Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Just wondered if there's anyone else out there pursuing a claim for mis-sold PPI against either Natwest or RBS and, if so, if your experience is anything like mine.
I can't help thinking NatWest/RBS are 'playing the game' and that they really ought to be taken to task.
Firstly, it seems to me they will always wait to the last possible moment, ie just within the timeframe stipulated by the FSA, before responding to any complaints.
And then, even when the PPI is clearly mis-sold - in my case, I was between jobs and didn't therefore satisfy the 'continuous employment' requirement - they will only make a 'goodwill gesture' without any admission of liability - I've trawled the forums and I haven't come across a single instance in which NatWest/RBS have conceeded they've mis-sold a PPI policy.
Moreover, they will not offer any interest beyond that paid on the PPI - ie they won't contemplate adding the s69 interest which, it would appear, is now being added routinely by the fos to reflect the fact that claimant's have been deprived of their cash.
It seems to me, NatWest/RBS know they will lose if these claims are pursued via the FOS or small claims court but rather than act with any integrity - yeah, yeah, I know... - they continue to plead their innocence in the hope that claimants will settle for their initial offer, thereby saving themselves a tidy sum in the process.
Of course, I realise this isn't altogether different from how the vast majority of financial institutions would act in these circumstances but, at the same time, I can't help feeling NatWest/RBS really are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable to the limit.
Surely someone - the FSA or the OFT maybe?! - should be taking them to task over this? In instances where the PPI has clearly been mis-sold and NatWest/RBS know as much is it acceptable to the regulators that they continually refuse to acknowledge as much and leave people with no option but to pursue the FOS/court route?
What's your experience of NatWest/RBS and do you agree with my points?
NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08
Just wondered if there's anyone else out there pursuing a claim for mis-sold PPI against either Natwest or RBS and, if so, if your experience is anything like mine.
I can't help thinking NatWest/RBS are 'playing the game' and that they really ought to be taken to task.
Firstly, it seems to me they will always wait to the last possible moment, ie just within the timeframe stipulated by the FSA, before responding to any complaints.
And then, even when the PPI is clearly mis-sold - in my case, I was between jobs and didn't therefore satisfy the 'continuous employment' requirement - they will only make a 'goodwill gesture' without any admission of liability - I've trawled the forums and I haven't come across a single instance in which NatWest/RBS have conceeded they've mis-sold a PPI policy.
Moreover, they will not offer any interest beyond that paid on the PPI - ie they won't contemplate adding the s69 interest which, it would appear, is now being added routinely by the fos to reflect the fact that claimant's have been deprived of their cash.
It seems to me, NatWest/RBS know they will lose if these claims are pursued via the FOS or small claims court but rather than act with any integrity - yeah, yeah, I know... - they continue to plead their innocence in the hope that claimants will settle for their initial offer, thereby saving themselves a tidy sum in the process.
Of course, I realise this isn't altogether different from how the vast majority of financial institutions would act in these circumstances but, at the same time, I can't help feeling NatWest/RBS really are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable to the limit.
Surely someone - the FSA or the OFT maybe?! - should be taking them to task over this? In instances where the PPI has clearly been mis-sold and NatWest/RBS know as much is it acceptable to the regulators that they continually refuse to acknowledge as much and leave people with no option but to pursue the FOS/court route?
What's your experience of NatWest/RBS and do you agree with my points?
Just wondered if there's anyone else out there pursuing a claim for mis-sold PPI against either Natwest or RBS and, if so, if your experience is anything like mine.
I can't help thinking NatWest/RBS are 'playing the game' and that they really ought to be taken to task.
Firstly, it seems to me they will always wait to the last possible moment, ie just within the timeframe stipulated by the FSA, before responding to any complaints.
And then, even when the PPI is clearly mis-sold - in my case, I was between jobs and didn't therefore satisfy the 'continuous employment' requirement - they will only make a 'goodwill gesture' without any admission of liability - I've trawled the forums and I haven't come across a single instance in which NatWest/RBS have conceeded they've mis-sold a PPI policy.
Moreover, they will not offer any interest beyond that paid on the PPI - ie they won't contemplate adding the s69 interest which, it would appear, is now being added routinely by the fos to reflect the fact that claimant's have been deprived of their cash.
It seems to me, NatWest/RBS know they will lose if these claims are pursued via the FOS or small claims court but rather than act with any integrity - yeah, yeah, I know... - they continue to plead their innocence in the hope that claimants will settle for their initial offer, thereby saving themselves a tidy sum in the process.
Of course, I realise this isn't altogether different from how the vast majority of financial institutions would act in these circumstances but, at the same time, I can't help feeling NatWest/RBS really are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable to the limit.
Surely someone - the FSA or the OFT maybe?! - should be taking them to task over this? In instances where the PPI has clearly been mis-sold and NatWest/RBS know as much is it acceptable to the regulators that they continually refuse to acknowledge as much and leave people with no option but to pursue the FOS/court route?
What's your experience of NatWest/RBS and do you agree with my points?
Fred_Funk
Hello Fred
I see that we are like-minded regarding the Nastywest and the RBS, who are one and the same I do confess to having a deep loathing for them
I totally agree with your comments regarding their despicable conduct and breaches of consumer legislation.
They do appear to think they are above these regulations and will deny any underhanded business tactics whatsoever, but we know different.
They completely frustate you with your SAR, don't comply and the ICO does nothing.
Fail to produce any credit agreements for anything under the CCA , default you with no Notice of default, apply interest increasing the balance and then threaten you with taking your home regardless.
If you report them to the enforcement authorities, you get back a template letter telling you that they will not investigate individual disputes
What is needing is a mass complaint to the oft and the fsa. I am sure that there is enough of us on here, the debt forum and the rbs/natwest forum to start with.
