Vanquis GDPR DMPs and Credit Reference Agencies

[Peterbard]

The problem was with a Vanquis Credit card agreement. When I was asked too have a look it was with a DMP Payplan. It had been therefor about seven years in total.

 

The record on Equadebt showed a D, but previously it was that of an active account, it was changed in march this year to reflect a defaulted status.

There two othermain agencies also showed a default.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Dodgeball
other

[fkofilee]

Hey DB

 

I dont fully understand your post. 

 

Are you saying all 3 entries on the CRAs are different in some aspect? Equifax specifically? 

What are the default dates on all 3?

[Peterbard]

The accounts were seemingly not defaulted until this year, however they should have been defaulted in 2013.

There had been some pretence that the account was still live.

 

The account had been on the CRAs either as under an arrangement or as a working account, complete with balance, credit limit etc. That was until this year , for some reason(probably impending sale) it was changed to A "D.".

 

All three CSA registered the same default, Call Credit, Equifax etc

 

HERE is the letter I sent after the final decision, to tie up some loose ends.

 

 Dear Rose McNulty  

  

Thank your letter dated 7th November 2019 which I have read.  

Thank you for confirming the account should have been defaulted, in 2013 and that therefore any notice of an agreement should be removed from my file.  

The reason being , I had not attempted to repay my debt, the entry would by now have been expunged. So, in fact I am being sanctioned for doing my best to pay, this contravenes the first principle, which says processing must be fair.  

 

“You must use personal data in a way that is fair. This means you must not process the data in a way that is unduly detrimental, unexpected or misleading to the individuals concerned.” 

 

In any case as said in the earlier letter, the new payments regime would take an inordinately long time to repay. Certainly, over six years. 

Your final result letter agrees with this. You are of course correct in saying there is still money due to yourselves under the defaulted agreement  

As an aside, A repayment plan through A dept. Management company does not qualify as a new contract. This is a voluntary agreement on all sides, please see their T and Cs for further information. Nor could such a major transformation without a new contract be regarded as a variation.  

You are of course free to sue at any time, equally my payments could be withheld, But it is not a contractual breach. Unless you are saying I somehow entered into a New one.  

  

I look forward to my credit file being updated on the 14.  

  

Regards  

 

I will post the final decision when I work out how to hide the Names etc.

 

Sorry not sure if I answered your question. I always check all agencies, it confirms that the error derived from the creditor and not just some glitch .

[fkofilee]

Right so Vanquis should have defaulted after 3 - 6 months after Default Notice being issued.

Tell me more about the original complaint and what happened.

[Peterbard]

Well yes and no.

 

About 7 years ago her husband passed away leaving many debts , there was also a vanquish CC, which was hers, this one. 

 

She wanted to pay  them all off, all unsecured. She inquired about a DMP with pay plan and they contacted all her creditors, which suited her at the time. At least she was able to pay her mortgage and live. and, to be fair the plan ran well.

 

But many of the cards had not been defaulted in fact her card had no missed payments at all, this was also added to the plan.

 

As time went on she began to watch her credit score and was pleased to the other debts drop off after six years from commencing the plan, except for this Vanquis one.

 

On looking I could see that Vanquis had not treated her account as terminated or defaulted at al. They had continued to send her monthly statements, including the miniscule amounts she was paying on her DMP.

The creditor had however withdrawn her right of draw down, and stopped her card.

 

She initially complained to the CRA, they sent her the usual letter saying, in brief it was not down to them. They had no authority to change the data without the creditors instruction, which sadly is true. The creditor had however withdrawn her right of draw down, and stopped her card.

 

For completeness, in  the meantime I had renegotiated the repayments being made through Pay plan, and she was now paying £1.99 A month on that account. She had developed severe health problems.

 

However her credit file was bothering her, as it was getting quite acceptable except for this one account.

 

As you see a success, it seems that this method may have legs for someone in a similar position.

 

Maybe

 

1. I have another coming through which is also successful, think I mentioned it.

 

Scan Vanquis redacted.pdf

[Peterbard]

Thanks for the tidy up.

 

One of the major reasons why advisers would shy away from suggesting DMPs was the factthat the credit info on aplan would remain after a default would have been deleted.

 

To my mind this disproves that this still applies, if it ever did. The fairness issue is also useful because if it fail under GDMP it can be actioned under 140a of the CCA.

[fkofilee]

Call me daft  - I thought you needed help. 

From looking at that  - They did the right thing to correct it. It should have now disappeared from all 3 CRAs... Right?

 

 

[dx100uk]

4 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

One of the major reasons why advisers would shy away from suggesting DMPs was the fact that the credit info on a plan would remain after a default would have been deleted.

 

you've got me puzzled here … that breaks the whole ICO principle...

 

The Information Commisioners Office says:
.
All references to a defaulted debt must be removed from your credit files after 6 years 
has passed from date of default, whether paid off, paying now or not. 
.
{the WHOLE ACCOUNT WILL VANISH, never to return}.
.
{however, this does not mean the debt itself is not still owed}
.
This is so that someone who continues paying something 
- even after 6 years from default 
- should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing after default 
and ends up with a clean file after 6 years. 
.
NOTE: {the bracketed text is not Information Commisioners Office guideline but my clarification ] 

 

 

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed, but that paragraph does not exist under Gdpr.

 

It is only implied under principle 1al . The removal of the provision, coincided with creditors extending the periods as above

 

Coincidence ?

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

On 23/11/2019 at 20:58, fkofilee said:

Call me daft  - I thought you needed help. 

From looking at that  - They did the right thing to correct it. It should have now disappeared from all 3 CRAs... Right?

 

 

Your daft.

[Peterbard]

Another similar one, this time originally Aqua.

