Default Dates

jackjones01

ThisnotThat said:

jackjones01 said:

ThisnotThat said:

jackjones01 said:

sourcrates said:

That is the guidance yes, you can use that in any complaint you may wish to make in future.

That’s great I wrote to one lender about it and they say a payment arrangement was set on the hope I’d go back to contractual payments which prevented a default being issued so I logged a complaint with the FOS yesterday. 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they'd defaulted you and you'd quickly returned to regular payments you'd probably be complaining about that too.

<Insert havingcakeandeatingittoo.gif here>

Thanks for the feedback however I was never going to be able to bring the account up-to date in a timely manner and they where aware of this. 

Unless they had a crystal ball or a Delorean they were not aware you were not going to bring the account up to date.

As per the previous post they were aware already so they didn’t need a requirement for a crystal ball. 

sourcrates

Some companies default pretty quickly, others drag there feet, this is the problem you get when there is only guidance to follow, and not set in stone rules.

They are correct in one way, that as you agreed terms with them, then technically a default was unnecessary.

But AP markers can be more costly, and stay on file a lot longer than a default would, its kind of a catch 22 situation, and happens a lot where debt management is concerned.

Although defaults are bad news, they are better than AP markers, whose effects last longer, so I would be inclined to bring this matter to there attention, quoting guidance.

You can escalate to the ICO is it becomes necessary.

jackjones01

sourcrates said:

Some companies default pretty quickly, others drag there feet, this is the problem you get when there is only guidance to follow, and not set in stone rules.

They are correct in one way, that as you agreed terms with them, then technically a default was unnecessary.

But AP markers can be more costly, and stay on file a lot longer than a default would, its kind of a catch 22 situation, and happens a lot where debt management is concerned.

Although defaults are bad news, they are better than AP markers, whose effects last longer, so I would be inclined to bring this matter to there attention, quoting guidance.

You can escalate to the ICO is it becomes necessary.

Thanks for your help. 

Am I right in thinking the account should have been defaulted to terminate the agreement with them to sell the debt on? 

jackjones01

jackjones01 said:

sourcrates said:

Some companies default pretty quickly, others drag there feet, this is the problem you get when there is only guidance to follow, and not set in stone rules.

They are correct in one way, that as you agreed terms with them, then technically a default was unnecessary.

But AP markers can be more costly, and stay on file a lot longer than a default would, its kind of a catch 22 situation, and happens a lot where debt management is concerned.

Although defaults are bad news, they are better than AP markers, whose effects last longer, so I would be inclined to bring this matter to there attention, quoting guidance.

You can escalate to the ICO is it becomes necessary.

Thanks for your help. 

Am I right in thinking the account should have been defaulted to terminate the agreement with them to sell the debt on? 

I think I would fall into B19 (a) 👍

[Deleted User]

Your initial post is about a Tesco card, what has Vanquis got to do with it? 

jackjones01

Deleted_User said:

Your initial post is about a Tesco card, what has Vanquis got to do with it? 

I’m having the same issue with both Tesco and Vanquis