Credit file showing default after F&F settlement

[dasby]

Hi Caggers,

 

The agreed written terms of my Full and Final Settlement for my debt with the Post Office Credit Card (Bank of Ireland) were

 

The balance would set to £0

CRA files would be marked to show the account as "satisfied" or "settled" in full

The account would be closed

 

All three to be actioned within 14 days after payment which was made two years ago.

 

I supposed I should have checked my CRA files sooner but I did so today and

 

found the balance is shown as £2100,

 

The status is "Default" and the account is still shown in the "Open Accounts" section.

 

I will write a complaint letter demanding that they modify the entry as agreed.

 

Do I have a legitimate claim for compensation on the ground that they made my credit rating files worse than they would otherwise have been?

 

I realise this could be tricky as the agreement was made with The Bank of Ireland who are based in the Republic of Ireland

so can I claim compensation under UK law because they operate the Post Office Credit Card here?

 

I will be grateful for your advice.

[dx100uk]

urm..

 

wherever did you ever get the notion that the default would not still show?

 

unless you SPECIFICALLY negotiated that they REMOVE the default, it will still show.

 

have you got written proof from them that they would comply

with bal of £0

marked as settled?

[dasby]

urm..

wherever did you ever get the notion that the default would not still show?

unless you SECIFICALLY negotiated that they REMOVE the default, it will still show.

 

have you got written proof from them that they would comply

with bal of £0

marked as settled?

 

Yes, they agreed in writing to reduce the balance to £0, mark the account as settled/satisfied and close the account.

It seems that I was under the (mistaken) belief that on closing the account the default would cease to show. I did not realise that I needed to negotiate its removal separately. Oops.

 

The account is now shown as open, default and balance £2100. Does this harm my credit rating more than if the account was marked closed, settled and £0 with the default history still showing?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Write to the Data Controller and ask for the default status to be removed, as it stand now the entry shows the accurate and up to date conduct of the account.

[dasby]

Write to the Data Controller and ask for the default status to be removed, as it stand now the entry shows the accurate and up to date conduct of the account.

Thank you, I will request for the default status to be removed.

I am puzzled as to why you say the entry shows accurate and up to date information when it should have been changed by the creditor two years ago in accordance with the terms of the f&f settlement.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The fact that it has not been amended does not affect the fact that it shows the accurate picture of the account, i.e., the account was defaulted and subsequently satisfied by a full and final payment, technically if the F&F was only partial the entry should show as "partially satisfied".

[dasby]

The fact that it has not been amended does not affect the fact that it shows the accurate picture of the account, i.e., the account was defaulted and subsequently satisfied by a full and final payment, technically if the F&F was only partial the entry should show as "partially satisfied".

 

My aim with f&f settlements was for the CRA entries to change to:

 

Settled or Satisfied in full.

Zero balance

Account closed

Default status removed

No "partially satisfied" note.

 

I failed to include the last point in the settlement terms as the creditors agreed to mark CRA registers "Settled or Satisfied in Full". How is it that an entry can comply with that stipulation and also show "partially satisfied". Can it be both? I am confused (not for the first time, according to my wife).

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The F&F is an agreement between creditor and debtor, the CRA file entry has to show an up to date reflection of the status of the account.

 

 

In the case of an F&F less than the outstanding balance it is inaccurate to state that the default has been satisfied.

 

 

A creditor/debt purchaser may agree to amend the entries but the debtor must ensure that he/she has " covered all the bases".

 

 

Some DCAs/DPs state that they cannot state that a partial settlement must be recorded as such to comply with the ICOs guidance on defaults,

[dasby]

Mmm, so are you saying that the creditor agreed to mark the account as settled/satisfied in full but is prevented from complying? i.e. they cannot remove the default status unless the debt is paid in full.

My view is that a full and final settlement comprising a partial payment plus the balance being written off by the creditor = settlement in full. Therefore the default is satisfied by contributions from both sides. How does OFT guidance contradict this view?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There are at least 3 DCAs stating this I'll call it a theory at present that the account status must be reported exactly, and to do otherwise will breach data protection rules.

