I think you have done a marvellous job in winning with the FOS. Unfortunately they do not pay much by way of damages. You have won but you do not have to accept the award. You may refuse their descision and then go to the small claims court for harrrasment. As long as your claim is under £5000.00 the bank cannot claim costs. I recently began being harrassed by NatWest and clompalined to the FOS, and as I was already in contact with the FOS about PPI I was able to pohone through and the harrassment stopped. If you look at Irresponsible Lending OFT1107 March 2010 Section 7.10 and 7.11 It is Irresponsibl;e to make undue, excessive or otherwise inapropriate ue of statututay demands when a borrower falls into arrears. 7.11 Failing to suspend the pursuit ofr recovery of a debt from a borrower in default or arrears diffculty.... This only related to borrowing sunder the consumer credit act and there are differenr rules for mortgage arrears. I hope this has helped in some small way.

Thanks Ian We have had an admission from the bank informing us that the debt is unenforcable as they canot locate the contract. I have been thinking seriously this past week and come to the opinion that I will put the whole case to the Salford court as Follows: 1. Claim for an unfair relationship due to: a. failure to act for a SAR request under the Data Protection act 1974 b. Irresponsible lending. It should be obvious that the bank have been unfair as they sold so many products and 5 cases of PPI 2 of which the FOS found in our favour and also they were found unfair by the FOS as regards the contents insurance. I will do that this week. regrds Ieuan

thanks ian

So today I went to the county court and was told my claims went through Salford. I lloked upo the information on the web and now have to decide how to make the claim. Oiur initial claim will be for: Failure to respond to our Data Protection Act Request (SAR) of the 30th September 2009 and to ask the court to enforce our request that is, to supply a signed copy of the £17 000.00 loan including the insurance and the PPI. In the absence of that contract to make a judgement on the loan, whether it must be paid or is deemed invalid and therefore cancelled. In the absence of the document we require under the SAR to pay us damages of £5 000.00 Examine the PPI element of the loan and determine if this is a fair contract and decide wherether it invalidates the whole loan If the PPI element of the loan is deemed to be unfair then to determine if it invalidates the whole loan and therefore should the loan be cancelled or liable to be enforced by the Bank. Determine if interest is to be paid to us on the PPI element of the loan at 8% p.a. Determine if we are entitled to claim damages for the use of the PPi element that was used by the bank to further their commercial interests during this period. Determine if the bank has actually enforced the loan by taking funds from my son's account without his permission under the legal guise of 'offsetting'. I would appreciate help from the forum in correcting my terminology as I am completly inexperienced in this matter.

Hello all, Nice to be back, I have been off ever since the new format changed. I have tried for a year to get on but have only just managed it after a new password was sent to me. If anyone remembers my claim (for my son) was against NatWest for selling too many products and lending too much also PPI and so on. Well we went down the FOS route and they were very much useless as advised from cagers. We won easily agaisnt 2 other banks with 3 claims on PPI, just taking a few months and one case against a moter retail outlet that tried to rip us off, but NatWest has proved an extemly tough nut and we are not there yet. NatWest were ruled agsint by the FOS one 1 claim of PPI about £500.00 including interest. I must admit I made a mistake and signed off in agreement and they paid it into my son's account which was in overdraft, so in effect they paid the money to themselves. However we did win another claim for fraud, the fraud was thrown out and although NatWest had already paid us £1000.00 compensation the FOS found in our favour after appeal on the misselling of contents insurance. They coughed up £400.00 altogether and agian I made the mistake of accepting and it was paid into the overdraft account. We then won the largest claim that of PPI on the £17 000.00 loan, this time the bank agreed to pay the money to my son directly, when we signed the agreement they reneged and refused to pay up. The FOS then took 3 months to view my appeal and again they ruled in out favour but said the debt must be paid back and so offsetting was OK with them. Aftr rmuch discssuion my son and I agreed to refuse the deal with the FOS and to go to court. If we accepted the deal it would have meant us paying back the £17k loan plus interest and as they have lost the agreement they have written to say it cannot be enforced in a court. They can still chase us and send statement but cannot go to court. Since they still have not answered our data protection request for the contract from 3 years ago we feel we have a case to ask a judge to rule on the debt and claim damages of £5k on the loan. If we can get that set aside then we could go after the PPI later. Small bites in the small claims court. We have an ongoing claim with the FOS for harrassment and are claiming £5k damages, which we won't get from the FOS but if we go to court on that then we can show we did use all means to settle in arbitration. NatWest paid us £100.00 for harrassment but I feel it is not enough. I have made mistakes and have settled some claims and accepted the FOS descision, PPI paid monthly with no interest, and I inadvertently signed to a deal when I should have refused regarding unfair trading by irresponsible lending. We now wish to focus on the Data Protection Act and ask a judge to rule on the status of the debt and calim damages for failure to answer the DPA request, (£10.00 fee). We appreciate all the advice received from members of this forum over the years and would welcome any constructive advice. I am a bit uncertain of small claims proceedure and we cannot get any solicitor to help us in preparation, we have tried a number of firms and no one seems interested including our family solicitor. We really feel agrieved by NatWest off=-setting all payment because in effect they are enforcing the debt against our wishes. We never actually agreed to a £2k overdraft facility we just wanted to get rid of the silly account that cost my son £12.00 a month for no use at all. The FOS do not seem even remotely interested in this fact. They told us that they don't rule on a point of law but decide what is fair and reasonable. On the good side my son has stabilised all his outgoing and now has saving in his account. When we closed the NatWest account it was in surplus by £1.00, Natwest refused to close it however and kept taking the premium for the loan, now it has reached £2k overdraft again, even after almost £1k has been paid in claims from claims against them. We are afraid to settle with the FOS because we feel the Bank will use their legal team to force us to pay up. If we go to court, even if we are ruled against the jduge will decide what is to paid back and what if any compensation. The FOS will not consider our claim that the bank have used our money in their business and a court may consider that. I will go to court for the infraction of the Data Protection Act Request as they failed to find the contract, any ideas? Regards to all ieuan

