Pee'd off.....................

[Smiffy]

About 3 months ago I settled a loan with Santander. Contacted them to get a settlement figure, which they supplied. Duly sent the required amount over to them, and cancelled my DD, but a month later got a letter from them to say that I was still owing them one months payment . Apparently, the settlement figure had taken into account a payment that was due around the time of my settlement request. After a lot of faffing around, mainly being kept on hold for ages in their 'phone queuing system, I paid the remaining payment.
Have recently applied for a re-mortgage, and been declined due to a late payment on a loan.... it's the Santander one which is showing on my credit report!!
I have carried out an Experian check and there is no adverse showing against me at all. A score of 988 out of a "possible" 999!!
Up until now, I have had a perfect record. Had the same mortgage for 12 years, believe it or not, with Santander!!!!
To say I'm pee'd off is an understatement.....

 

[Slab]

About 3 months ago I settled a loan with Santander. Contacted them to get a settlement figure, which they supplied. Duly sent the required amount over to them, and cancelled my DD, but a month later got a letter from them to say that I was still owing them one months payment . Apparently, the settlement figure had taken into account a payment that was due around the time of my settlement request. After a lot of faffing around, mainly being kept on hold for ages in their 'phone queuing system, I paid the remaining payment.
Have recently applied for a re-mortgage, and been declined due to a late payment on a loan.... it's the Santander one which is showing on my credit report!!
I have carried out an Experian check and there is no adverse showing against me at all. A score of 988 out of a "possible" 999!!
Up until now, I have had a perfect record. Had the same mortgage for 12 years, believe it or not, with Santander!!!!
To say I'm pee'd off is an understatement.....

Is an understatement like a regular statement, only for folk with poor credit



Hope they sort it for you

 

[Smiffy]

Is an understatement like a regular statement, only for folk with poor credit
Hope they sort it for you

The guy I'm dealing with is supposed to be coming back to me today. I'll see what he has to say, but I'm right cheesed off 'cos as I say, I've got a "perfect" credit history, always have maintained that......

 

[GreiginFife]

@Smiffy Experian is just one "aspect"of your credit file. Santander may not record debt management with that credit bureau. Call Credit and Equifax also hold data on your debt management. Call Credit are a relatively new player and, IMO, the most severe when rating.

It may be that your mortgage provider is searching one of the other bureaus where Santander have registered the late payment.

Santander should be able to reverse out the marker if they have made the error.

Edit. A quick check shows Santander record and search all three bureaus as a lender but only Experian as a current account provider.u
As this is loan related it is the lender route. You can check your Equifax report via something like Clearscore and your Call Credit report through Noddle or similar. (My advice would be avoid the "all in one" solutions and look at them in isolation of each other).
Only by looking at them all will you know what lenders are seeing as their start point.
Also check which bureau your mortgage provider use and focus on getting that one sorted first.
In addition you will need to consult with the mortgage provider so that they don't take into account to hard search they will have performed (some lenders autoscore systems reject automatically if there is a search record in xx number of days).

 

[Colonel Bogey]

Huh, Santander? spanish aren't they? Why are you dealing with a foreign company? Sure it's tough to find a British one, but they are out there. We are with one, two actually. Left Santander years ago when the spanish took over.

 

[Tashyboy]

Hmmm financial people. Think there in the same boat as social services. There good uns and bad uns.

Me and Missis T went for PPI. Was told by Bradford and Bingley that we were not due it. We told them we would appeal to Finacial services authority. A bloke looked into it at FSA but his report said, yes we had it but cannot find were B and Bingley offered it is so we must of asked for it, but could offer no proof. I was livid. Two days later a letter turned up from B and Bingley. Because we had said we were appealing, it had gone further up the chain and they actually found in our favour. Smart. 6K it made us less a few pennies. My grief is with the two people, one at B and B and one at the FSA who could not see what the appeals woman saw at B and B.

 

[Smiffy]

@Smiffy Experian is just one "aspect"of your credit file. Santander may not record debt management with that credit bureau. Call Credit and Equifax also hold data on your debt management. Call Credit are a relatively new player and, IMO, the most severe when rating.

