Metrobank reported missed payment even though I'd transferred funds before deadline

MalMonroe

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

That just proves to me that it is well worth complaining if you're not happy! It IS a massive victory.

And what sour grapes. That isn't what this forum is supposed to be about. Forumites are encouraged to be supportive, helpful and KIND, thus : "while we encourage discussion and debate, we value this Forum as being friendly and safe above all else". 

MalMonroe

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

But that ISN'T what the bank has said. How on earth can you know 'what is more likely'? We forumites are supposed to be kind and supportive, not scathing. The bank here has said they WERE in the wrong. Why are you, and a few others, disagreeing with the official explanation?

Jumblebumble

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

Lets agree to disagree
I would count sending  text alerts which  were  very misleading and led to a black mark  as misbehaving.
This outcome makes the claim by ThisnotThat that the bank was legally obliged to report to be a made up  fantasy

[Deleted User]

Jumblebumble said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

Lets agree to disagree
I would count sending  text alerts which  were  very misleading and led to a black mark  as misbehaving.
This outcome makes the claim by ThisnotThat that the bank was legally obliged to report to be a made up  fantasy

False - the bank is required to report things like missed payments/defaults etc to the CRAs so other lenders know. 

What happened here is that the bank decided it was their mistake that let to the missed payment, therefore have put the customer back in the position they should be in without the mistake and have removed the marker. Had they disagreed the marker would remain.

Jumblebumble

Deleted_User said:

Jumblebumble said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

Lets agree to disagree
I would count sending  text alerts which  were  very misleading and led to a black mark  as misbehaving.
This outcome makes the claim by ThisnotThat that the bank was legally obliged to report to be a made up  fantasy

False - the bank is required to report things like missed payments/defaults etc to the CRAs so other lenders know. 

What happened here is that the bank decided it was their mistake that let to the missed payment, therefore have put the customer back in the position they should be in without the mistake and have removed the marker. Had they disagreed the marker would remain.

Can you advise who mandates that such a report be made?
PS I was late on an Amex payment a while back by 2 days when I was confused about a direct debit and they agreed not to report cause I was a good customer so I don't actually believe you.

[Deleted User]

Jumblebumble said:

Deleted_User said:

Jumblebumble said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

Lets agree to disagree
I would count sending  text alerts which  were  very misleading and led to a black mark  as misbehaving.
This outcome makes the claim by ThisnotThat that the bank was legally obliged to report to be a made up  fantasy

False - the bank is required to report things like missed payments/defaults etc to the CRAs so other lenders know. 

What happened here is that the bank decided it was their mistake that let to the missed payment, therefore have put the customer back in the position they should be in without the mistake and have removed the marker. Had they disagreed the marker would remain.

Can you advise who mandates that such a report be made?
PS I was late on an Amex payment a while back by 2 days when I was confused about a direct debit and they agreed not to report cause I was a good customer so I don't actually believe you.

Again, YOU spoke to the lender, YOU settled the debt which was 2 days late only and so they chose to take the hit because presumably you passed the attitude test (same as the police have discretion if you were pulled for something like doing 77 on the motorway even though they could technically do you).

I don't care if you don't believe me, the CRA reporting system works on the basis that lenders report factual information such as late payments with the caveat that they can agree to not report one off mistakes (same principle as if a person goes over the limit a tad and immediately pays it down) to prevent long term harm to someone's rating for a corrected mistake.

CRAs are licensed by the FCA and subject to the rules of the ICO (who are their ombudsman) albeit the CRAs are not completely bound by data protection laws and can use the information without your consent where necessary.

You're welcome to read up on the subject

https://www.experian.co.uk/legal/crain/ 

The Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Logically though, if you could avoid getting late markers or defaults etc removed just by arguing, it would destroy the basis of the credit reference system and no-one would lend to anyone as they couldn't judge their risk - hence why lenders report to the agencies factual information, albeit they have some discretion for something minor - they wouldn't remove 10 late payments for example

xlnc99

A late marker being just one day OD is extremly HARSH! I was once 21 days OD (i had no OD at the time) -800 pounds and did not get a Late marker. This was around 2-3 years ago.

I guess i got lucky!

Jumblebumble

Deleted_User said:

Jumblebumble said:

Deleted_User said:

Jumblebumble said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Jumblebumble said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

joodlemcnoodle said:

UPDATE
I have had my complaint upheld and Metrobank have now removed the marker from my credit file.  They accepted that the information was not at all clear to customers and that the text alerts were very misleading.  They also accepted that the policy and process relating to credit agencies was not clearly or easily available.  
So thank you to everyone who offered advice and to the one person who felt the need to belittle me, you don't know everything.....    it WAS worth me following it up.  