Thanks to all for replies and support, it has really been helpful these past few days. Made us think. We realise now after reading the terms and condition as suggested by IainHL that it is futile paying off the overdraft as the bank will simply start again with a clean slate, the bank have already told us that they cannot close and account whilst we have outstanding loans. My latest e-mail communication to the Adjudicator last night. Mr xxxxxxxx I beg indulgence in the presenting of information to enhance my appeal with the Ombudsman, I am 67 years of age and it is difficult for me, if you would allow me to write to you in dribs and drabs as I research on this matter I would be grateful. I wish to quote the South Shields case and extract from a Consumer Forum enclosed here: Quotation: A recent judgement at South Shields county court may have far reaching effects not only for pre-2007 Consumer Credit Act agreements but also for Consumer Credit Act agreements under the new 2006 legislation. The case which was brought against MBNA in respect of an alleged credit card debt was decided for the claimant predominantly because MBNA were unable to provide a true copy of the original credit card agreement. This is very established law and causes no surprises as this principle has been often tested since 1974. In fact the only real surprise is that MBNA decided to defend the case at all. What is particularly significant about this case is that there had also been mis-selling of Personal Protection Insurance (PPI) The judge referred to this aspect of the case in her judgement and decided there had been an unfair relationship between the claimant and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance. This case is highly significant for claims brought under the old 1974 legislation because it adds another important basis upon which Consumer Credit Act agreements may be rendered unenforceable. This is in addition to the very much more usual ground for an enforceability that the agreement is flawed in some way because it is not properly executed, or that a true copy cannot be produced by the lender. It now seems highly likely that even where an agreement seems to be properly executed, if the agreement has been accompanied by PPI which has been miss-sold, this miss-selling itself is a basis upon which to vitiate the entire loan agreement. This principle that a miss-sold insurance policy is capable of tainting and invalidating the entire agreement is likely to become a very dominant feature in challenges to Consumer Credit Act agreements which have been concluded under the new 2006 legislation. Whereas the 1974 legislation required very strict adherence to highly detailed requirements in any agreement, as well as requiring a fair and balanced relationship between the contracting parties, the 2006 Act is not so concerned with the form of the agreement and whether all of the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed. The entire focus of the 2006 legislation is upon the relationship between the lender and the borrower and seeks merely to ensure that there is a fair, balanced, transparent and non abusive relationship between them. The decision at South Shields County Court suggests very strongly that where an apparently fair agreement is accompanied by mis-selling of PPI then that mis-selling may well be taken as evidence that the lender has exercised an unfair relationship and has therefore tainted the entire loan agreement. End of quotation It seems to me that my son's claim is very similar and that mis-selling of PPI alone makes this relationship unfair and hence unenforceable. I therefore request that this claim and the PPI be reviewed together. I also believe that the fraud claim on the home insurance is also related and request they all be viewed together as I believe they show a systematic lack of due care and diligence by the bank that make all agreements unfair. I take note that you are not bound to give your opinion based on the law of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that you are not a people's champion I hope however you will take cognizance of the systematic and institutionalised abuse of fair play by the bank which makes the relationship between my son and the bank an unfair relationship. As such you should find in our favour. xxxxxx ieuan In a message dated 23/07/2010 14:55:52 GMT Daylight Time, xxxxxxx [email protected] writes: Dear Mr xxxxxxx Thank you for your email which has been added to your file. Rather than simply quoting extracts from the OFT guidlines and various legislative provisions, it would assist us if you would issue all your final submissions in one go, before the deadline of 12 August 2010. When doing so, please also state that you have nothing further to provide, as no further evidence or submissions will be put forward after 12 August 2010. Your file is currently with my manager who will be in touch shortly. Regards xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

