NatWest and Moorcroft - default successfully removed

[DoTheyMeanMe]

So now we open-up yet another battle front with Nat West Bank (again, on behalf of a friend).

When the excrement hit the windmill back in 2006, Nat West defaulted three bank accounts. Only one was reported as defaulted on the credit files. Moorcroft were soon appointed as the DCA.

In March 2008 Moorcroft decided to record the two missing DNs with all three CRAs, but dated them as March 2008, some 16 months after the actual default date. This has just recently come to light.

I wrote to Nat West about this and also to all three DCAs, enclosing a copy of my Nat West letter. Nat West replied with, "In order for us to fully review your accounts please forward us a copy of your credit file along with any other documents you feel appropriate". I replied that copies of credit files were not available so they should contact the CRAs themselves for this information. I also said (to the effect) check your records and put your mistakes right as the law requires.

Four weeks after my letters to them, the DCAs suppressed the relevant info or marked it as in dispute.

Yesterday a letter arrived from Experian saying, "RBS confirm the details we hold are accurate and ask that we keep the information on our database. They state that the default is correct as the balance outstanding still remains on the account".

The account balance has not (yet) been disputed, it is the default dates that are wrong. As the correct default dates are over six years ago the accounts should no longer show on the CRA files.

This would give my friend a 80% credit score rather than the 20% she has now. She is keen to re-mortgage her house as her current mortgage is with Nat West.

I have copies of the DNs, dated December 2006.

So, what is the best way forward now, bearing in mind that the primary obhective is to get her credit files cleaned as soon as possible?

[vint1954]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Title altered.

It is a difficult and drawn out process to get credit files altered.

I would be writing to the data controller at Nat West, advising them that their agents Morecroft have added untrue data to your CRA files with regard to the date of the defaults. The data must clearly be accurate which it is not.

Tell them they must respond in 14 days, or you will lodge an official complaint with the ICO.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Just checked some dates:

19th February - NatWest letter to me asking for more info.
21st Feb - Experian letter saying NatWest say the default is correct.

I have to assume they asked me for more info on the same date they told Experian the default was valid.

Complaint letter has gone to the Data Controller today, giving him/her fourteen days before I involve the ICO.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

I wrote to the Data Controller at Nat West and have just received a reply dated 8th March.

They are 'continuing to gather information about your case ..... hoping to provide a full response with 4 weeks'.

That will be over 10 weeks since my first complaint and all they have to do is look at the copy DNs I sent and change the data.

[Riz]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

By DNs I assume you mean s87 CCA1974 ones?

Were you paying or in an arrangement for some time after that.

A s87 default notice and recording a default on your credit report are not the same thing, and do not have the same criteria. Sometimes they coincide closely, but not always, depending on the history of the account.

[nightwatch]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Wat Nest don't do easy! they sit think about it then send a letter saying they are gathering info. they then look at THEIR facts, send a gobledygook letter that says nothing,just hope to put you off, then look for someone to blame should you take it further. good luck Nw

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

By DNs I assume you mean s87 CCA1974 ones?

One was a s.87 for a loan account. The other was a s.76 & s.98 for a current account overdraft (Overdraft 1). There was another overdraft (Overdraft 2) defaulted at the same time - correctly recorded by the CRAs - and now gone from her CRA files.

Were you paying or in an arrangement for some time after that.

An arrangement was made for one monthly payment to cover all three but payments were never credited to 'Overdraft 2', so it is now SB.

'Overdraft 1' was credited with the full payment for about 18 months - up until 2008. From that point the full amount was credited to the loan account until payments were stopped a couple of months ago as it is UE (misfiled agreement).

A s87 default notice and recording a default on your credit report are not the same thing, and do not have the same criteria. Sometimes they coincide closely, but not always, depending on the history of the account.

To summarise:
One overdraft default issued in 2006, reported in 2006 and now gone from CRA files.
One overdraft default issued 2006 but not reported until 2008 so still showing on CRA files.
One loan default issued 2006 but not reported until 2008 so still showing on CRA files.

All three DNs came together with one covering letter with the same date in Dec 2006.

So, am I wrong in thinking that the DNs dated 2006 should have dropped-off her credit file by now?

Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Ahh that's different.

The defaults will stay for +2 years as the s.87 is different to the CRA data recorded.

You can be in default (s.87/88) but in an arrangement thus the CRA record is entirely different.

A good example is an OD. You can be a grand overdrawn, the bank demand repayment, you can't afford it so you agree to £25pm to be repaid. They've already defaulted you (s.87/88) but you now pay £25 for a year. Then you stop paying....

The CRA record would show the arrears and repayment marker for a year then move to default status at the point the agreement failed.

Make sense...

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Ahh that's different.

The defaults will stay for +2 years as the s.87 is different to the CRA data recorded.

You can be in default (s.87/88) but in an arrangement thus the CRA record is entirely different.

A good example is an OD. You can be a grand overdrawn, the bank demand repayment, you can't afford it so you agree to £25pm to be repaid. They've already defaulted you (s.87/88) but you now pay £25 for a year. Then you stop paying....

