Son of Steven4064 (let's call him Steven4065) sent SAR on 14th December and got all his statements within 4-5 days but nothing else.

Sent a reminder on 2 January pointing out that they had until 25th January to comply fully with his request. Letter copied to Data Protection Manager (Alex Lyons) in Edinburgh.

From the statements it looks like the claim will be over £1500.

We received the following reply yesterday:

"DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 I write in response to your letter dated 2 January 2007.

- Manual Intervention

With reference to your request concerning any 'manual intervention' to the administrative charges debited, these charges have been processed in accordance with the terms and conditions of our current agreement with you as a result of the activity on your account. In the event that you breach the terms and conditions, we will take the appropriate action, contacting customers when appropriate, or handling customer enquiries regarding their account status. When a customer has raised a concern in relation to this process, the decision will be communicated to the customer and where appropriate noted on the account.

If you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

Yours sincerely,

Joyce E Tudor-

Retail Regulatory Risk"

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

 

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

I understand your frustration, but I wouldn't apply for a court order at this stage, if that is your intention. Stick to the plan, and follow the step-by-step guide contained within this forum. Any judge will need to see that you are being both 'fair and reasonable' when dealing with this matter. It will save a lot of red-faces in the long run:)

Either way, good luck.

Would you credit it? (probably yes)

They have replied by sending exaclty the same letter again! Anyway, muggins73, we'll take your advice and go straight to the initial request for payment, rather than applying to the court for the missing information (that there have been no manual interventions). Presumably, we can always refer to this unhelpfulness on the N1 (can we?), if we get to that.

Letter from Stu this morning with a whole load of self-justification and a pile of brochures with terms and conditions for all sorts of Nat West offeings.

After wading through the guff there is, as a gesture of goodwill, an offer of £1415.00 in full and final settlement.

This is everything we asked for except for £157 interest and in response to our Initail Request for Repayment.

Seems Nat West is on the run.

Steven

However...

there is a sting in the tail. After waffling on about how wonderful they are in providing all their wonderful services for free they say,

"Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft. These charges can be avoided entirely by arranging suitable borrowing facilities in advance."

Now that begs a whole load of questions: If I go overdrawn beacuse they slap an unlawful charge did I really 'request' it (perhaps I was just 'asking for it'). And do they really review my account every time I go overdrawn - I think not. (and if they do, how much does it cost - I bet we'd all like to know that!) And if they really do, why so coy about manual interventions?

Then the sting...

"Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with the bank. Should you be unwilling to accept any such charges, then we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities. Instead we may offer you a simple account that does not offer borrowing facilities or other services that can result in charges."

Well of course, I don't mind (well almost not) paying charges that 'properly accrue', but that's the whole point, isn't it?

We were thinking of accepting the offer (even though it doesn't include interest) but it seems in so doing we would effectively be agreeing to pay their unlawful charges in the future. On another thread NATTIE said we couldn't sign away our rights - quite right too. So, how should we proceed?

I am beginningto think we should carry on, accept the offer as a partial offer only, and go for the rest so that we get an unconditional offer. What does anyone else think?

Hi

This is exactly the same letter as I got. I asked for charges plus contractual at 29%. They offered charges, but no interest, so I have written back offering to accept charges plus s69.

Awaiting response.

This is a new tactic by Nat West and does have some implications especially for new claims. It will be up to each individual to decide if they think it is worth going through the whole court process to try to get s69 or contractual and I get the feeling reading thro the posts on this site that the courts are not always sympathetic to claims for contractual.

If you are confident of your claim then you have to decide if the time and effort is worth it for the interest!

This gets interesting!

I think that getting the interest or not is now secondary. The implications of them trying to get us to agree to future charges is the sinister element that has come in. This also seems to be a new tactic.

It will be that rather then the interest that makes us press on I think so that we can get an offer wit hno strings attached.

Steven

Ah, so that is how the new account I heard of a few months ago is going to work, No direct debits and no standing orders allowed and only atm withdrawal card. Now i did think it was for this reason and now i see it in black and white. By the way the first bit of the letter, re service is part of new t&c's effective from 1st February 2007

So the booklet they sent me (NWB 3773 December 2006) contains new T&Cs. It lays out all the unlawful charges VERY clearly (p12) and very helpfully.

NATTIE, what is your opinion on post 8. Am I right to continue to get an offer with no strings. I know what they are trying to do but, surely, getting us to effectively sign to accept the charges in the future doesn't make them any more lawful. And there is an implied 'or else' in there too. Or else what?