Thanks guys, I took Elsa's advice and lloked up OFT on Debt Collection here is what I found: OFT664 July 2003 updated 2006 Debt Collection Advice 2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive. b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing Deceptive and/or unfair methods 2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair. d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives g. failing to refer on to the creditor reasonable offers to pay by instalments i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt. I have wrtiten to the FOS and given the informationaboce and I have about 3 weeks to find out more before my case goes to the Ombudsman for a final descision. Ian, thank you are right, we found the Trems and Conditions book and we can stop the overdraft. We will try to get to the bank today and stop this overdraft. I could pay off the overdraft but doubt if they will close the account. Pumpytums, there is 21 months yet before this overdraft creeps over £5000, but thanks Regards all Ieuan

I have read the threads o the former thread, thanks to all who contributed. We have written formely several times to close the account and they refuse. The bank also want us to make a statement of our intentions, if we say we intend to stop all further premuiums thay will refuse to close the account even f we do pay off the overdrfat. paying off the over draft will be counter productive as they will then have a new limit to work on. The bank are withdrawing funds to pay off the £17 000 loan by way of 'offsetting', this is common law and they can do it. My argument is they are enforcing an unenforeable agreemnt. The bank have admitted in writing that the loan is unenforceable but the FOS can't see that or won't see it. FOS have told me that my son should pay off his loan and rejected out claim in its entirity save for PPI. FOS states that the offesting is a right of NatWest and should continue. We had a family meeting last night and ecided on the follwoing: 1. persevere with our FOS appeal 2. find out how much the overdraft is set to 3. research a good claim lawyer Here is a copy of my e-mail to the FOS: May I respectfully point out that we are not intending to avoid paying our debts, we are endeavouring to normalise this situation. In our opinion the bank has been unfair, this is proven: 1. by their selling of PPI to my son on several occasions when it was clearly not in his best interests 2. Lending ridiculous amounts that have been extremely hard for him to pay back not on one but on a number of occasions, on many occasions of lending an amount of money the bank has sought to maximise their dealings with my son by selling spurious and unnecessary products, or products of little worth so much so that he was left with a surplus of £55 per month 3. In 2002 the bank swapped an unsecured loan (with PPI) for a 2nd mortgage and this is unfair as it is not in my son's best interests. Natwest have offered to reimburse but not the interest involved. 4. The bank are guilty of fraud as they found out that the house had two bedrooms and not three and did not back date their refund therefore making a monetary gain by omission, which is covered by the Fraud Act. The fact that they have reimbursed my son does not alter the fact that fraud took place and there should be a penalty. 5. The bank has refused our instruction to close the current account and continue to take money against our wishes, charge interest at 12%, continue to charge the extra £18 remaining from the PPI illegally sold to my son. 6. Any money we pay off on the £17 000 fixed loan would not be recoverable if judgement is made by a court as regarding unfairness by the bank therefore there is no benefit us paying further sums to the bank unless we come to an agreement. If you look at my letters we have offered to go to arbitration but they have still not responded. We have written numerous letters to try and resolve this matter without much success. Even when the bank offered a refund on PPI charges they refused to pay interest on this PPI of the statuary 8%. Under the circumstances we find it ironic (to say the least) for you to accuse us of avoiding our responsibilities, I think you should remind the bank of their responsibilities. 7. Our refusal to pay the remaining £200 per month premiums of the £17 000 loan should not be seen as us avoiding our responsibilities, as the debt is unenforceable in a court of law and as the bank cannot in law threaten us with court action we have offered arbitration and they failed to respond. Our refusal to pay is our attemot to make the bank sit up and face up to what they have done to my son. They have run roughshod in greed and avarice to maximise their profits from and ordinary consumer, who has no legal knowledge and trusted the banks, that the bank would do the right thing and he has been left with a legacy of debt. If any judgement is to be made it must be made on my son AND the bank, that would be the right thing to do. signed xxxxxxIeuan Letter from FOS I confirm a deadline of 12 August 2010 for your last submissions before the case goes for a final review. However, may I remind you that although as an organisation we must have regard to the law, we are not bound by it and can depart from legislation and case law when we feel it is appropriate to do so. I look forward to receiving your final submissions no later than 12 August 2010. Mr xxxxxxx I am still examining OFT literature and would like until 12th August to peruse as I feel you have not given full justice to the current legislation in your summing up.