Hardly.

They decided not to throw away £550 with a persistent complainer, hardly a massive victory.

So you would be happy to receive a black mark on your credit rating when a bank has misbehaved and admitted they have done so?
How Strange

Most people seem to disagree that the bank misbehaved. 

What is more likely is that they decided it was not worth the pain in the behind, which is what they do in quite a few cases, rather than that they were actually in the wrong. 

Lets agree to disagree
I would count sending  text alerts which  were  very misleading and led to a black mark  as misbehaving.
This outcome makes the claim by ThisnotThat that the bank was legally obliged to report to be a made up  fantasy

False - the bank is required to report things like missed payments/defaults etc to the CRAs so other lenders know. 

What happened here is that the bank decided it was their mistake that let to the missed payment, therefore have put the customer back in the position they should be in without the mistake and have removed the marker. Had they disagreed the marker would remain.

Can you advise who mandates that such a report be made?
PS I was late on an Amex payment a while back by 2 days when I was confused about a direct debit and they agreed not to report cause I was a good customer so I don't actually believe you.

Again, YOU spoke to the lender, YOU settled the debt which was 2 days late only and so they chose to take the hit because presumably you passed the attitude test (same as the police have discretion if you were pulled for something like doing 77 on the motorway even though they could technically do you).

I don't care if you don't believe me, the CRA reporting system works on the basis that lenders report factual information such as late payments with the caveat that they can agree to not report one off mistakes (same principle as if a person goes over the limit a tad and immediately pays it down) to prevent long term harm to someone's rating for a corrected mistake.

CRAs are licensed by the FCA and subject to the rules of the ICO (who are their ombudsman) albeit the CRAs are not completely bound by data protection laws and can use the information without your consent where necessary.

You're welcome to read up on the subject

https://www.experian.co.uk/legal/crain/ 

The Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Logically though, if you could avoid getting late markers or defaults etc removed just by arguing, it would destroy the basis of the credit reference system and no-one would lend to anyone as they couldn't judge their risk - hence why lenders report to the agencies factual information, albeit they have some discretion for something minor - they wouldn't remove 10 late payments for example

I do not disagree with most of what you say but you did not answer my question.
We are discussing the obligation that  ThisnotThat claimed is legally mandated.
Again who legally obliges the Lender to report anything to a CRA   ( ignoring  industry practice or the agreements made between lenders re viable CRA systems which has nothing whatever to do with the law)
 
The whole argument falls over in any case because there are more than one CRA   so reporting late payment is only relevant if a new  lender subscribes to the same one that has had the debt reported.
If there was a legal obligation to report  surely it would have to be to all 3 CRA to be meaning full

joodlemcnoodle

Now that I know the process I certainly won't let it happen again.  My complaint was that their process was totally unclear.  If it had been clear. It never would have happened.   There are some very self righteous people on this forum who seem to take great delight in belittling anyone who asks for help with any problem and who hasnt memorised every line of the entire t&C's or website etc.  There were several failings that were upheld including incorrect information on their website and incorrect information given to me by a branch manager! That is not just a moan.....that is totally unacceptable. 
I work in financial services and I know very well how bad the customer service can be and if you get it wrong,.as an organisation you have to be prepared to admit that. 
I was not prepared to let my family go into financial difficulties as a result of this.  Thank you to those to helped.  

p3ncilsharpener

joodlemcnoodle said:

Now that I know the process I certainly won't let it happen again.  My complaint was that their process was totally unclear.  If it had been clear. It never would have happened.   There are some very self righteous people on this forum who seem to take great delight in belittling anyone who asks for help with any problem and who hasnt memorised every line of the entire t&C's or website etc.  There were several failings that were upheld including incorrect information on their website and incorrect information given to me by a branch manager! That is not just a moan.....that is totally unacceptable. 
I work in financial services and I know very well how bad the customer service can be and if you get it wrong,.as an organisation you have to be prepared to admit that. 
I was not prepared to let my family go into financial difficulties as a result of this.  Thank you to those to helped.  

But you couldn't have avoided this situation, other than not going into an unauthorised OD in the first place.

Their text was not misleading, they did not say "pay in within 48 hours or we'll report it to the CRAs" they just said you needed to pay in within 48 hours.  The action they could have taken after that point was unspecified.

They backed down because it was not worth sacrificing £550 + wage costs for their employees dealing with this vs just changing the report and getting you to go away.

Technically they're in breach of the DPA, but I can't imagine you'll kick up a fuss about that...