 

 

This is not OFT guidance the Credit Reference Agencies are regulated under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

It is clear that a partial payment in full & final settlement does on partially satisfy the default so there is merit in the claim that 'partially satisfied' is the accurate picture of the conduct of the account.

 

 

I will look further in to this.

[dasby]

Thank you, it may help others who are negotiating F&F's now.

[dasby]

There are at least 3 DCAs stating this I'll call it a theory at present that the account status must be reported exactly, and to do otherwise will breach data protection rules.

 

 

This is not OFT guidance the Credit Reference Agencies are regulated under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

It is clear that a partial payment in full & final settlement does on partially satisfy the default so there is merit in the claim that 'partially satisfied' is the accurate picture of the conduct of the account.

 

 

I will look further in to this.

 

Hi Brigadier

 

Would you update please.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The information provided in post 10# is what is happening creditors/DCAs are saying that partial (F&F) settlements must b recorded as such to show the true picture of the conduct of the account.

The ICO Guidance seems back this up too.

[dasby]

Does your information mean that I cannot take any action to ensure the creditor applies all the f&f settlement terms?

 

The creditor's legal department agreed that receipt of the payment would form a binding contract where they would carry out the following:

 

The balance would set to £0 (it continues to show £1200)

 

Within 14 days all CRA files would be marked to show the account as satisfied or settled in full. (That was two years ago, the account continues to only show default)

 

The account would be closed (it is still in the open accounts section of the CRA reports).

 

Do I have any reasonable grounds for claiming compensation?

[dx100uk]

what is the date of the default?

 

dx

[dasby]

Date of default July 2011

Date of agreed f&f settlement terms and the 40% agreed f&f payment - March 2012

Since then every month shows account still open, DF, balance history £2100, Limit history £5000

[dx100uk]

ah so a good few years to wait hen.

 

pers i'd give it a go and

 

write to them and

ask if they can

removed the default

£0 the balance

mark it settled

 

no harm in asking

[dasby]

write to them and ask if they can

removed the default

£0 the balance

mark it settled

 

no harm in asking

 

Thanks for the advice DX but

 

it seems a bit wishy washy to simply ask "if they can" make the changes when you consider the situation.

 

They agreed to accept the money as a f&f settlement following which they would make three specific changes to the CRA status.

 

They took the money and failed to make any of the changes which has resulted in my credit status being worse

than it should have been for the past two years.

 

In addition the third party who provided the funds would have offered less if the creditor had attempted to negotiate less favourable terms.

 

Bottom line is that they took the money and failed to complete their side of the f&f agreement, to my detriment.

[dx100uk]

then point those things out in relation to what you want to happen.

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Does your information mean that I cannot take any action to ensure the creditor applies all the f&f settlement terms?

 

The creditor's legal department agreed that receipt of the payment would form a binding contract where they would carry out the following:

 

The balance would set to £0 (it continues to show £1200)

 

Within 14 days all CRA files would be marked to show the account as satisfied or settled in full. (That was two years ago, the account continues to only show default)

 

The account would be closed (it is still in the open accounts section of the CRA reports).

 

Do I have any reasonable grounds for claiming compensation?

 

 

 

 

The regulator (the Information Commissioners Office) has said the CRA Files Must show accurate and up to date data, which means an accurate picture of the conduct of the account, so a partial settlement agreed as full and final between the parties i.e. CRA file marked as " partially satisfied" the CRAs present data in different ways one may show the default date and the date the default was partially satisfied, another may show no default date ( although the status of the account is still "default) the date of the partial settlement.

 

 

IF a settlement is made the data controller of the account must up date the files within a reasonable time to ensure that the data is up to date and accurate, if this does not happen you would need to contact the data controller in writing and require them to suitably amend the file entry.

 

 

Basically it is not the creditor/DCAs choice of how the data is comprised and displayed.