Thanks guys, good imput I will answer you all in the new thread. Ieuan For all extents and purposes this thread should be viewed a closed.

The banks hold all the access...only this forum and forums like it (if it is not the only one) have cost the banks millions of pounds, mabe a billion pounds, which we the consumer and taxpayer are paying for. I looked at the 1976 aka 2006) Consumer Credit Act, they've changed the rules and awarded the bias to the banks. I can still go to court and claim damages for the bank failing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. But it's not getting to the core of the problem. The problem is this: 1. the bank have admitted they have lost the agreement and that the agreement is unenforceable 2. The fos have rejected our claim for Irerssponsible lending and it may well be our appeal will fail also so we will have to sue the courts. The fos advises us to negotiate with the bank. 3. The bank is deducting monthly premiums from our dormant account by way of increasing the overdraft now up to around £2000 and charging 12% p.a. on account balances. We have tried to close the account, the bank have refused. We have appealed to the fos for the bank to stop deducting money from a negative balance as it is enforecment, the FOS agrees with the bank. 4. Eventually the overdraft will reach a level that will not be able to be paid back 5. eventually the bank might find the agreement 6. OFT1175 January 2010 section 5.4 that the bank: i. cannot threaten court action ii. under 5.5 enforecement acton is statue barred but the debt remains iii. under 5.5 the bank may register defaults, pursue the debt, register the debt with a CRA but may not threaten court action if they do the OFT will be judged as this as oppresive and/or misleading under 5.6 no comunications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT where the bank is aware that the debt cannot enforce the agreement (from our POV this is important because deducting premiums agaisnt our wishes from an account in the red is enforecement not just a threat but actually enforcement). 7. The bank cannot threaten to register the debt with a CRA unless it intend to do so 8. under 5.8 Misleading debtors (people who owe money) into making payments amounts to unfair commercial practices under CPUTR 2008 9. Under 5.9 non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002. 10. Ramifications of non enforcebale debt according to page 30 of the OFT 1175con means the bank: i. cannot demand earlier payment of the debt ii. threaten court action iii. take posseion of anything bought on credit or which you used as security the bank can however: i. request payment ii. issue a default notice iii. pass details of the default to a CRA In view of the above it must be illegal for the bank to continue to take premiums agaisnt out wishes from an overdrafted account, surely this is enforcement by the back door and illegal? Yet the FOS have judged that I should pay our son's debts!!! How do we proceed? Do we go to court and ask the court to reslove this? Midenmess says no, what do all you cagers out there think? this post has had over 19 000 hits, surely someone can guide us?

Thamks Pumpytums, I shall do as you suggest. I am taking Midenmess' advice and transfering the thread to a new thread.