Also, the sentence about reviewing informal overdraft requests is obviously nonsense. But further, it is an attempt to deceive us into believing they do something for the money they take. I think that one could argue that the two things (deceptive claim to provide a 'service' and the attempt to 'persuade' us to accept the charges 'or else') probably constitute an abuse of position and hence are an offence under s4 of the Fraud Act 2006, or are dangerously close to doing so.

I am thinking of writing to the CEO of NatWest along these lines and pointing out that his staff (Stu et al) are putting him in a position where he personally could be prosecuted under s12 of the same act.

Hi

Yes like the Fraud Act! Would be very interesting to see the response.

Bicester1

MBNA WON £623

GM Card Won £580

Barclaycard LBA

Nat West Bank offer received negotiating

Nat West CC offer received negotiating

Lloyds PPI prelim:wink:

so sir fred Goodwin head of RBS GRoup plc limited. The non formal request is in the new T&C's leaflet sent out in statement insert November December and January. My personal opinion has always been that contractual interest is a difficult one to argue but each to their own. You can cross out conditions and return it to NatWest but always keep a copy

The interest on our claim is the actual interest charged by NatWest on the overdraft when the overdraft consisted entirely of charges. That doesn't seem unreasonable. We have certainly not claimed contractual interest on all teh charges whatever as some are trying.

The interest adds up to over £150.

Would they insist I repayed £150? Yes they would.

LBA went today.

Have today sent request for payment to NatWest. £1175 for me and a seperate letter £1985 for my other half. Will let you know...

Quick update. Sent Letter before Action on 17 Feb but unfortunately (stupid me!!!) left the date the same as for the initial request for payment - 27 January. Nat West responded with an identical response to the one they sent in reposnse to the initial request except that it said, "Thank you for your letter of 25 January..."

So we have degenerated into complete confusion!

We have decided that the best thing to do is to ignore the last 2 letters and send the LBA again with the correct date. The 14 days now ends on 31st March.

We (hubby & I) both sent initial request letters 20.02.07. Hubby got an offer last week £1700 (£90 less than claimed) and has accepted. They haven't replied to any of my letters so sent LBA 7th March. Think they are bogged down and won't have noticed your duplicate!

Let's hope we don't just go round in circles.

On another tack, (see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/56427-theft-act-15a-there.html) I am thinking of sending the follwoing to the CEO of RBOS group (owners of Nat West):

Sir Fred Goodwin

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc,

36 St Andrew Square,

Edinburgh,

EH2 2YB

Dear Sir Fred,

My son has recently been in correspondence with the Customer Relations department of Nat West with a view to reclaiming charges imposed on his account for unauthorised overdrafts and refused direct debit payments, which he, along with many others, believe to be unlawful. In his latest response, Stuart Higley says the following,

“Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft.”

The Nat West booklet NWB3773 spells out that a charge is applied to the account of a customer who makes an “informal request” for an overdraft by inadvertently going overdrawn, etc, or indeed by going overdrawn because of a charge imposed on the account by the bank itself. The above paragraph implies that someone reviews this “informal request” as part of the services offered by the bank. Now everyone knows that no one does any such thing. All that happens is that the computer automatically imposes the penalty charge. This paragraph is dishonest, and the dishonesty is an attempt to justify an unlawful act (the imposition of a penalty for breach of contract) by the bank.

I would like to draw your attention to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, which say that an offence has been committed if a person

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Section 12 of the same Act says that if the offence is committed by a corporate body with the consent of “a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body Corporate” then that officer is also guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against.

Now it seems to me that Mr Higley’s letter could be putting you and other directors of Royal Bank of Scotland group in a position where you might be open to prosecution under this Act since Nat West is obviously in a position where it is expected to safeguard customers’ financial interests and, as I pointed out above, Mr Higley’s letter constitutes dishonest abuse of that position with a view to making a gain for the bank and causing a loss for the customer.

I felt that you ought to be made aware, if you are not already, of the possible consequences of actions by your staff.

Yours sincerely

Steven4064

Any comments anyone?

steven4064

I've got a comment that may or not be of consequential help I dont know, but reference your third paragraph, I would think that their staement may be hard to prove as dishonest, but I think you would have a better chance of proving "Negligent miss-statements" which is covered by the Libel Act, under the New Libel Act it is no longer necssary to prove damage. Have a look at the New Act it might be useful it might not.

I think they are making negligent miss statements.

sparkie1723

steven if only i could say what was on my mind, but a simple do not waste the printer ink cartridge

Nattie, maybe you're right. Perhaps I should just stick to the plan :(

It is better to be honest than to be a banker!!

Claim handed in to court today.

Quick update - letter from Cobbetts saying they are going to defend (yeh, right!)

Steven

Don't worry steven.......... nearly there now mate!!! Good luck, hedgey xxx