Hi Everyone

If info in these blogs is anything to go by,

I'm embroiled in typical delaying correspondence "ping-pong" with Natwest

but have just had a very aggressive telephone conversation with their rep.

Essentially,

most of the details of my claim are the usual suspects ie

didn't need it,

lack of info provided,

condition of loan etc.

but one other aspect is that ppi was added to my loan 8 months after it was taken out.

I have all the info and the documents prove that

1. I took out a £5000 loan in July 1997

2. £1125 ppi was added (that I had not agreed to)

3. I cancelled the ppi and this was deducted from the loan balance

4. In February 1998 a new loan was set up in my name to the value of £5530

5. The original loan was paid off in full with £4636.90 from the £5530 and closed.

These 5 events are not in dispute and are fully agreed.

Where the serious disagreement occurs is that Natwests position is that I "must have" applied for an additional loan of £900

(although they are yet to provide any evidence) and this is the "only logical explanation".

My assertion,however, is that Natwest said (at the time) that ppi had been a condition of my original loan

and should not have been cancelled so added it to the outstanding balance once they realised some 7 months later.

I also assert that at the time there was no reason for the requirement of an additional £900 loan

and that this was not credited to my account.

( I have asked for bank statement to prove this but none are available)

Natwests rep has just told me in no uncertain terms that "nobody will believe that we would do this"

and the Ombudsman won't believe it when there "is zero evidence this has happened to anyone else at any time"

I don't believe for one minute that my case is unique and know this will have happened to numerous others.

I would, therefore, appreciate hearing from anyone else who has similar experience or anyone who could give positive advice.

Thanks

Paul

on 4 . did you sign the agreement?

Hi,

I don't honestly recall. As yet Natwest haven't produced this evidence but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Perhaps you should suggest to the rep that in the light of recent actions and scandals by various banks that nobody would not believe it.

I did suggest (politely) that banks have about the same credibility on this matter as tabloids have with the truth and MPs with expenses.

I'm a firm believer that if you just stick to being honest and don't try and manipulate the facts then a just conclusion will follow.

I hope I'm not shown to be naive and overly faithful of the Ombudsman!

And very helpfully to Natwest you are having these phone conversations without recording the call???

Unfortunately, I'll have to hold my hands up on that one. Stupid really.

I don't know about anyone else but this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me.

Are you saying that the extra £900 is the PPI for the 2nd loan but Natwest are disagreeing?

I'm saying that 8 months into the original loan (with me having cancelled the original ppi)

Natwest said that the ppi was conditional and shouldn't have been cancelled.

Ppi was then added onto the outstanding balance but this was not added to the existing loan account.

Instead a new loan was set up and the original one paid up and closed.

so your sar did not produce a copy of the second loan agreement?

and you have NO statements?

dx

That's correct, SAR produced no loan agreements for any of the loans and bank account statements back to 2008 only.

Are you aware of situations where information has not been available via initial SAR but miraculously appears as a banks defence when ppi claim is pursued. A friend has told me that this happened with her credit card ppi claim where a signed agreement was "found" after none were available originally. Another dirty trick?

urm that should have been challenged

an SAR is legal document

if they latterly produce something that should have been in an sar

they can be taken to court over it

see the ICO site

dx

I've passed on this info and she is going to contact Natwest about this. Thanks.

Do you know of anyone else who, like me, had ppi added well after a loan commenced?

simple fact is ppi is not conditional anywhere.

have you that in writing

dx

dx

Unfortunately, I no longer have any of the original documentation and (based on SAR) neither do Natwest.

so where is the bit that the PPI was compulsory coming from?

I specifically remember the telephone conversation at the time (Natwest phoned me)

if you've no recording

could be difficult to prove

Granted. But I would think it will be difficult for Natwest to explain the introduction of ppi 8 months into a loan.