Wel, forgetting all the negative things we can do like rant, hire a bus and ram the local branch, set fire to their tyres, picket the local branch, send not very nice letters, scrawl on the walls, do a farmer Giles with the muck spreader etc. etc. We could alternatively walk away and forget about it all and ten years form now let the bank destroy us when all the legislation has been tinkered away to steal our rights we shall ponder the middle course. The banks hold all the access...only this forum and forums like it (if it is not the only one) have cost the banks millions of pounds, mabe a billion pounds, which we the consumer and taxpayer are paying for. Ranting does not good, it's a waste of energy. Focus and proceed in a dignified manner. I looked at the 1976 aka 2006) Consumer Credit Act, they've changed the rules and awarded the bias to the banks. I can still go to court and claim damages for the bank failing to comply with the DPA 1998. But it's not getting to the core of the problem. The problem is this: 1. the bank have admitted they have lost the agreement and that the agreement is unenforceable 2. The FOS have rejected our claim for Irerssponsible lending and it may well be our appeal will fail also so we will have to sue the courts. The FOS advises us to negotiate with the bank. 3. The bank is deducting monthly premiums from our dormant account by way of increasing the overdraft now up to around £2000 and charging 12% p.a. on account balances. We have tried to close the account, the bank have refused. We have appealed to the FOS for the bank to stop deducting money from a negative balance as it is enforecment, the FOS agrees with the bank. 4. Eventually the overdraft will reach a level that will not be able to be paid back 5. eventually the bank might find the agreement 6. OFT1175 January 2010 section 5.4 that the bank: i. cannot threaten court action ii. under 5.5 enforecement acton is statue barred but the debt remains iii. under 5.5 the bank may register defaults, pursue the debt, register the debt with a CRA but may not threaten court action if they do the OFT will be judged as this as oppresive and/or misleading under 5.6 no comunications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT where the bank is aware that the debt cannot enforce the agreement (from our POV this is important because deducting premiums agaisnt our wishes from an account in the red is enforecement not just a threat but actually enforcement). 7. The bank cannot threaten to register the debt with a CRA unless it intend to do so 8. under 5.8 Misleading debtors (people who owe money) into making payments amounts to unfair commercial practices under CPUTR 2008 9. Under 5.9 non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002. 10. Ramifications of non enforcebale debt according to page 30 of the OFT 1175con means the bank: i. cannot demand earlier payment of the debt ii. threaten court action iii. take posseion of anything bought on credit or which you used as security the bank can however: i. request payment ii. issue a default notice iii. pass details of the default to a CRA In view of the above it must be illegal for the bank to continue to take premiums agaisnt out wishes from an overdrafted account, surely this is enforcement by the back door and illegal? Yet the FOS have judged that I should pay our son's debts!!! How do we proceed? Do we go to court and ask the court to reslove this? Midenmess says no, what do all you cagers out there think? this post has had over 19 000 hits, surely someone can guide us?

It seems I have led my self up the garden path, the FOS seems useless what to do next? I've been looking at other threads and there are two that seem to bear fruit, one is Pumpytums, she won when the agreement could not be found and Gemby (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/263433-natwest-should-i-settle.html) On both occasions the bank had lost the original agreement and the bank either settled or the judge threw their claim out (as in Pumpytums case). Considering that the bank have lost the agreement on the £17 000 loan and are charging the premiums to my son's current account (which is in overtdraft) then it is fairly simple to apply to the court for NatWest to produce the documents. I have already served them with a Data Protection Act request and paid £10 fee last Autumn. If they fail to produce the document I can ask for damages and those would cover the £2000 overdrfat charges and premium. The judge can then order the loan unenforcable and that should be the end of it. Why didn't I think of this before? My application shoul not cost me more than £50.00 and as the claim is under £5000 NatWest cannot claim solicitors fees, and if I follow the advice online I should be able to fill in the legal doucments properly, I have NatWwest registered office address and our county court is only 20 minutes away. I think I have been getting confused with OFT1175 dated March 2010, this publication is refering to CCA's and not the Data Potection Act, therfore case law has not been overturned and if the bank cannot produce the agreemnet to the satifcation of the court then it is the end of the Agreement. I don't think I can claim back payments already made however. But I may be able to claim Restiturionary damages which might take the claim over £5000.00. I really don't think we have anythign to lose, we either get clbbered with this continuing growth on our overdraft and we don't fully undertsand the ramifications of that or we get the whole thing sorted out by the court. It should be very simple, all I have to do is produce my original DPA request with their answering letter saying they cannot find it and apply to the court under the act. It means that all efforts (I use that word 'efforts' loseley) by the FOS will cease but I cna take little stabs at what I think they owe us as tiem allows through the courts. I wonder if I should wait until the judgement is made by FOs on the PPI as it looks as if we will win that one. I just found a pm from pumpytums in my inbox from last year, if I did not reply please forgive me Pummpytums. I am just going to read up on the CCA and DPA and see what I can come up with. Is anyone willing to help me with the wording of this? I know I have to state a claim in money terms and I have to have a registered office address and I have the claim kit from this site. Or do cagers think I should wait three months for the FOS to finally make up their minds? Ieuan

