Arrangement to pay markers

Willing2Learn

Dnrn84 wrote: »

I've just realised my account was over its limit for at least four months so should that have resulted in a default?

Quote the guidance I linked to in my last post, to stand the best chance of success...

Dnrn84

Thanks for all the replies, they have sent me an acknowledgment letter so I'll wait to recieve that then contact them about the guidelines.

Thrugelmir

Why didn't you pay down the debt quicker. Many people view an AP as an opportunity to obtain an interest free loan. Then are suprised on the impact on their credit profile.

Dnrn84

Thanks for your helpful response thrugelmir.
I was paying what I could afford and then once I was in the position to do so I paid the balance off in a lump sum.
Therefore I did pay as quick as I could.
Do you feel I should be punished for paying every penny back more so than someone who doesnt pay a penny?

Willing2Learn

Dnrn84 wrote: »

I was paying what I could afford and then once I was in the position to do so I paid the balance off in a lump sum.
Therefore I did pay as quick as I could.
Do you feel I should be punished for paying every penny back more so than someone who doesnt pay a penny?

And that is why the guidance was issued...to try and ensure that people who paid back every penny are not treated unfairly...

[Deleted User]

So by your logic, not paying the money back is also fair?

System

!!! wrote: »

So by your logic, not paying the money back is also fair?

What???? :rotfl::rotfl:

Kentish_Dave

Dnrn84 wrote: »

Thanks for your helpful response thrugelmir.
I was paying what I could afford and then once I was in the position to do so I paid the balance off in a lump sum.
Therefore I did pay as quick as I could.
Do you feel I should be punished for paying every penny back more so than someone who doesnt pay a penny?

No-one is punishing you, a company is just stating some facts about your activity, truthfully, in their records.

Willing2Learn

!!! wrote: »

So by your logic, not paying the money back is also fair?

I believe that anything is fair, if one has complied with relevant legislation and guidance. That works, in different times, in favour of both the lender and the borrower.

I guess I am just a stickler for people playing by the rules...

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

No-one is punishing you, a company is just stating some facts about your activity, truthfully, in their records.

But the creditors who have done this, have not correctly followed the applicable guidance, that is despite the AP markers being factually correct.

boo_star

Willing2Learn wrote: »

I believe that anything is fair, if one has complied with relevant legislation and guidance. That works, in different times, in favour of both the lender and the borrower.

I guess I am just a stickler for people playing by the rules...


But the creditors who have done this, have not correctly followed the applicable guidance, that is despite the AP markers being factually correct.

I don't think the guidance in that thread says what you think it says, or maybe I'm misreading it.

It appears to refer to a situation where a person on an AP is subsequently defaulted some time after entering into the AP, thus having a default date months or years later than someone who just stopped paying and suggests that the creditor should backdate the default to when the AP started in that situation.

You're basically implying that an AP should not last any longer than 3-6 months as it would then be on the record longer than a default would. I've yet to see any official guidance suggesting this should be the case.