It may be that your mortgage provider is searching one of the other bureaus where Santander have registered the late payment.

Santander should be able to reverse out the marker if they have made the error.

Edit. A quick check shows Santander record and search all three bureaus as a lender but only Experian as a current account provider.u
As this is loan related it is the lender route. You can check your Equifax report via something like Clearscore and your Call Credit report through Noddle or similar. (My advice would be avoid the "all in one" solutions and look at them in isolation of each other).
Only by looking at them all will you know what lenders are seeing as their start point.
Also check which bureau your mortgage provider use and focus on getting that one sorted first.
In addition you will need to consult with the mortgage provider so that they don't take into account to hard search they will have performed (some lenders autoscore systems reject automatically if there is a search record in xx number of days).

It was my mortgage advisor that told me to check Experian to find out what was on there.....

 

[Smiffy]

Huh, Santander? spanish aren't they? Why are you dealing with a foreign company? Sure it's tough to find a British one, but they are out there. We are with one, two actually. Left Santander years ago when the spanish took over.

I'm not dealing with Santander. I'm looking to leave Santander.....

 

[Dibby]

Hmmm financial people. Think there in the same boat as social services. There good uns and bad uns.

Me and Missis T went for PPI. Was told by Bradford and Bingley that we were not due it. We told them we would appeal to Finacial services authority. A bloke looked into it at FSA but his report said, yes we had it but cannot find were B and Bingley offered it is so we must of asked for it, but could offer no proof. I was livid. Two days later a letter turned up from B and Bingley. Because we had said we were appealing, it had gone further up the chain and they actually found in our favour. Smart. 6K it made us less a few pennies. My grief is with the two people, one at B and B and one at the FSA who could not see what the appeals woman saw at B and B.

Why?

You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. If you can prove it was missold your claim will be upheld. You didn't have this proof, and B and B didn't have any proof, either way, so the conclusion was reasonable.

As it happens B and B most likely have taken a business decision that the cost to them of paying you would have been less than that of dealing with the claim any further. Maybe there can be some ire at B and B for playing this game of not paying unless things are escalated, but the FSA is not at fault here.

 

[GreiginFife]

It was my mortgage advisor that told me to check Experian to find out what was on there.....

Nevertheless, your "credit file" is showing a missed payment that has resulted in a decline. Unless there is another reason it would be.

Your "credit file" is not just one bureau's data. Experian gets thrown around a lot as a generic term as they are probably the best known.

Is your mortgage advisor a broker? Is he affiliated to the lender? Does he preside over the underwriting process?

By all means don't take my advice, but I would certainly be looking to find out where the default is registered as it can have knock on effects on any credit cards you hold or any other non-fixed rate borrowing.

Sup to you man, just lending my experience of working in that area for a time.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

I'm not dealing with Santander. I'm looking to leave Santander.....

Good man!

 

[Tashyboy]

Why?

You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. If you can prove it was missold your claim will be upheld. You didn't have this proof, and B and B didn't have any proof, either way, so the conclusion was reasonable.

As it happens B and B most likely have taken a business decision that the cost to them of paying you would have been less than that of dealing with the claim any further. Maybe there can be some ire at B and B for playing this game of not paying unless things are escalated, but the FSA is not at fault here.

So let's get this right, we put in a claim against B and B for mis selling, the proof was there. EG when I had time off work through an injury we never claimed through Payment protection. Why? Coz we didn't know we had it. Otherwise I could of claimed. What we were told was it was life insurance which we had to have for the mortgage. B and B told us we had no claim. We told them we would appeal. We were advised to go to FSA. We did. There answer was, Bradford never offered it so we must of asked for it. Er ok, so where is the proof that we asked for something that we never knew we had. They never had none. B and B, then contacted us and said they had reassessed our claim and decided that it had been mis sold. B and B never had anything else to look at, just all the original paperwork that we submitted from 1992. You mention " You didn't have proof", it was all there.
Your conclusion, B and B paying coz it may of cost them more as it is a business decision is a million miles off the mark. B and B like a lot of other companies inc DWP and DHSS amongst others, refuse claims hoping that people will go away and not bother claiming what should be there's. Some do and some persue it like we did.
My irk with the FSA is that they had exactly the same paperwork as B and B did, yet they said we had asked for the policy, could could provide no information as to why they came to that decision.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

My irk with the FSA is that they had exactly the same paperwork as B and B did, yet they said we had asked for the policy, could could provide no information as to why they came to that decision.