Further to our complaints against NetWest and you for the handling of this case I wish to make sure you have examined my son's case according to OFT1107 dated March this year. Scope for Guidance section 1.22 speaks of context, This why I have put everything relevant to my son in with my complaint I believe it shows a systematic and prolonged preying on vulnerable consumers by the bank. In my opinion the bank has to be fair in its dealing, and the bank has to demonstrate it has been fair, I believe I have shown this and that it is self evident from the cash flows and statement and by my arguments in my 12 page letter of the 22nd June 2010. I consider it an improper practice as mentioned in 1.22 to hold a consumer's mortgage and then sell him product after product that are unsuitable because of: 1. they are top of the line and too expensive 2. not really relevant to the consumers needs. This has been adequately describe din the press and by judgements against bank regarding PPI for instance. 3. It's not just my judgement on the banks but it is obvious by consumer action groups on the Internet, by the number of judgments against the banks in the courts and by the rulings of OFT . This being the case I don't understand how you can speak of fair and reasonable, the banks have been caught out on many occasions and even been fined by the OFT, this is relevant and context. My son has never been involved in any illegal activities neither have I. If the Bank has been wrong in selling PPI to my son on a number of occasions than the balance of probability shifts to my son's favour and the bank have been shown to be disrespectful of the fairness expected by government and law. Take this offsetting for instance, we have offered to meet with the bank and discuss a way out of our deadlock, they have not responded. They have taken money out of my son's account even though it is in the red, and continue to do so against our wishes. How much money can they take out, will they take out £17 000 and then charge 12% this is obviously unfair and harassment. If they wish to be honest they will ask the courts for a decision, that would be fair. I believe it is a fundamentally flawed and therefore unfair situation to allow banks to sell mortgages, hold the consumer money in their vaults, use the power and undue influence to then get the consumer to sign up for unsuitable products and agreements. The banks have a massive advantage in influence, power, and legal teams to write up agreements in their favour which allows the consumer very little scope to negotiate. This is certainly true when people are desperate for instant money whatever the circumstances. The bank then knows if the consumer defaults for any reason it can use it's power of offsetting to exert it's will. The consumer on the other hand has no resources, has little legal experience and cannot negotiate against the banking goliaths. I would point out to you section 1.24: The OFT would consider repeated and/or sufficiently serious cases of failure to exercise forbearance and/or acting unduly oppressively to constitute an improper and irresponsibly lending practice that call fitness into consideration. Here the consumer is dumped by the regulators, my own case has been thrown out as improbable, yet when OFT examines the number of complaints it may very well find that the bank is at fault. The OFT may issue a fine on the bank yet the individual isl left high and dry. So not only can we not fight the system through OFT (although their decision may help of future consumers) the FOS will not take context into consideration. We then are left with the courts, we cannot avail ourselves of lawyers as they cost so much money, we can't use CAB as they are pretty pathetic, employing only the unemployable remnants of wannabe lawyers who failed their exams or are too useless to employ. The system is patently unfair and unworkable. 1.3 I would point out section 1.30 regarding assessment of affordability, in his mortgage application it can be seen a number of errors regarding his financial obligations, the forms have been filled in with inaccurate figures and my son has signed it but he is not responsible, all he wanted to do was get a loan. It was the bank's job to be responsible and check those figures. Lending money based on a 95% of the value of the property in not responsible behaviour by the bank. section 2 General principles of Fair Business Practice 2.2 not to use misleading or oppressive behaviour when advertising, selling or to enforce a credit agreement. - In my opinion this offsetting from an account in the red is enforcement. Further the bank is charging a completey unwarranted level of interest which is punitive. My son cannot afford legal action and so the bank is taking advantage of their powerful position, (knowledge and experienced teams of lawyers with unlimited funds compared to us). The bank should make a reasonable assessment of whether a borrower can afford to meet repayment in a sustainable manner. - If this had been done after selling a £17 000 fixed sum loan in 20006 he would not have had to borrow a further £30 000 in 2007, all his money was going on repayments and just surviving. We have shown this on our cash flows. At one point he was paying £550 and £250 /month to the bank in repayments of loans and mortgage alone out of a take home pay of £1300/month. because of the fall in interest rates he can manage better now with repayments of £400 and £250 /month. However if interest rates go up it may be he will have to sell his home and all the money will be taken by the bank, his home of seventeen years. Of course the bank have been irresponsible it is as plain as the nose on your face. Inform the borrower the key features of the credit agreement to enable the borrower to make an informed choice. - I don't see that the bank has done this and this is bourne out in the selling of PPI. The bank never explained the details of those poor products and reaped in huge rewards so it is with the rest of the products sold to my son, only you cannot see it. Monitor the borrowers repayment record during the course of the agreement . Offering assistance where the borrower appear to be in difficulties. -My son went to the bank in 2009 he has already exhausted all his funds, the bank refused (quite rightly to lend further, what he needed was advice him) he then borrowed £3000 from Tesco, this helped him for several months and that too was exhausted. Here is a pattern of behaviour which is bordering on the mentally deficient, he obviously cannot understand the lending process. The bank offered no help and no advice, they had creamed the cat, skinned him and now closed their doors to let him bleed to death all on his own. how could they lose they had his house didn't they? Treat borrowers fairly and with forbearance if they experience difficulties (excuse my mocking laugh). The proof is in the pudding, My son came to the bank for help they trend him down, they were too busy counting their bonuses and planning next months Caribbean holiday). We took over in July and turned it around by Christmas. 2.3 There should be transparency in dealing between creditors and borrowers. - How have the bank honoured this requirement of the OFT regulations, they still refuse to supply the agreement for the £17 000 fixed sum loan, they have no agreement for the PPI, they sent an illegible copy from Mrs Trolley ( I sent you a copy I believe). How is this behaviour of the bank complying with section 2.2? I can't be wrong on every occasion I must have at leas one point stated correctly? Disclosure of key contractual terms...ensuring terms and conditions are fair and not unduly balanced in favour of the creditor. - Surely the biblical rate for usury was 10%, surely 12% is usury? where is the fairness in that? The bank is charging 12% on their offsetting and it costs them 1/2% this is wicked, absolutely wicked. Fair treatment of borrowers. Borrowers should not be targeted with credit agreements that are clearly unsuitable for them, subject to high pressure selling aggressive or oppressive behaviour or inappropriate coercion or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair, improper, whether unlawful or not. - We have already had our claim for fraud turned down by the FOS, but in my claim I showed that the bank knew there were only 2 bedrooms to his home thereby attracting a lower rate of insurance and although they adjusted their rates when the found out they did not back date the payments, this was decietfll and unfair. Yet the FOS in the wisdom choose not to consider this. Advise the borrower with an opportunity to ask the creditor for further information and explanation. - This was never done hence the bank has been unfair. I will stop for now and will continue tomorrow to review the actions of the bank. I hope you will put this letter forward as part of my appeal. I received your letter today explaining the appeal process.

