Issue with wording on a settlement letter

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

So,

in summary - you think I'm wrong

However, when I offer evidence to be sent to you, you refuse and when I ask for evidence of your side, you cant give it


So, just to be clear, my point is:

This is a silly argument, the "evidence" is in every credit agreement that exists. The idea that a creditor will remove a marker in order to, "do a deal" is a myth, it just does not happen, it would not be worth the creditors while to breach the legislation and risk sanction by the ICO.

last post be me on this

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I dont think there is any statutory obligation on creditors to share account data, but their CRA subscriber contracts are likely to oblige them to share data under the 'principles of reciprocity', specifically:

"Data will be shared on the principle that subscribers receive the same credit performance level data that they contribute, and should contribute all such data available"

That said, I'm sure lenders can delete records on an exception basis and I doubt the CRAs ask too many questions.

Sorry missed this, I think this is probably correct, I doubt however that creditors doctor data it would be to risky, and why would they, I seem to remember seeing something under EU law which may apply, but as said it is irrelevant.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

This is a silly argument, the "evidence" is in every credit agreement that exists. The idea that a creditor will remove a marker in order to, "do a deal" is a myth, it just does not happen, it would not be worth the creditors while to breach the legislation and risk sanction by the ICO.

last post be me on this

I fail to see how it can be a silly argument, when I have provided evidence above that the creditors will alter data when it suits them?

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Is this a claim for a rebate of charges, if so there was possibly a situation where the account should not have been in default due to misapplied sums, in this case markers can be removed because as said earlier they should not have been there in the first place, this is a completely different scenario to one where there is an agreed F and F.

Hi,

No, it was not regards charges, they were taken to court re the enforceability of the agreement

They had an agreement they believed to be valid, that they were reporting late payments to, but rather than take the enforceability issue into a court room, they settled out of court including removing all negative data that they still maintained was valid

This conclusively proves my point that lenders are prepared to wipe data they hold as valid where it is in their own interests, and I do not believe there is a distinct difference between this situation and a F and F

It s clear that they are prepared to also break the terms of the DPA "Data shall be accurate" when it suits them, and if we have learnt anything from the years here on LB and "Over the road" it would be that creditors are more than happy to "bend" the law when it suits them

So:


1) There is NO law that compels the creditor to write data regarding a persons credit account to the CRA data (if there was, a whole heap of creditors would be in trouble)

2) Once they write data to CRA's, I agree wholeheartedly that the law compels them to ensure it is accurate, but as shown above, if it suits them, they will ignore this in order to broker a deal

3) Not every credit agreement states data will be written, and even those that do are more than likely written in such a way that the lender is in no way obliged to do so

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

So,

Hopefully, with the scan posted above I have shown this to be inaccurate (my bolding):

I have read many report of people getting data removed from their files, in reality it never happens, unless the data is incorrectly initially placed.

The data was correctly placed, however they were still willing to wipe it to broker a deal (and one that was distinctly unfavourable to them!)

-----

In any case, the debtor has nothing to lose in pressing for their credit files to be wiped of all negative data when negotiating a full and final settlement - but it is essential to be careful about wording - merely to mark a default as "satisfied" is not satisfactory.

[labman]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I'm finding it hard to read the photobucket info, but I think it says it will amend the data to reflect the zero balance and closure of the account.

In a F&F, this would be accurate reporting as the remaining balance is written off (extinguished as they say in Scotland). However, having done that, they may then mark the account as 'Satisfied' which is just as bad as a default. After that they will report nothing as the acocunt is closed and so there is nothing against which to report.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Hi Lab,

That is the crux of the scan above

And thats exactly as I said above - people need to make sure they get negative data wiped and not just a "satisfied" as I agree this wont help when it comes to credit applications.

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I can readily believe that creditors will delete entire account records as part of a full and final settlement, but I'm not so sure they would agree to 'sanitise' the data by removing only the negative history. This would leave what is arguably an inaccurate record on the file

Evidently, this is exactly what what the did agree it in the papers posted above but I note that there is a confidentially agreement included. To my mind, a confidentiality agreement requires that the CRA record is expunged as to record the settlement would break the agreement and to record anything else would be inaccurate.

[labman]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Hi Lab,

That is the crux of the scan above

And thats exactly as I said above - people need to make sure they get negative data wiped and not just a "satisfied" as I agree this wont help when it comes to credit applications.

