Arrangement to pay markers

Willing2Learn

boo_star wrote: »

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.

I'm saying that when an AP is used, it should only be considered a short term solution. Once an AP has been in effect for longer than six months, then the original credit agreement could be considered irreconcilably broken. That would mean the creditor would then consider the account defaulted, and the creditor should send the borrower a default notice.

That is only my interpretation of the guidance...

[Deleted User]

But it is an arrangement to pay though and is marked as such.

Yes the account “could” be defaulted as the account is in arrears, however arranged payments are being made to bring it out of arrears.

In fairness this should give the person as much opportunity as possible to throw as much as they can at the debt to clear it down to avoid a marker month on month.

Dnrn84

Hi, they have finally responded.

They have only partially upheld my complaint.

They dont agree that I should have a default added but they have listened to the phone call of when the arrangement was made and agree that at no point was I made aware of the implications of the arrangement on my credit file.

For this they have apologised and sent me a cheque for £125.
I dont want money I just want fairness!

Any suggestions as to what to do next?

Thanks

boo_star

Dnrn84 wrote: »

Hi, they have finally responded.

They have only partially upheld my complaint.

They dont agree that I should have a default added but they have listened to the phone call of when the arrangement was made and agree that at no point was I made aware of the implications of the arrangement on my credit file.

For this they have apologised and sent me a cheque for £125.
I dont want money I just want fairness!

Any suggestions as to what to do next?

Thanks

Go to the FOS if you don't agree.

Willing2Learn

Dnrn84 wrote: »

They have only partially upheld my complaint.

They dont agree that I should have a default added but they have listened to the phone call of when the arrangement was made and agree that at no point was I made aware of the implications of the arrangement on my credit file.

For this they have apologised and sent me a cheque for £125.

boo_star wrote: »

Go to the FOS if you don't agree.

No ,it is ICO guidance to which the OP is referring. Therefore the matter should be escalated to the ICO.

@OP - If you do not accept the current decision, then if it were me, I would return the cheque to Vanquis and escalate your complaint to the ICO. I would not deposit the cheque into your bank account, as that would mean you were accepting their decision.

boo_star

Willing2Learn wrote: »

No ,it is ICO guidance to which the OP is referring. Therefore the matter should be escalated to the ICO.

@OP - If you do not accept the current decision, then if it were me, I would return the cheque and escalate your complaint to the ICO.

ICO guidance that I still don't agree with your interpretation of so I'll stick with "Go to the FOS" and you can stick with "Go to the ICO" I suppose.

[Deleted User]

As suspected, they’ve decided to not go by the non-obligation recommendation and met you somewhere in the middle.

I would accept the money and move on.

Weakmoments

I’ve had 6 years of AP I complains to IDEM and also the ombudsman who said my file was being marked correctly

[Deleted User]

Weakmoments wrote: »

I’ve had 6 years of AP I complains to IDEM and also the ombudsman who said my file was being marked correctly

That’s correct if you were indeed making reduced or arranged payments for that time period.

Dnrn84

What about the fact they have acknowledged that they should have made me aware of the impact on my credit file?