The FSA only rule on the information they are given. They don't have anything they aren't given.

 

[Dibby]

So let's get this right, we put in a claim against B and B for mis selling, the proof was there. EG when I had time off work through an injury we never claimed through Payment protection. Why? Coz we didn't know we had it. Otherwise I could of claimed. What we were told was it was life insurance which we had to have for the mortgage. B and B told us we had no claim. We told them we would appeal. We were advised to go to FSA. We did. There answer was, Bradford never offered it so we must of asked for it. Er ok, so where is the proof that we asked for something that we never knew we had. They never had none. B and B, then contacted us and said they had reassessed our claim and decided that it had been mis sold. B and B never had anything else to look at, just all the original paperwork that we submitted from 1992. You mention " You didn't have proof", it was all there.
Your conclusion, B and B paying coz it may of cost them more as it is a business decision is a million miles off the mark. B and B like a lot of other companies inc DWP and DHSS amongst others, refuse claims hoping that people will go away and not bother claiming what should be there's. Some do and some persue it like we did.
My irk with the FSA is that they had exactly the same paperwork as B and B did, yet they said we had asked for the policy, could could provide no information as to why they came to that decision.

It still sounds to me like neither side had proof. Not claiming it isn't proof you were missold. Whilst B and B may well have missold, it sounds like there was no evidence available to prove this. Likewise the FSA can only judge on the evidence that exists, in this case, nothing apart from the fact that B and B apparently didn't offer you the product.

Not saying this applies to you, but the other pertinent fact is that everyone and their dog tries to claim PPI was missold to them just for the fact they had it, and see it as a route to "free money". It may have been a bad choice for many of these people to have it, but that is not the same as having been mis-sold. So with this in mind, it's no wonder the banks put up some resitance.

 

[Tashyboy]

It still sounds to me like neither side had proof. Not claiming it isn't proof you were missold. Whilst B and B may well have missold, it sounds like there was no evidence available to prove this. Likewise the FSA can only judge on the evidence that exists, in this case, nothing apart from the fact that B and B apparently didn't offer you the product.

Not saying this applies to you, but the other pertinent fact is that everyone and their dog tries to claim PPI was missold to them just for the fact they had it, and see it as a route to "free money". It may have been a bad choice for many of these people to have it, but that is not the same as having been mis-sold. So with this in mind, it's no wonder the banks put up some resitance.

Thing is Dibby, it is now big business. Me and Missis T throughout our lives have been offered PPI but never wanted it and always turned it down. So we were not bothered about claiming it. Missis T had details of a dozen or so loans and mortgages none of which we Had taken out a PPI. We saw a programme or something where you were encouraged to apply for PPI because you never knew it had been sold anyway. Out of the dozen we had only paid it on two policies. One for a credit card. And one for the mortgage. I was chuffed to bits about the other ten, because we never wanted them. Think one of my main gripes with B and B was when they sent me out forms to apply for PPI, they sent out the forms for mis selling of endownment policies ( which we already had done Standard life). They then rang us back to admit there mistake and the rest of the form was filled out over the phone.

 

[chrisd]

Surely if Tashy had PPI the lender is required to have produced paperwork to back the charging for it and, furthermore, to have kept that information with the associated other forms. I can see no way that an explanation that there is no paperwork as the client had requested the cover has ever been an acceptable position for a seller and I'm even more surprised that FSA would refuse a claim on that basis

 

[Dibby]

Surely if Tashy had PPI the lender is required to have produced paperwork to back the charging for it and, furthermore, to have kept that information with the associated other forms. I can see no way that an explanation that there is no paperwork as the client had requested the cover has ever been an acceptable position for a seller and I'm even more surprised that FSA would refuse a claim on that basis

Proving PPI was charged is not the same as proving it was missold. There are some instances where paperwork can help prove misselling, say for example it is a form where the PPI option is pre-ticked, is opt-out rather than an opt-in, or the individual applying has listed their occupation as unemployed etc...
In addition, most of the paperwork is only needed to be kept for 6 years, so if the timeframe was prior to this, the bank has done no wrong, even if a cynic might suspect that they quickly shred all evidence bang on the 6 year mark to escape potential liability.

