Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Posts posted by IainHL

  1. Is it just me that sees the date and time? Grey bar above the post, far left?

    Maybe not just you, but I certainly can't. When you say grey bar are you referring to that dark metallic blue/grey bar up there ^ ? All I have in my view of your post is #67.

    (And just for reference the side panel there


    Noting the comments from pinkduchess and babybear39 as I was replying, I guess it is a post count or reputation related thing then?

  2. However that is not going to be soon enough for some of us who have their solicitors breathing down our necks! I had a letter from `Salans` last week and Ive written back to them yesterday asking what they consider to be a "substantially reduced settlement final lump sum payment" would be?

    Currently I owe £18k +:mad::mad::mad:

    As per Fester Tester I would suggest an offer of £2k. Salans will write back asking you to make a more realistic offer. You ignore them. They will write again asking for a response. You continue to ignore them. It all goes quiet (2 months now).


    At least that is what has happened to my partner. She does, however, have a stack of things against Welcome (they cannot find agreement, deficient default notice followed by termination, charges, etc). In fact her offer to Salans was for them to treat the amount already paid (about 16% of a secured loan) as the full and final rather than offering them any more. I am not advising that this is the course of action you should take, that choice has to be yours. I am just informing you what has happened to her.

  3. FWIW, these:

    - unreasonably prioritising the bank's own interests over those of the customer when dealing with customer problems

    - not giving due regard to customer interests

    are IMO the most important points.

    This is my feeling too. Particularly the first aspect. It occurred to me as I was writing my letters to the banks earlier this year that they had given themselves preferred creditor status by default. Unlike the rest of my creditors who sent me a bill and I decided when I paid it, if I could, the bank just took the money from my account. I feel a very strong case for an unfair relationship could be made from this fact alone.


    (And as an aside, noting the subsequent slant of Bookie's post and the subsequent discussion, this is nothing to do with benefits, but a person with ordinary wages.)

  4. I would contact them today. The problem is will they continue to take loan amounts out? Is the account online can you cancel the direct debit?

    The problem is that even if you cancel the (visible) DD NatWest will probably still take the loan repayments. In the past certainly loan repayments were serviced with an internal transfer (TR on the statement) rather than a direct debit (DD on the statement). I have not banked with NatWest for some time, so don't know if this is still the case, perhaps someone with an active current account/loan can confirm this. Actually Ieuan should be able to tell us the narrative on the statements for the loan repayments they are taking?


    Ref Current Account Number xxxxxxxxxxx

    Dear Sirs,

    I write to inform you that I require the overdraft limit on this account to be frozen at £xxxxxx (state required limit) and not increased under any circumstances without my express written permission. No further funds are to be taken from this account unless with my written consent.

    I hereby cancel the Direct Debit/ Standing Order being taken from the Current Account above in respect of Loan Account Number xxxxxx, as clearly the funds are not there to service it. All other Direct Debits, Standing Orders or other periodic payments are cancelled forthwith.


    Any further payments made from this account will therefore be against my express instructions.

    Please respond within 7 working days confirming that my request has been actioned.

    Yours faithfully,

    I do believe Ieuan has already written a letter stating those sentiments at some point in the past. NatWest of course have ignored him.


    The problem that Ieuan faces is that NatWest hold the cards in this situation, and he needs to find a way to force their hand. Hence the course of action I suggested above. Ultimately I fear though he may well be forced into taking action to resolve the matter and stop the bad position from escalating. On the other hand I suppose he could write again as you have suggested, and sit and wait as NatWest continue to service the loan from the ever increasing overdraft. There must surely come a point at which they will be unwilling to increase it further, and will start a claim against him, at which point he can use all his correspondence with NatWest in his defence. I would imagine that point would be before the whole loan is paid off, I cannot see them increasing the overdraft to the full £17,000, in which case the lack of agreement should work in his favour.


    I just get the impression that Ieuan wants a course of action that gets the situation resolved sooner rather than later.

  5. Ieuan, a possible course of action, if you had the funds available, would be to clear off the overdraft so the current account had a nil balance and then insist that NatWest close the account. Perhaps do so verbally at the branch and in writing. NatWest may still refuse to do so, arguing that you must have a current account with them to be able to service the loan. If that is the case insist they cancel the overdraft facility on the account. Again do this in the branch and in writing. See if they will convert the account into a Step account (no overdraft facility). Do this at the branch only (I am thinking here you might get a low level clerk who does not realise the implications of what you/they are doing).


    If all of this fails then I feel your only recourse would be a claim under the Data Processing Act 1998 as you were contemplating. I believe I have seen threads on this, but have not researched it myself. Do you have any you have read that your could point me to?

  6. It means Cattles are in a bigger hole than they thought

    Trying to get my head round this, my take is that it means the bond holders are unlikely to petition to wind Cattles up, since the ruling says the bank(s) have first call on any monies available.


    Would this interpretation be correct? If so it means, as postggj has said, that RBS are the ones pulling the strings now.

  7. What an arrogant and useless letter.


    If, as SFU reckons, they set various DCAs on you (for that seems to be their way) I suggest you should send a single letter, along with a copy of your last letter to M&S, telling them to refer the account back to M&S and that you will not respond to any further letters from them.

  8. Ieuan, it is a pity that you have had to find out so chillingly just how useless the FOS is at looking after consumer interests. I am glad to see you are appealing to an Ombudsman, but unfortunately don't hold out much hope for you getting any better a decision.


    It is good to see that you intend to ignore his ruling and continue to not pay the debt. I have now been waiting over 6 months for NatWest to do anything sensible (or even silly!) after admitting they cannot find my agreement. The best they seem to be able to do is nothing.