I have asked the mods permission to instigate this matter, but have not heard from them yet
If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW
I see that we are like-minded regarding the Nastywest and the RBS, who are one and the same I do confess to having a deep loathing for them
I totally agree with your comments regarding their despicable conduct and breaches of consumer legislation.
They do appear to think they are above these regulations and will deny any underhanded business tactics whatsoever, but we know different.
They completely frustate you with your S.A.R - (Subject access request), don't comply and the Information Commissioners Office does nothing.
Fail to produce any credit agreements for anything under the CCA , default you with no Notice of default, apply interest increasing the balance and then threaten you with taking your home regardless.
If you report them to the enforcement authorities, you get back a template letter telling you that they will not investigate individual disputes
What is needing is a mass complaint to the oft and the fsa. I am sure that there is enough of us on here, the debt forum and the rbs/Natwest forum to start with.
I have asked the mods permission to instigate this matter, but have not heard from them yet
Do we really need their permission to start a complaint? Let's just do it and count me in as you might already guess ...
'Fortune favours the brave.'
Any advice given is purely on the basis of my own views and opinions and offered in good faith.
Do we really need their permission to start a complaint? Let's just do it and count me in as you might already guess ...
Oh Painty you rebel:grin:
So there is 3 and of course bet AA will be interested no doubt:grin:
Hello AA "were art thou":grin:
Now are we just sticking to the mis-sold PPI or all of their unlawful ways
If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW
Waves to Guest - is this interesting enough for you?
Can we come out now
Think they have gone now Wonder who it was
You don't think it was sir fred goodwin, trying to find the error of his ways
If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW
they will only make a 'goodwill gesture' without any admission of liability - I've trawled the forums and I haven't come across a single instance in which Natwest/RBS have conceeded they've mis-sold a PPI policy.
This is so true with me it was goodwill gesture as follows:
RBS goodwill gesture, No liabilty accepted and keep quiet for £2.6K.
I'm a little confused with your post below. Could you just clarify a couple of things for me, please:
(1) At what point did RBS revise their initial offer to include statutory interest at 8 per cent? It's not enirely clear - to me at least - but was this before or after you'd gone to the fos?
(2) If it was before, as your post rather implied, then what, in your opinion, was the catalyst which prompted RBS to offer the additional 8 per cent?
That aside, I agree with you wholeheartedly. RBS are, to all intents and purposes, taking the proverbial. There may be instances where the mis-selling is not clearcut but, clearly, there are plenty more where it is.
Yet they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this and instead make a 'goodwill gesture' with no admission of liability and no statutory interest included, leaving many people with little or no option but to accept significantly less than they're entitled to or, alternatively, to go to court or wait eight or nine months for the FOS to ajudicate.
At a time when everyone is feeling the pinch and hundreds of people are losing their homes every week, it seems to me something really ought to be done about this. In a worst-case scenario, RBS's actions could, for instance, mean someone's house being repossessed.
In effect, they're playing games with people's lives but, all too evidently, they're not much bothered about that and until someone takes them to task will happily continue to do so.
The $64,000,000 question is, what can we do about it?!
Fred_Funk
NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08
If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW
NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08
I'm a little confused with your post below. Could you just clarify a couple of things for me, please:
(1) At what point did RBS revise their initial offer to include statutory interest at 8 per cent? It's not enirely clear - to me at least - but was this before or after you'd gone to the fos? The RBS refused my request for 8% after I responded to their original offer of £2.6k. So complaint submitted to the FOS Sometime in August and the next thing I know is the FOS call me and say they have received a revised goodwill offer without admission of liability and the offer is £3.8k+. FOS state this is probably the best they could have expected and advise me to settle.
(2) If it was before, as your post rather implied, then what, in your opinion, was the catalyst which prompted RBS to offer the additional 8 per cent? Most certainly the complaint submitted to the FOS. RBS at this point in time are trying to avoid a massive fine as per Alliance and Leicester £7m. The RBS as I understand it have issued an internal memo stating they want the claims settled before Court or FOS involvement and have actually issued a statement to the FSA that they will endeavour to resolve any complaints to prevent escalation to FOS and FSA.
That aside, I agree with you wholeheartedly. RBS are, to all intents and purposes, taking the proverbial. There may be instances where the mis-selling is not clearcut but, clearly, there are plenty more where it is.
Yet they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this and instead make a 'goodwill gesture' with no admission of liability and no statutory interest included, leaving many people with little or no option but to accept significantly less than they're entitled to or, alternatively, to go to court or wait eight or nine months for the FOS to ajudicate. This sadly is the option available FOS and time or Court with perhaps less time but not Guaranteed.
In My Opinion direct offers of goodwill should be rejected BUT only if you have a quality case like Pre existing Medical conditions, Unemployed, Over 65 and retired, Student or under 18. Or any other of the exclusions that were never mentioned at the point of sale.
At a time when everyone is feeling the pinch and hundreds of people are losing their homes every week, it seems to me something really ought to be done about this. In a worst-case scenario, RBS's actions could, for instance, mean someone's house being repossessed. I totally agree but remember it is not just RBS here it is a whole mulititude of PPI sellers.
In effect, they're playing games with people's lives but, all too evidently, they're not much bothered about that and until someone takes them to task will happily continue to do so.
The $64,000,000 question is, what can we do about it?!
Keep complaining directly to the company involved, keep sending the SARs, keep banging in complaints to the Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service, Financial Services Authority, Office of Fair Trading, Trading Standards, British Bankers Association.
We can also write to Members of Parliament about the responses from these organisations or the lack of responses.
NatWest/RBS and PPI
against either Natwest
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Fred_Funk
I do confess to having a deep loathing for them
Wonder who it was
