11 years ago I was taken seriously ill and due to the illness I lost my job and ended up in a financial mess resulting in my house being repossessed.

Thankfully my health has stabalised and I'm now starting to get to grips with my financial mess.

Having checked my credit reports I noticed Natwest were reporting missed payments each month on two mortgages and a loan and hadn't recorded any of the defaults or CCJ's.

I lodged a complaint with Natwest which they upheld due to inaccurate reporting of my credit file when one mortgage and loan had been paid off with a full a final settlement and the other mortgage had resulted in a repossession.

To compensate me for inaccurate reporting over the past 8 years they've sent a cheque for £125 which I don't believe is adequate.

However,

whats more worrying is that they have now listed the mortgage shortfall as an outstanding mortgage even though the property was repossessed over 7 years ago.

While I don't dispute the amount is outstanding I didn't think they could report the outstanding balance once the account had been defaulted and subsequently repossessed.

Am I correct or are Natwest allowed to register the mortgage shortfall in this way on my credit file ?

Thanks

have you made any contact or made any payments in that time.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387506-Mortgage-shortfalls-Lender-should-not-pursue-under-CML-policy

if it was defaulted more than 6yrs ago

and you can prove it

the sum should not be showing

the other defaults and CCJ's are not showing as they've reached their 6th birthday

why not this one?

Thanks for the reply.

The other loans and CCJ's aren't showing anymore as they were past the 6 year mark which I pointed out to the bank so they updated their records with the correct default dates etc and had the records removed from my credit file.

The house was repossessed over 7 years ago (I have all the paperwork) and Natwest have only just added the shortfall to my credit file in the last week when they were sorting out the mess they had made on my credit file.

My point was that once the mortgage had been defaulted I didn't think they could report the shortfall as a new debt as its the same defaulted account or am I wrong ?

well eitherway it should not be showing as it was defaulted more than 6yrs ago.

With mortgage company's being able to chase up to 12 years for shortfalls etc ( not 6 as in other debts)

Wouldn't it be reflected in the time it can appear on a credit report?

I would of thought so.

Its only a voluntary agreement between SOME lenders.it is not binding in legislation.

12 years for shortfalls

6 years for interest

If you owe mortgage capital

Mortgage capital is the money you originally borrowed.

For this part of a mortgage shortfall debt,

the lender has 12 years to use court action to make you pay.

This is under section 20 (1) of the Limitation Act.

If you owe interest

Mortgage interest is the interest you were charged to borrow the money.

Your lender may also charge interest after your home is sold.

For this part of a mortgage shortfall debt,

the lender has six years to use court action to make you pay.

This is under section 20 (5) of the Limitation Act.

And tho is on the financial ombudsmans website.

case study 2

Mrs J’s house was repossessed and sold, leaving a £40,000 shortfall.

She agreed a repayment plan

- but after a year, she stopped making payments.

When the lender contacted her 11 years later, they asked her to repay the remaining shortfall debt.

Mrs J said it was unfair to be asked for the money after so long.

But the reason the lender hadn’t contacted her was because she’d moved house, and hadn’t told them her new address.

The lender got in touch as soon as they traced her

- and we thought it was reasonable for them to ask her to repay the shortfall

Link http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/mortgages-shortfall-case-studies.html#d

I am no financial whizz, but if the house was repossessed and later sold the Mortgage may not have been repaid immediately, esp as any shortfall would then be responsibility of OP, prob for further 6yrs from date of sale.

I bow to Sgt Bush's research.

but regardless

any debt only shows for 6yrs from a default

the matter of the limitations act or the agreement terms have no bearing whatsoever on CRA time limits for it showing or not.

the shortfall should not be showing -it is not a sep debt.

if NatWest have not asked for the shortfall to be repaid in writing to date, pers i'd be keeping quite...

till 12yrs expires then kick up another stink.

if/if not its payable is another matter, but as NatWest were one of the signatories of the CML agreement again I think not.

Thanks for the replies.

The shortfall is due and I've been in communication with Natwest more or less constantly about the debt and am making every effort to pay it.

My concern was that they seemed to have once again screwed my credit file by reporting the shortfall as a new debt.

So add a note of correction/explanation to all CRAfiles containing this debt. It will have no effect other than to inform future searchers.

IMO no repo shortfall (outstanding loan-sale price) can occur before sale of repossessed Property, which may take several months.

complain again

I’ve spoken to Infomation Commissioners Office and they’ve confirmed under the Data Protection Act the debt shouldn’t have been Re registered

I’m going to issue another complaint

I've had an ongoing battle with Natwest since September last year when I discovered they'd been reporting missed payments on various loan and mortgage accounts that had been settled 9 years previously. (I only discovered when I was rejected for a property based on credit checks).

After Natwest refused to correct the errors for various reasons I took my case to the Financial Ombudsman who ruled in my favour after Natwest admitted they'd misplaced a lot of my records and made errors on my accounts.

The ombudsman ordered Natwest to correct the mistakes on my credit file and recommended compensation of £300 which I rejected.

I then took the case to the Information Commissioners Office who also found Natwest was in breach of the DPA under the first and fourth principals of the Act (Fairness and Accuracy) but decided not to issue any fines as Natwest have assured them it was a series of errors etc.

I'm now looking to obtain some compensation from Natwest for the 9 years of incorrect reporting, the loss of the property and more importantly the stress I've had from Sept last year to June this year trying to get them to sort the mess out when they refused.

I've spoken to a couple of solicitors who have said that while I seem to have a strong case they would want around £3,000 to prepare a court case and Natwest would probably settle out of court so I would end up paying the solicitors fees out of any compensation.

My question is, is it possible to claim for compensation without a solicitor, if so how, and how much do I ask for. (I'm not even expecting £3,000 in total !)

Any advice you can give is much appreciated.

Yes. You absolutely don't need a solicitor. You can do this yourself – especially as the FOS has upheld your complaint and so has the ICO.

I suggest that you begin by sending NatWest an SAR and also one to the FOS.

Although you already have the decisions from the FOS and the ICO, this extra preparation and extra information gathering will put you in a much better position.

Also, start reading about the steps on how to bring a small claim in the County Court.

Finally please can you start to tell us the entire story in a bullet pointed chronology so that we understand exactly what you've been through. Also could you let out what losses or expenses you been put to as a result of this.

Incidentally, the advice that you have been given by a solicitor who said that you will have to pay their fees out of the money which is finally negotiated from the bank is a load of rubbish. Any solicitor worth their salt would make sure that the deal included the cost of making the complaint against the bank.

The trouble with most solicitors is that they are limp wristed, they want to push paper around, and they don't really have the experience or the aggression. You on the other hand of anger, grudge and you are motivated to do the job properly. So are we

Thanks BankFodder, I certainly have the anger and the time to take this as far as I can !

I'll put everything together in a chronological order in a separate message as soon as I've typed it all up.

I request the SAR from Natwest last week (after explaining to the complaints handler that I didn't need to submit the request on writing or to a particular department and suggested she obtained some training on the matter!)

I got the impression the solicitors I've spoken to just didn't want to take on Natwest.

Also, as you've been here since 2010, I obviously don't need to remind you to read our customer services guide and implement the advice there before you make phone calls. You will already have done that won't you?

I think you could also post up in PDF format the decision of the ombudsman and also the decision of the ICO please

Old and new thread megred for full history