Can I Sue Natwest For Wrong Information On My Credit File Causing Adverse Rates

[fendyweather]

Hi there, I have just found out from getting hold of copies of my credit file, that for the last 5 years Natwest Bank have had an entry on my file showing a default for £878. This default was my husbands on a Natwest Credit Card in May 2002, and since then every time we have gone for loans or finance i.e. car finance for two different cards, credit cards, changed over our mortgage 3 times in that time to three different lenders, they have all said to us that technically we were adverse credit people, and thus as a result we have had to take loans and remortgages at higher rates than the normal high street interest rate. This has cost us dearly of the last 5 years, and whilst we are perfectly solvent with no other adverse credit or anything, this one entry by Natwest has cost us dearly. This default was paid off with them in full just over a month later, and has been SATISFIED ever since. So default issued in May 2002, and the default paid off in full in early July 2002, but yet it has still shown on our credit file as we owe them £878. It doesnt show that it was ever satisfied. I wrote to Natwest last week and they have replied to me today saying it is entirely their fault and that yes it was satisfied in full shortly after the default was issued. They apologised and said it was down to computer updates and administrative updates that had not been passed on. As a result we have been having to take finance and remortgages at higher rates because we were shown to be a bad risk because of this incorrect Natwest entry on my husbands credit file. Can anybody advise if we can sue the Natwest or anything similar to get some kind of compensation for this as it is their fault entirely that they have stuffed up our credit file for the last five years and cost us more than it should have when changing over our mortgage and getting car finance etc. Is there anything we can do to claim any kind of compensation from them. Our mortgage adviser is willing to produce a letter for us stating that we have had to take higher than normal rates with non high street lenders, i.e. Southern Pacific etc. because we were bad risk because of the incorrect Natwest entry on our file for the last five years. Based on this, is there anything we can do to bring Natwest to account. I think it shoddy that we are just prepared to accept a simple apology in writing from them, when what I really want is some financial recompense for this. IF THE BOOT WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT THEY WOULD BE TAKING CHARGES FROM OUR ACCOUNT WITH THEM LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTRE. Can we do anything about this at all ???? Im prepared to instruct a solicitor if necessary so long as we have a water tight case against them. HELP. Any advice or info much appreciated. In whatever form. ??

[SHERLOCK]

I have read of this, you will have to check out the default, I think they give you a set time, 30 days or something to pay the sum and then issue the Default.

Are they owning up to the fact it should have shown as satisfied or that the default should not have been issued?

If it is the latter, there are threads on here where people are suing for increased rates due to incorrect default (if the default was placed correctly, but consists purely of unlawful charges, this can be pursued and the same outcome, sue the bank

 

Will get back with those links.

[fendyweather]

Hi again, the default is lawful in that he genuinely defaulted on his credit card, but he paid it off in full 42 days after it was issued, i.e. settled it in full. So the default showing on there is valid, but the fact that they still showed the amount outstanding to them is what I am complaining about. When I asked my financial adviser he said, the default in itself wasnt the problem, it was the fact that it was still showing as outstanding that had cost us dearly. If it had been shown at the correct time, as SATISFIED, i.e. balance nil, then we would still have got credit with normal high street lenders at normal rates and not have had to pay over the odds for the last five years. Based on this, is there anything I can do. Im looking for some sort of recompense in monetary terms as to what weve had to spend over the last 5 years in higher interest rates on mortgage and car finance. Thanks for any help. Very very much appreciated.

[SHERLOCK]

You will have to get gospel on the default/satisfied situation (I don't know).

Clearly this has to be proven one way or the other in order to proceed as this is what your claim is founded upon.

Have you checked your statements to see if the charges outweigh the default amount?

[fendyweather]

Yes because weve been paying way over the odds, interest rate wise on a mortgage for the last five years and on two different car finance deals the extra interest weve been paying on these far outweights the original default of 878. ?

[SHERLOCK]

No, wot is meant by charges, refers to any unlawful charges i.e. direct debit refusals, overlimit fees, exceeding overdraft fees etc. that were made by your bank.

If the charges when tallied up, exceed the defaulted amount, I believe (I'm still checking) this would mean you could apply to get the default removed and/or it shouldn't have been there in the first place and thus you start a claim for this.

If the default was placed correctly, and it is the 'satisfied' part that was solely responsible for your inreased rates, then you may also have a claim?

Again someone should come along to state the facts of this, I'm not sure

[fendyweather]

Hi again, thanks for the info. Still considering........................ Sorry, not clear on what you meant. The defaulted account was a Natwest Mastercard with a defaulted balance of 878. The charges Im referring to, are not charges as such but what I mean is, the fact we have had to pay a higher interest rate on car loans and remortgages with other financial institutions, not Natwest, has meant that because they failed to show our defaulted mastercard as satisfied, this meant on our credit file, we were shown as a bad risk, hence why we could only approach higher than normal charge institutions for finance. So we havent been charged by Natwest is what Im saying, Im saying the fact they didnt show the debt as SATISFIED on our credit file, it has affected us getting finance ever since, because our file shows we are a bad risk because of the Natwest entry showing the amount of 878 still outstanding. Do you get me ?? Sorry, Im not very clear.

[SHERLOCK]

Hiya Fendy,

 

First of all you have to find where it states that if the 'satisfied' was written onto your file this would have resulted in a lower rate, do not take your financial advisors word as right(although it could well be). If this is the case then I would say you could start a claim.

 

Second, if you find above NOT to be the case, then you should check your statements to see if the bank have levied charges to your account (these are being shown to be unlawful and wholly reclaimable). Thus if the amount of charges to be reclaimed is in excess of the default amount, you can claim that the Default was placed incorrectly in the first place and if this is the case I would say you could also start a claim.

 

Hope this helps but do read around, there are lots of advice in all sections to help you.

[ClintMccutcheon]

To my knowledge, with regards to mortgages, the fact that the debt is satisfied can make a difference, ie northern rock will specify - no unsatisfied defaults in the last 2 months and no satisfied defaults in the last 24 months etcetera.

 

So on that front (secured credit) i rekon it could have made a difference.

 

Personally, id go all out to get the default removed via the DPA S.10 Notice, as part of that add in the bit that 'they cocked up and never marked it as satisfied' as your damages and undue distress.

 

At the same time incorporate your damages into the claim (work out how much extra youve paid on your mortgage due to the default being there full stop, let alone not set as satisfied) and try to hit them with the whole lot.

 

Good luck

Clint