  9. Take a look at this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html.

    Again, it is long, but in this case start with the first few posts where pt2537 spells out the basic principles.


    In my case I had started with a s.78 CCA1974 request and was sent something that led me to believe NatWest didn't have the original agreement. So after various letters I made a CPR 31.16 request, which as I stated above, they ignored.

  10. Here it is: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/11427-walton-rbos.html.

    Warning, it is 132 pages long at the moment. However if you go to the very last post as it stands at the moment, which is from Paul himself, you get an inkling of the games NatWest have been playing.


    However, irresepective of any contact you make with Paul, I would concur with sequenci, get a letter off to NatWest asap requesting that full breakdown of how they work out the number they are demanding from you.

  11. The payment has been made by direct debit to the National Westminster Bank so I doubt it has gone astray, however your other comments are very interesting and I thankyou for that. The more I think about this the more I think they are chancing their arm and will rely on the fear factor which I am lucky enough not to be affected by.

    Since you have stated that it is NatWest (which I had guessed at from the first few posts) I feel you may be in the land of router accounts here. Read Paul Walton's thread. You may also wish to contact him.

  12. 1. For the agreement to be an executed agreement, does the agreement need to be signed by Welcome?

    Yes. s.189(1) CCA1974.


    2. Why did they not respond to my allegation that i have doubts about it's authenticity?

    Because if they admit that it's game over for them, so they have to ignore it and hope you will continue to pay them.

    • Haha 1

  13. There's still a lot of talk on here about 2nd DNs. I'll have to go through my HFC file to find the letter I drafted to them when they tried this on with me.


    The crux of my argument (under some Act or another) was that an account cannot be defaulted twice. That aside, it seems logical as well.

    P1, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. My understanding has been that as long as they don't terminate (either specifically in writing, or by their actions) on the back of a deficient DN, that they could then issue another.


    Take the scenario where the debtor enters a default situation, gets a DN (all nice and neat and compliant), rectifies the default within the prescribed timescale. The agreement then continues as if nothing had happened. But then circumstances mean the debtor enters a default situation again, DN, rectification. Surely that could happen a number of times in the lifetime of an agreement?

  14. Going back to my point 3) above...


    The limbo situation where they can continue to impugn the debtor's CRA file and threaten recovery for a debt which they very well may know is IEA in law should not be allowed to continue.

    If you find yourself in this position you can then try the CPR31.16 route: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html. However a lot of creditors are very good at ignoring this sort of request after a ss.77-79 request and hiding behind the response "we have fulfilled our CCA1974 obligations".

  15. Ah, back to Jayne Ellett this time I see! As SFU said (I think it was earlier in this thread), of course their legal department is going to agree with them. It is hardly there to agree with you, is it?


    I feel you are now at this stage (please note that this was written to one of their DCAs):

    Regarding the alleged debt Marks & Spencer Financial Services believe that what they have supplied to me is a legally enforceable document. I do not believe that it is. If they truly believe that it is then no doubt they will take this matter to court. That is their prerogative, but I will vigorously defend any such action. You may consider this to be my final response on the matter, and any future letters from yourself will be filed, but not responded to.

    with thanks to Slick132

    In the light of their intransigence I don't think there is much more you can do.

  16. Request for repayment of charges


    Dear Sir/Madam,


    ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxx


    My request


    I am writing to ask you to refund to me charges and related interest which you have levied from my account over the last three years.




    After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.


    Yours faithfully,


    Stewie, I feel your letter isn't really the correct one to send in this circumstance. It is too much related to the bank charges situation, rather than charges on a loan account.


    I would strongly worded letter specifically referring to UTCCR 1999 is what you need. Take a look at the letters here: Reclaim Credit Card Charges: Full guide to get £100s back..., they should give you the basis of what you need.

  17. Hello there. That is Capquest's "heavy" letter, designed to make you think that it is "really serious" and make you "do something now". (And as an aside I would love to know how they validate employment details.) Please do try not to let it freak you out.


    Do as you say. Refer them back to the bank, mentioning the payment offer you have already made.

  18. That is a most interesting observation MOT22 about whether or not the creditor has to state whether their agreement is enforceable.

    I dont think this side of hell they will ever admit that its not. Rev Ian has got them pretty close to this, but sadly no cigar!



    SFU, this is where OFT1175con might well become your (and all our) friend: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/OFT1175con.pdf.


    I realise at the moment it is just a consultation document, but I presume it will move to the status of actual guidance sometime soon. Sections 2.20, 2.26 and 5.4 through to 5.6 are relevant to the matter under discussion at the moment.

  19. Thanks for posting those up dd, I can see them coming in useful to many people.


    The bit that made me chuckle most was this:

    9. The prescribed terms in page 2 of XXXX/1 which are alleged to be the prescribed terms of the defendants agreement show (with a great deal of difficulty) the rate of interest to be charged on the account and are as follows (as far as can be ascertained by using a powerful magnifying glass) -


    15.9% for card purchases

    18.3% for balance transfers

    18.3 % for cheque transactions

    18.3% for cash transactions



    10. The court is referred to the exhibit of Miss XXXXx at MBNA/4 ( accounts) and in particular the first few pages of account from 2004.


    It can be seen from these accounts that the transactions on the account- especially balance transfers (annotated as BT) are charged at 15.9% - therefore the accounts and the alleged prescribed terms do not match up

    You would think that they would have the sense to make their own exhibits/witness statement consistent!

  • Create New...