there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.
There have been multiple examples in the past in which negative trust was removed after no-collateral loans have been repaid, and when stolen money has been returned to it's rightful owner. Often times a neutral rating replaces such negative rating, however this is nowhere nearly as detrimental as a negative rating.that's fine. like i said, it is at the discretion of the lender to publicize a default in the first place. he can choose to remove negative trust too, or use that as leverage to recover the debt.
but 1. once he has publicized the default, he cannot control how others report the incident and 2. liquidation of secured collateral, by definition, means both parties cannot be made whole---as you yourself suggested. the latter is purely a result of the debtor's lack of trustworthiness. the first point is practical---he will be marked as a scammer no matter what (so your points are sort of moot). the second point is why he should be marked a scammer.
I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not.
i never said the latter shouldn't be. but, like anything else, it is case-by-case. if a debtor is slow-paying or no-paying and eventually pays back the loan, i imagine his level of communication and believability throughout the situation would factor into whether or not a negative feedback would remain.
assuming the former is a loan defaulter, i am suggesting that they both remain marked. in the latter case, trust feedback is merely being used as leverage, and i can understand why recovering a debt would be more important than the principle of marking a defaulter with negative feedback.
all said, lenders want to know whether prospective debtors have defaulted in the past. the more disclosure the better. and lenders are also the very basis for whether negative feedback is given to loan defaulters. this is about the interests of lenders, not the rights of loan defaulters.
