What's better?

JamieJ89

So, in summary I had an account with Satsuma Loans, who are now in administration.

This was opened in 2015, with a dormat debt / balance sat on the account from early 2016. I made a complaint that the debt should have been defaulted in line with the FCA Guidance of 3-6 missed payments and not continually recorded as a missed payment.

They rejected it citing the following:

A default would have put you in a worse position overall and once that would have removed the missed payments would still be there as they also have to stay on for six years so we have not impacted your credit report at all. When a default is removed from a credit report that does not mean the full loan history is removed it just means the default is removed. The settled date remains on until six years have passed and so do missed payments.

Is it worth referring to the Ombudsman? The balance was cleared at the end of 2021, and so the 6 year clock commences from this date rather than the date it should have been defaulted from, so surely this puts me in a worse position? Appreciate they are in administration but the complaint response email states that I can escalate this.

How would this be viewed with lenders - I will be applying for a mortgage later this year, so looking to minimise the impact where possible.

Thanks in advance.

[Deleted User]

A default would far better. Their response is completely wrong.

JamieJ89

Great, thanks for your speedy response. I will escalate this to the FOS.

[Deleted User]

A default in 2016 would have meant the default would have been removed from your record this year. By refusing to default it and recording missed payments, it's likely to stay on there. Do note while the FOS are customer biased, they can't force a firm to follow what is purely guidance on missed payments and it will likely take some time to clear through their backlog