But their reporting is still accurate in terms of the DPA as they state the account is closed. The real issue would be with the word satisfied. I see where you are coming from, and understand that totally, but the final effect is that you still won't be creditworthy for many things for 6 years, or until such time as data falls off the CRF. :beagle:

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

But their reporting is still accurate in terms of the DPA as they state the account is closed. The real issue would be with the word satisfied. I see where you are coming from, and understand that totally, but the final effect is that you still won't be creditworthy for many things for 6 years, or until such time as data falls off the CRF. :beagle:

In the scanned agreement above, it says that they will "sanitise the record... by removing any negative information". I take this to mean that they agreed to remove all late payment markers and the default date. This would have the effect of making the account look like it had been settled in the normal course of business, which it clearly wasn't. I cant imagine that this is typical of what they would agree to in a Full & Final settlement

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

In the scanned agreement above, it says that they will "sanitise the record... by removing any negative information". I take this to mean that they agreed to remove all late payment markers and the default date. This would have the effect of making the account look like it had been settled in the normal course of business, which it clearly wasn't. I cant imagine that this is typical of what they would agree to in a Full & Final settlement

Hi,

yes, that is exactly what happened, they removed all late payment markers and removed the record of a defaulted balance so the CRA report just read "Green" (payments made on time) all the way through to the last month where it read "Settled" with a 0 balance so it appeared as though the card had been paid off.

As for it not being typical of what would happen with a full and final settlement - I would agree with this, but only because most people are so happy to have received 75% (or whatever) off their debt (despite the fact that in most cases its via a debt purchasing company that will have still made on the deal!) that they fail to consider the consequences to their credit file.

"Settled" when recorded against a Defaulted account is, I agree, about as much use a chocolate fireguard.

I believe we should be advising people in all cases to request that the credit file is "sanitised" as a matter of course in any full and final settlement (as well as the obvious things such as not passing the account to any third party).

They can only say no, but if that is the case, the Debtor then has to make a decision as to whether it is worth paying that 25%?




I can only speak from my personal experience, but where this has been refused, I have not paid another penny toward any alleged debt as if the file cant be cleared there is nothing in it for me - I am quite prepared to ignore their "threat-o-grams" and file them should I require future reference such as in the unlikely event they file court action inside of the Statute Barred timeline.

In my case I have succesfully ignnored them all for in excess of 6 years and now have had 3 defaults drop off in the last few months - even with this, it is worth ensuring that they are sticking to the guidelines regards registering a default within 6 months of non payment/breakdown of relationship and then removing the default after 6 years.

I have made 2 ICO complaints regards incorrect default dates this year and had both upheld.

As I say, this is very much a personal choice - if you are the type to get upset every time the postman brings another threat-o-gram, then obviously this approach is not for you.

Obviously the 5% - 25% Full and Final settlement that also includes wiping the negative data is the ultimate goal as it clears the credit history sooner - the only reason I did not take this approachj with more of them is I had no real need for credit, and its actually been quite refreshing to live without it!

[littlebert8]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I still think that you have a better chance of getting the account deleted entirely i.e. it appears never to have existed, than you are to get a 'sanitised' record.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I still think that you have a better chance of getting the account deleted entirely i.e. it appears never to have existed, than you are to get a 'sanitised' record.

Sorry Bert,

I may have misunderstood you - you are quite right, there would seem to be a better chance of this as they then couldnt be accused of providing false data.

It's only since starting the above comments that I realised that they effectively put into a legal document they were prepared to break the data protection act to complete a settlement

[Guest]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

I have seen letters like this before.
Prior to the OFT ruling on charges for credit cards, creditors used to routinely settle claims for charges out of court, the payouts were in a similar form, I notice that the first line of the letter says something like ,"no further claims made against this account".

If charges are admitted to be unlawful then the account has to be restructured to reflect the position it would have been in had the charges had not been made, there is no data breach there. This is an entirely different scenario to one where a creditor is purported to make a deal in order to secure a full and final settlement.

[ncf355]

Re: Issue with wording on a settlement letter

Letters?

This is a Tomlin order, sealed by the court

Also, as said above, it was not regards charges, they were taken to court for a possible unenforceable agreement and settled out of court with a sealed Tomlin