 

[Tashyboy]

Dibby I don't want to go on about my specific claim because quite frankly it proper bogged me off. But when they (FSA) said I had asked for it, it kinda rubbed salt in the wounds. Missis T had copies of the original paperwork we signed for our mortgage back inn early 92. On it you could see where she had ticked various options for and against. You could see where we had signed it as a joint mortgage. You could then see where someone else had ticked other boxes, on of which was PPI. Now PPI could be covered for differant reasons. Death, redundancy and accident/ illness cover. One of which we wanted. Now the whole point of the claim re PPI was that if you DIDNT have it, how would you pay your mortgage. Back in 1992 I was working 6/7 days a week, Missis T was fixing hours as a fully qualified SRN/ Nurse. She worked one day a week or 7. But the previous year she earned just £1400. The basis of B and Bs rejecting the claim was that her wages would not cover the mortgage. We told them at the time of the mortgage application and the PPI claim was that Missis T could earn twice as much as me if I was off work for any length of time. Which she did when I dropped off work through an injury. What we said could happen with me being off work did happen. But conviniantly for B and B they neglected to take this on board and neither did the FSA. Furthermore, whoever ticked the PPI box ticked the wrong one. A box was ticked saying PPI would be paid if I was made redundant. Again B and B said we would of ticked that because I would not of been able to pay the mortgage. Again we told them that miners were being made redundant left right and centre when we moved in March 92 but the redundancy lump sum would of paid off the mortgage with 15 K left over. It just seems that they only wanted to listen to what was relevant to throwing out the claim.

 

[Smiffy]

Nevertheless, your "credit file" is showing a missed payment that has resulted in a decline. Unless there is another reason it would be.

Your "credit file" is not just one bureau's data. Experian gets thrown around a lot as a generic term as they are probably the best known.

Is your mortgage advisor a broker? Is he affiliated to the lender? Does he preside over the underwriting process?

By all means don't take my advice, but I would certainly be looking to find out where the default is registered as it can have knock on effects on any credit cards you hold or any other non-fixed rate borrowing.
.

The default is definitely registered with Experian. On my brokers advice, I rang them yesterday and they confirmed it is there, and also confirmed it is the Santander payment (or supposed non payment) that is causing the problem.
Before the outstanding payment was made, Santander had "advised" me that non payment could have an adverse effect on my credit rating, but at no time did they advise me that they had actually flagged it against me.
Experian have marked my credit report to show that a dispute has been raised on this "blip" and are contacting Santander to try to get them to remove it, but have advised that it can take up to 28 days to see a result. They said they will email me as soon as they get a response from them.
As I say, I had a perfect credit history before this. I've had various loans from Santander in the past which have all been settled without a hitch, and I've never missed a payment in my life. My current mortgage has been running with them for the best part of 14 years, and is fully up to date, with no non payments.
This is what's cheesing me off.
The guy at Experian checked through all of my past history and cannot find fault anywhere else, so is very sympathetic, but unfortunately that doesn't get me the new mortgage......

 

[GreiginFife]

Experian will be able to remove this marker once Santander fix the issue. As I said in the first reply post, Santander record payment/transactions with all three bureaus as a lender so it would still be recommended that you make sure as it won't always be Experian that lenders solely check. It might very well be all a-OK but its not something I would personally leave to chance and make sure its resolved on all of the data held.

Experian's consumer data (the stuff you and I see) runs approximately 20-30 days behind live. Lenders use Experian's CAIS data which is a real-time -1 day (IIRC) version. This may account for why you can't see it but they can.

Hopefully they get it sorted out soon, having been a victim of Lloyds incompetence in 2010 I know what its like. Thankfully, after working in credit underwriting for a few years, I understand it all better now, which is helpful.