Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

[Sharmaine]

Hi everyone - I'll be as brief as possible. Last July I recd a call from NW asking if I'd be happy to reduce my overdraft, that I could do it at £50 per month. I;ll just remark here that i wasn't in an unauthorised o/d or anything. So i agreed but before doing so particularly made the point to the chap on the other end that by doing so it wouldn't negatively impact on my credit file. He assured me no it wouldn't and that it would in fact have the opposite effect and lenders would view favourably. So since last July i've been paying the £50 and the o/d has been going down nicely. However i recently applied for a credit card and got declined so requested my CR reports from Exp/Equifax. To my horror next to my Nat West current account is a marker Arrangement to pay. Reading more about this AP stuff it seems it's just as bad as a default and stays on your cr file for 6 years. This has really p....d me off. At no time did the NW customer advisor tell me that an arrangement to pay marker was going to be put on my cr file. To add insult to injury I clearly remember saying to him that if by agreeing to pay off at £50 a month i was going to get a negative impact on my cr file i would by hook or crook find the money to pay off the o/d asap. Can anyone give me some firm info about this before I ring up NW later today and (calmly) have a 'discussion' with them.

[snudgerchops]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

Hi everyone - I'll be as brief as possible. Last July I recd a call from NW asking if I'd be happy to reduce my overdraft, that I could do it at £50 per month. I;ll just remark here that i wasn't in an unauthorised o/d or anything. So i agreed but before doing so particularly made the point to the chap on the other end that by doing so it wouldn't negatively impact on my credit file. He assured me no it wouldn't and that it would in fact have the opposite effect and lenders would view favourably. So since last July i've been paying the £50 and the o/d has been going down nicely. However i recently applied for a credit card and got declined so requested my CR reports from Exp/Equifax. To my horror next to my Nat West current account is a marker Arrangement to pay. Reading more about this AP stuff it seems it's just as bad as a default and stays on your cr file for 6 years. This has really p....d me off. At no time did the NW customer advisor tell me that an arrangement to pay marker was going to be put on my cr file. To add insult to injury I clearly remember saying to him that if by agreeing to pay off at £50 a month i was going to get a negative impact on my cr file i would by hook or crook find the money to pay off the o/d asap. Can anyone give me some firm info about this before I ring up NW later today and (calmly) have a 'discussion' with them.

That's just horrible. I also have an AP marker next to my Barclaycard.

[PlanB]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

"All calls are recorded" says the digital voice on the NW call centre switchboard. So if you think you're going to need to refresh their mind as to what you actually discussed and agreed, then ask them for a copy of that call

[Sharmaine]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

hi thanks for that, yes have just called NW and spoke to Lending Department but their systems are down so told to call back this pm. Mentioned to the person i spoke too that i am presuming the call last year was recorded and he said yes. So, we'll see. Oh I am so cross......

[nattie]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

I would add to Plan B that I would put a complaint to the bank in writing since you clarified the issue of whether it would affect your credit file at the time and were assured that it was not the case when clearly it has affected your ability to gain credit. In hindsight, you would have probably told them to take a running jump but you were clearly misinformed. I'm not sure how far back they keep recorded calls but they would be able to do an audit as to who accessed your account and who took the call. Complain most definitely.

I normally use their CEO addy because it goes to their executive complaints team and they normally get a speedier response.

Stephen.Hester@rbs.co.uk

Email addy above.....hmmm, a bit of compo but be in order as well

[PlanB]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

NatWest are currently phoning and writing out to all their customers (bank and credit card) to see if they can "help" with your situation even though you are not in a "situation" They're using the excuse that they're acting as "responsible lenders" just making sure you're not up to your eyeballs in unmanageable debt. Like hell they care

The bank's computer sweeps for customers who are only paying back the minimum (credit card) or whose OD has not been brought back to zero in the last 6/12 months (even though you have an established limit). I see this as an unacceptable pressure tactic

Can you comfortably afford to reduce your OD by £50 per month when you don't need to? If not then consider whether you should need to make an agreement to pay this whether it's formal or informal. I'm not a fan of NatWest's banking policies

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

This is quite easy to resolve, as the account is not in default and never has been (as you can prove by your statements) then you simply write to the banks Data Protection Officer and warn them you'll take action against them unless they remove the derogatory markers immediately based on the fact you were never in any arrangement to pay - you basically decided to reduce your overdraft which was always an authorised one thus the markers should be reading [0] (Up to Date).

Give them 14 days to remove the derogatory data then complain to the ICO and then piss about with that for a while before going to the FOS (last of all) - the FOS can award compo at the very end after you've proved the bank did wrong and as a result caused you suffering, usually for distress as a result of incorrect CRA data the FOS look at £250 - not much I know but they could award more (or nothing at all) based on how much we force the bank to make mistakes.... point is, start here by demanding the bank resolve the problem and give a reasonable timeframe of 14 days - then come back to us and I'll sort you a nasty little thing to post off with a final warning, which will prompt action and/or a final response thus allowing FOS intervention.