 

The account sent to a DMP, not defaulted at all,  The debtor saw it coming and arranged the dmp, before it was defaulted.

 

This was in 2013, 2014 the debt was defaulted whilst it had been on the DMP, the debtor had not missed any payments, and the DMP was properly agreed with Aqua.

 

Six years on from the  DMP coming into force and both markers are still there, one for the default and one for being on a DMP.

 

Lowell's, the debt purchaser say however that the markers will come off next year.

 

This is incorrect as the DMP marker should come off this year, and the default marker should never have been put on in the first place.

[dx100uk]

GDPR is nothing to do with surely.

 

and those ico guidelines were in-force at the time the DMP were entered into.

the DMP was still a short payment i'e not meeting the agreement signed upto

 

so both are a good case for arguing a default notice should have been issued at the time of the third payment that didn't meet the agreement and a defaulted date registered in the debt summary.

I then to always suggest people totally ignore the calendar markers as no-one can see them bar the debtor or the debt owner.

[Peterbard]

Hi Dx, thanks for your input.

 

My understanding is that if a payment agreement is agreed with the creditor, no D should be added. The principles remain the same and there is no getting around the fact that data must be fair.
From the Guidance to CRAs produced by ICO

A default should not be filed:
 If you make a payment, in time, that fully meets the terms set out in the default notice
 If jointly with the lender an agreement is reached for an arrangement and you keep to the terms of that arrangement
 If the amount outstanding is solely made up of fees or charges
 If a lender is given evidence that a customer is deceased (for example a verifiable death certificate, probate or letter of administration)

 

The arrangement was through a DMP.And it was clear that it would be long standing

[fkofilee]

What human does and robot does are 2 different things  

They have to default it at somepoint otherwise it would never disappear - AP Markers...

[Peterbard]

Well no, the AP marker should be removed from the file also after six years.

Otherwise it would be an additional sanction for trying to repay the loan. When after a default the period was only six years.

[dx100uk]

no, as numerous threads here regarding AP already shows, AP stays for anything upto 12yrs and kills the score and the account thus remains on file.

a default notice should have been issued after the 3rd payment which did not meet the org payment terms of the signed agreement.

 

the ico is even down on record stating the same about this AP marker, it should not keep an account showing on credit files nor effect one's score whereby otherwise it would now have been removed or the score improved after 6yrs

[Peterbard]

 

DX. That is what this thread is about, they should not. The third missed payment is when a temporary arrangement is defaulted. Read the peace I quoted from the ICO. creditor will fix this by 

 

t may be that the creditor will fix this by retrospectively adding the DN at the point the arrangement was made. But the point is they cannot record the AP after six years.

•  

From the Guidance to CRAs produced by ICO

A default should not be filed:
 If you make a payment, in time, that fully meets the terms set out in the default notice
 If jointly with the lender an agreement is reached for an arrangement and you keep to the terms of that arrangement

Read the letter from vanquis.

 

So even if the marker(AP) is not defaulted you can still complain and have it removed.

[dx100uk]

An AP marker is not a default it's not covered by default rules nor the 6yrs rule

its simply an on going marker that records the management of the account in the calendar section

the account is not closed so creditors are quite legally able to use it following 6yrs as its simply monthly status flag.

it however kills credit

 

it should not be used longterm nor to replace the need for a default notice to be issued

 

This is so that someone who continues paying something 
- even after 6 years from AP
- should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing 
and ends up with a clean file after 6 years. 

[Peterbard]

No it seems they are not legally able to do it, this is the point.

 

Whether the marker is after a default or instead of it, it is just as harmful perhaps moreso and carrying it beyond that period is unfair.

If you went on to default that arrangement, then that s a different matter.

 

I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you, but it is in the debtors interest, and I think a salient point.

I know that the advice has always been to let the account default. I dont think that this is needed anymore.

[Peterbard]

GDPR rules What is fairness.

 

What is fairness?

 

In order to assess whether or not you are processing personal data fairly, you must consider more generally how it affects the interests of the people concerned – as a group and individually.

 

If you have obtained and used the information fairly in relation to most of the people it relates to but unfairly in relation to one individual, there will still be a breach of this principle.

 

[Peterbard]

I am currently commencing a Harassment action against vanquis, concerning 2 vanquis accounts put on a DMP in 2011.

 

I have previously managed to get both these account defaulted and then the default moved back to 2012.

 

Despite both accounts maintain agreed payment, the company have falsified missed payments in order torepalce the account and add a d marker within two years of the current date.

 

I recently had the Ombudsman advise them to remove an again re appearing D and pay £100. Two days later the D appears on the husbands account stating missed payment's. Coincidence?

 

Three times they have PROMISED to keep the record clear on these accounts.

Despite having to act on the last occasion they have not contacted the debtors with any explication.

Forgive me but this needs sorting now, whatever it takes, they are taking the piss.

 

It suits them to pretend the account is active, so they pretend it has not been defaulted, they even send statutory notices to enforce the belief, then when it comes they want to sell the account, they are stuck, so they have to invent some reason to default.

 

 

[Peterbard]

On 08/05/2021 at 16:56, dx100uk said:

a D in the calendar section cannot be reported in the summary/information section about a debt as default.

it is NOT ... no DN has ever been issued to allow that. it would be reported there as late payment if at all. 

 

DX. I really think you should try and get your head around this. The buisiness, does not have to send a section 87 CCA part v default / chance to pay part v notice to register a default. 

 

The D on your credit file and on the calendar section which reports the state of the account with codes, for instance P D U to illustrate whether the account is now in default, that would be the D. This marker only shows that there has been a "Breakdown" in the contractual relationship and nothing more. Summary info, does in fact show accounts which are in default, as it effects your score. Nothing on you credit file effects enforcement, just your credit score.