Adjudicator Writes BackI confirm that in making my opinion I read the entire file, including your 12 page letter dated 22 June 2010 and all other correspondence between yourself, xxxxxxx and the bank from 11 September 2009 (being the earliest correspondence in the file) onwards. I have acknowledged receipt of each letter you have sent in since I have taken over this case (the letters in question dated 19 and 22 June 2010). I also have copy correspondence of all letters you have sent to us from 21 January 2010 in relation to this matter. The fact that I have been called to the Bar is of irrelevance to your case. As I have explained in my opinion, as an Adjudicator at the Financial Ombudsman Service, I must have regard to the law (i.e. legislation and case law) but am not bound by it. I have said that it may well be that if your case went to court, a judge would find in your favour. However, I must apply a test based on what is 'fair and reasonable'. xxxxxx clearly had the benefit of the loan monies and did not dispute this debt until over 3 years after the loan funds were received. Therefore, I do not feel it is 'fair and reasonable' to expect xxxxxx to escape his liabilities to the bank, simply because he and the bank have been unable to locate a copy of the loan agreement. To permit xxxxxx to evade his financial responsibilities based on such a technicality is not in my view 'fair and reasonable' however, as I have already said, a court may take a different view. In writing my opinion I focused on the salient points of your complaint and reiterate that I was not looking at the PPI or other insurance aspects to this complaint. I confirm that I am aware of the OFT Guidance to Creditors on Irresponsible Lending (1107 of March 2010) and in particular section 7.19 on 'off-setting'. I confirm that I will now put this case forward for review by an Ombudsman, as the final stage in our process. I will write to you separately today, explaining the process in more detail. At present I anticipate it taking between 10 to 12 weeks for an Ombudsman to make a determination on this case. Signed by the adjudicator who shall remain anonymous on this forum