Don't stress, it is a pain but easy to prove so long as your statements do confirm you never exceeded your OD facility?

[Sharmaine]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

Thanks so much for all your posts - I am going to be writing to Nat West tomorrow stating what NID has suggested. I expect them to try and wriggle their way out of it but won't give up, they're not gonna get away with this!

[snudgerchops]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

Thanks so much for all your posts - I am going to be writing to Nat West tomorrow stating what NID has suggested. I expect them to try and wriggle their way out of it but won't give up, they're not gonna get away with this!

Go get em!

[BBoo]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

You should only ever threaten legal action if you're willing to carry it out though. If the bank decides to call your bluff, you nay just end up shooting yourself in the foot.

[PlanB]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

You should only ever threaten legal action if you're willing to carry it out though. If the bank decides to call your bluff, you nay just end up shooting yourself in the foot.

I think when Niddy said "take action" against them he probably meant refer them to the ICO in the first instance not take immediate legal action. Anyway I can't think of any legal action the bank could possiby take against her if she's not done anything wrong apart from pointing out their errors

Mind you if I'd been declined credit (like Sharmaine) as a direct result of a banks' error then I wouldn't hesitate to threaten legal action. But that's just me.

[Sharmaine]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

I think when Niddy said "take action" against them he probably meant refer them to the ICO in the first instance not take immediate legal action. Anyway I can't think of any legal action the bank could possiby take against her if she's not done anything wrong apart from pointing out their errors

Mind you if I'd been declined credit (like Sharmaine) as a direct result of a banks' error then I wouldn't hesitate to threaten legal action. But that's just me.

nope can confirm i had not done anything i shouldn't have. Authorised o/d of £1430 and never gone over it - in fact was trying to reduce randomly throwing in odd bits of extra cash here and there. i reckon they picked me to call on as i no longer use this a/c for my salary and as has been suggested above they've done a 'sweep' of accounts and realised mine is one of the o/d's that hasn't been reduced back to zero in the past 6/12 months. However, there's no written rule in the account i have that you have to do this or pay a specific amount into the account. What i'm miffed about is I made a point of saying to the nat west advisor who called that if this action was going to have a detrimental outcome on my credit file(s) I would by hook or crook (my actual words at the time) beg borrow or steal the money to pay off my o/d and subsequently close the account as i have no use for it. The rest is history as i've aleady outlined above. Feel better reading the answers I've got though. Thanks everyone.

[PlanB]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

nope can confirm i had not done anything i shouldn't have. . . . . . What i'm miffed about is I made a point of saying to the nat west advisor who called that if this action was going to have a detrimental outcome on my credit file(s) I would by hook or crook (my actual words at the time) beg borrow or steal the money to pay off my o/d and subsequently close the account as i have no use for it. The rest is history as i've aleady outlined above. Feel better reading the answers I've got though. Thanks everyone.

Which will all have been recorded for the benefit of the tape

[Sharmaine]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

Sorry to go on about this but have something else a bit odd i want to add.
the info on my CR files look like this:

Equifax
NATWEST BANK CURRENT ACCOUNTS (I) current account Mrs Sharmaine xxxxxx
Terms 0 @ £0 Monthly
Balances limit £1130
start £0
current £+1130
Effective dates start 31/05/2001
Birth xxxxxxxx
Insight last updated 16/02/2012
Monthly status I0000000000000000000000000000000(the rest are all lots of 0's)

The 'I' means arrangement to pay at Equifax.


Experian
C15
ARRANGEMENT 02/12
NATWEST BANK CURRENT ACCOUNT
started 31/05/01 overdraft balance £1130 overdraft limit £1130
status history 000000000000
In the last 36 months of account activity the number of status 1-2 is 0 and the number of status 3+ is 0.
file updated for the period to 12/02/12.


The arrangement to pay only seems to be put on for February or am i reading this wrong? Bit ignorant about these things really.

So in August my o/d was £1430 and payingoff at £50 per month to end January it's down to £1130 (6 months @ £50 = £300).

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Arrangement to Pay - sneaky move by NW

Ahh if it shows [0] that's fine as its NOT an a/p marker so do not write to the bank.

You're stressing over nothing. The actual name (arrangement) is not seen by lenders that search you as the up to date indicators of [0] override it meaning it'll report as up to date and on time ie a good account.

All they see is the type of account the limit the status (up to date/on time) and the additional info that can now be supplied. They don't see the bank name or bank indicator of "arrangement" Plus of course they can also check any links, defaults, adverse, associates etc

If its annoying you just write and tell them it's not an arrangement so to remove that indicator - but they'll write back saying no cos nobody sees it as explained above but as for that letter [I] that's a different story - this will be an issue so get out of this arrangement somehow. You know they'll refuse; they're