for it to be corrected and Satsuma to compensate them.

The whole process has been stressful and very time consuming. I have had to have several long phone calls to numerous staff to try and resolve the error by Satsuma. IMO it's generally bad practice and people need to be made aware.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

Compensate you for what? How have you incurred any financial loss?

Bermonia

You are also resuming FOS will find in your favour... by no means a forgone conclusion when dealing with them.

MovingForwards

Better to have late payment markers than AP.

LP looks like you are maintaining your monthly payments, AP is an arrangement to pay which stays waving on your credit report for 6 years after the final payment was made.

Willing2Learn

Anyhow, if you are complaining about the data recorded in your credit file(s) then you should complain to the ICO and not the FOS.

Turtle87

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

Compensate you for what? How have you incurred any financial loss?

Compensation for the the error and palaver of having to raise it with the FOS (based on winning the case). I had a very similar problem with P2P previously which was successful with the FOS. My credit report was corrected and P2P were advised to pay compensation for making the error.