The CRA record would show the arrears and repayment marker for a year then move to default status at the point the agreement failed.

Make sense...

Thanks Niddy.

Maybe I still haven't got my head around this yet because I cannot quite reconcile what you say with the facts. Please make an allowance for us hard-of-thinking.

History ......

One monthly payment of £55 was agreed (through the CAB) and made from Dec 2006 to March 2008. This was to pay-off all three debts. The 'Overdraft 2' default was reported to the CRAs. Moorcroft allocated all £55 to 'Overdraft 1'. This o/d was still charging interest so the £55 reduced it by £9 a month. The other account balances did not change.

Move-on to March 2008 - payments became unaffordable so back to CAB. Payment dropped to £10 a month to pay all three debts. Moorcroft now started allocating it all (the £10) to just the loan account and reported the defaults on the loan account and 'Overdraft 1'.

So.....

Overdraft 1: Defaulted in 2006 - payments allocated until 2008 then default recorded in 2008. In line with what you say can happen.

Overdraft 2: Defaulted in 2006 - no payments made - default recorded in 2006. Again, in line with what you say.

Loan account: Defaulted in 2006 - no payments made until 2008 but default recorded in 2008. Payments made from that point on. That doesn't seem right.

Am I still in with a chance to get the date the loan account default was reported changed to Dec 2006 or are they right and I have failed to understand that?

Just re-read the above !!!
How totally lost would many of us be if it wasn't for this forum?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Now see the problem is you forget there are ONLY guidelines surrounding CRA data. Not legislation.

The bank added a default to the CRA in 2008, yep. And...?

That's the cold hard facts. They did it FOS they can. Simples.

Look at my HSBC thread - I have a default showing after 3 years of status 6's so in essence have 9yrs adverse but the FOS say nowt they can do cos they utilise guidelines and the guidelines state they can default at any point, albeit the ideal timeframe should be 3-6 months; it rarely is.

You don't have an argument, sadly.

[Riz]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

If you think the default dates are incorrect and not a fair reflection of the account history, then complain. You have nothing to lose as long as you are not waiting for the deb to become statute barred or similar.

You can even take it to the FOS. Just be aware that they are often quite bizarre in their decisions and logic behind them, as Niddy found out.

If nothing else, that will cost the bank or DCA £500 for the pleasure whether you get a result in your favour or not. Sometimes creditors or DCAs will cave in and correct records just to avoid paying the FOS fees.

One thing is for certain. If you don't complain, then the defaults will stay as they are. Chances of getting them changed may be small, but you never know.

[louiser123]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

i had this problem with a sygma credit card, they placed a default on my CRA file in dec 12, they actually got a county court judgment in dec 10 for this account and i wrote in to the CRAs with dispute, they contacted sygma with my dispute and sygma then relented to change the date to the correct date of jan 2010. it may work for you or it may not but it has knocked off over 3 years on my file by disputing it. good luck

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Over six weeks on and still no response from NatWest.
Equifax have written to say the bank has not responded to them so the two accounts have been removed from their CRA files.
Call Credit have written to say they had removed the accounts but NatWest have said they are still in default wrong so they are putting them back on again. However, they have only actually put one of the two back on her file.

Today came a NatWest letter relating to one of these accounts - the sort you love to get - saying:
Whilst we are aware that the account noted below is unenforceable through the courts, the debt is still valid and should be repaid. The debt will be reported to CRAs so may effect your ability to obtain credit until repayment is made.

It is tempting to write back and point-out that unenforceable debts become 'low-priority' so 'misfiling' the CCA sent them to the back of the queue. Tempting, but not worth the cost of a stamp. Besides, it is only 56 months to being SB.

[SXGuy]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

Natwest usual tatics, i have 2 accounts that are confirmed UE by them, but still receive monthly statements, min payments are in their thousands now lol

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: NatWest and Moorcroft - wrong default dates.

So, for a few months I have been beavering away at getting these two NatWest Default Notices dates changed (and removed) on the CRA files. They are the only adverse markers still showing.

Both accounts defaulted in December 2006 - one default was recorded in March 2008, the other one in April 2008. Obviously, if the default dates had been recorded correctly they would be off the file by now.

On the 5th August I wrote directly to Stephen Hester at RBS. The complaint was passed to the Executive Response Team on 12th August. They wrote asking for more info, which I provided.

Today came a letter from the Executive Response Team saying,

"Having investigated the matters, I agree that the bank has registered the incorrect information on your credit file on accounts xxxx and xxxx. These defaults should have naturally expired in December 2012 - and so both have now been removed".

It then goes on to say that they have checked the history of the two accounts and have determined that charges and interest totaling £2095 has been incorrectly applied and the accounts have been credited with this amount.

And even says
"In addition I have credited your account xxxx with £300 in compensation in recognition of any distress or inconvenience this may have caused you".

To say I am pleased is an understatement.

Of course, I will now write back and ask for the £300 to be sent to me rather than credited to an o/d account.



Perhaps a member of the site team will modify the title of this thread to reflect these successes.