Payday loan removal - don't even want a refund!

ndf9876

FOS decisions typically (but not always) include removal of the loan from the credit file of the complainant, where the complaint is upheld.

This is not always the case though; some adjudicators and Ombudsmen do not include this as part of their decision.

Source : Previous FOS decisions published and my own experience.

boo_star

ndf9876 wrote: »

FOS decisions typically (but not always) include removal of the loan from the credit file of the complainant, where the complaint is upheld.

This is not always the case though; some adjudicators and Ombudsmen do not include this as part of their decision.

Source : Previous FOS decisions published and my own experience.

The FOS don't do things strictly by the book though. Many of their decisions are about the nebulous term "fairness."

I still find the FOS decision to be a bit off. As I said it definitely breaches the spirit of the law, even if it can be "got around" by deleting all the information the company holds.

ndf9876

boo_star wrote: »

The FOS don't do things strictly by the book though. Many of their decisions are about the nebulous term "fairness."

I still find the FOS decision to be a bit off. As I said it definitely breaches the spirit of the law, even if it can be "got around" by deleting all the information the company holds.

Even having benefited from this myself, I don't necessarily disagree with you. There is no parity in decisions so it appears (from my personal experience, anecdotally and through browsing past upheld complaints) that removal of loans is never a "dead cert" on an complaint upheld in favour of the borrower.

For example : one decision I received quite unequivocally stated that all record of me ever having used the company needs to be expunged - and it was. Another decision (arguably correctly) stated in the decision that as I had borrowed the money, it was an accurate representation of my credit history and credit records should remain.

I am going back a few years though as I think I was one of the first wave of people to go through this process.

So to the OP : you can ask in your FOS complaint to have the loans removed but it is by no means guaranteed if your complaint is upheld.

glennstar

boo_star wrote: »

The chances of getting anything removed are practically zero.

"Missold" or not, the fact that you took out a PDL is a fact, and arguably removing it from your credit file would be a breach of data protection laws.

This is not the case. There is no DPR issue here. Please read the PoR. As I understand it, the FOS would need to explicitly ask the CRA (or provide substance to support a request) to remove the entry and justify the reasons for doing so, otherwise the entry will stand.

At the end of the day, the event did take place, the default took place, the punter did or did not falsify information related to the application and the lender lent the money in good faith and incurred a loss as a result. This is the point of the CRA and the PoR. The only real mitigation, as I understand it, is if the product was mis-sold. Was it?

ndf9876

glennstar wrote: »

As I understand it, the FOS would need to explicitly ask the CRA (or provide substance to support a request) to remove the entry and justify the reasons for doing so, otherwise the entry will stand.

In cases such as this, the Ombusdman directs the lender to report removal to CRA - it does not get directly involved. As Ombudsman decisions are legally binding, so the lender then duly instructs CRA to remove the entries.

boo_star

glennstar wrote: »

This is not the case. There is no DPR issue here. Please read the PoR. As I understand it, the FOS would need to explicitly ask the CRA (or provide substance to support a request) to remove the entry and justify the reasons for doing so, otherwise the entry will stand.

At the end of the day, the event did take place, the default took place, the punter did or did not falsify information related to the application and the lender lent the money in good faith and incurred a loss as a result. This is the point of the CRA and the PoR. The only real mitigation, as I understand it, is if the product was mis-sold. Was it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The first half of your post disagrees with what I'm saying followed up by the rest seemingly agreeing with me?

SPOWER

Boo person. The loans get removd in some cases. STOP being disruptive and dragging a thread out.