I found the section in their Proposal form declaration on the 8th page if their annual bumf to the Home Insurance, It says this has been taylored to your needs based on the information given. That my son has been extremly careless with his finances is understood but to say that the home insurance was taylored to his needs is contradictory now that the Bank is claiming it is a standard policy and the only one they do. He was paying around £360/annum for this policy and does not own a freezer so why insure his goods for £500 in the freezer? his contants are worthless let alone £20 000. In the end we insured with Allianze for less than £14.00.month and he was paying NatWest almost £30.00/month. NatWest found out after three years that he had 2 bedrooms and not 3 so they dropped the premioum slightly to compesnate for this, but they did not back date his repayments and did not inform him that he was owed moeny from that time, hence our claim for fraud under the fraud act. the adjudicator did not mention fraud in his statement and decided that the bank owed us no responsibility for selling a taylor made insurance product, in fact the adjudicator states catergorically that the bank has no obligation to provide taylor made proposals...maybe she did not read all the literature that I sent her. I have wrtten back explaining the section with a copy of the proposal delaration and literature defining what a credit agrement is and that they owe the consumer a full explanation of the product verbally and in writing according to OFT guidlines. I have asked that my complaint is put forward to the Ombudsman.

We recieved a reply from the FOS Saturday, They have found in the Bank favour and rejected our claim regrding the Fraud for Home Insurance. They have not overturned the £150.00 allready paid but do not even answer my accusation of fraud, they say that the home insurance is not and has never been taylor made, yet I have documentation from natwest mentioning that it is taylor made. I wil trawl through my paperwork and make sur eof my facts before putting in an appeal. But I am siocked at the response, in one part the ajudicator speaks about my claim in vague terms, nt something I would expect from a legal person.

The thing is about Guidance from the OFT is that it is a code of conduct to which the Banks are expected to adhere to in their dealing with the consumer. Should they ignore this guidance they can hardly hope to win a case brought befoe the FOS.

I refined my complaint to the FOS today and reminded them of OFT1107 March 2010 Irresponsible lending, section 7.19 regrding offsetting. Offsetting is a common law device for the Bank to reduce payments by taking their cut for their claim first, hence if they offer you a sum to settle a claim they will inissist that the payment is made via the consumer's current account. Therefore if there is a negative alance then thay pay the money but this automatically rduces what you owe to the bank. In efect a paper exercise. Section 7.19 [page 77] is classed under deceptive and unfair practices, this offsetting is unfair if the bank does not undertake an affordability assessment and where the borrower is experiencing an unsustainable level of indebtedness This is true in our case. Rolling over is another unfair practice if it is not in the consumer's interest to have his debt increased such as upfront PPI's, changing an unsecured loan to a secured loan, offering more money than the client needs. These are all true in my son's case. Section 7.11 is ver interesting, here it is unfair to fail to suspend pursuit of a debt where the debt is in dispute and where he appears to have valid reasons for doing so. For wnyone who has debt problems I thoroughly recommend readint his latest paper from the OFT. OFT 1107 Irresponsible Lending -- OFT Guidance for Creditors.

Offers and Settlements 10 August £7,500.00 Fraudster repayment 05 November £ 107.46 NatWest 11 November £ 50.00 NatWest Home Insurance/UK Ins 16 November £ 125.34 HFC Bank 16 November £ 89.11 HFC Bank interest on above a/c 16 November £1,128.60 HFC Bank 16 November £ 317.20 HFC Bank Interest on above a/c 30 January £ 650.00 Ford Dealer, no interest paid 30 January £ 1,202.38 Santander Cancelled HP charges 30 January £2,289.87 NatWest PPI 17K loan offer only, refuses costs and interest 1st March 2010 £307.58 Barclays, PPI + Interest 3 April 2010 £315 PPI on £12.5 K loan 2002 offer only

I would hate the person involved to go to court and then find out it is an acceptable copy of the contract with terms. I would suggest the person read OFT1175con Guidance on Sections 77/78/79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the duty to give information to the debtor (debtor means the borrower) and the consequences of non-compliance on the enforcebility of the agreement. Part 2 The Plain English Guide to the Agreement (page 2) The lender needs to send you an accurate copy this means it doesn not have to be a photo copy of a carbon copy or a micro film copy, it can even be a typed copy of the original agreement. It does not need to be a signed copy It can be a recreated copy but in this case the Bank has to tell you it is recreated The lender also has to give you copies of any documents that are refered to in the agreement The copy must be provided within 12 working days This Guidance was issued by the OFT on January 2010 and although it is only a consultational document it operates as a code of condcut for the industry and if you go to court the Judge will refer to it as it is based on case law. I have looked at the agreement carefully and it seems a very accurate copy of your agreement to me. I would draw your attention to sections 1.14 and 1.15 of the guidance notes and they clearly define the purpose of this legislation, i.e. it is intended for information only and not for avoiding debt. The OFT refer to Carey vs HSDBC Bank plc[2009] EWHC 3417 (QB). My advice is to make very sure of why you are going to court if you feel you havebeen badly treated at all explain in yout complaint to the bank and explore ways to develop your argument, ometimes theyy make offers just to get rid of the mess.

The strangest thing is NatWest have made one more offer on a claim I only a short time ago proffered, they have offered a free will offering for a loan made in 2002 and which ran for only three months. This is based on the PPI and interest element and amounts to £315.00 yet they refuse to send a cheque and insist it is to be paid into his current account.This is the second such offer, we had one last month for £2289.87 and the same terms. They refuse to pay interest and costs and restitutionary damages. I spoke to a solicitor last week and he told me that I would be mad to take NatWest on in court and that the FOS is the best route for me, he also said I would be mad to turn down their offer of the 1st amount mentioned above. His motto seems to be a bird in the hand... The problem is that NatWest are still logging defaults on his current account for the missing premiums of the 17K loan and they are adding interest, so at the moment he is £1000 in the red in his c/a which they refuse to close as it is in a debit situation. So if we accpt their offer without interest they will take it off his current account and he will lose a £1000.00. Also it establishes a principle that all other reclaimed monies will be paid without interest and into a current account that may be in the red again, so no matter what he wins he will always be docked some money through the current account. I have made a complaint to the FOS regarding thsi current account and what they are doing. It is my opinion that their actions consists of enforcement on the 17L loan. If anyone is reading should I insist they pay interest and by cheque, or should I grab the £315.00? The £315.00 is part of a loan over the 6 year rule. The solicitor told me that on mortgages and deed loans the limitation on debt is up to 12 years? Anyone hear of that? I have not put my claim in to the FOS yet for irresponsible lending.

We had one more payment from a bank on the 1st March 2010. Barclays coughed up £307.58 and that includes our full claim plus interest at 8% simple interest. They refused to pay costs and restitutionary damages. They paid it directly into his account , no forms to fill in and no disclaimers as to further legal action on our part. They made us dance for 6 months but eventually paid up. 20 August £7,500.00 Fraudster repayment 05 November £ 107.46 NatWest home insurance 11 November £ 50.00 NatWest Home Insurance 16 November £ 125.34 HFC Bank 16 November £ 89.11 HFC Bank interest on above a/c 16 November £1,128.60 HFC Bank 16 November £ 317.20 HFC Bank Interest on above a/c 30 January £ 650.00 Ford Dealer, no interest paid 30 January £ 1,202.38 Santander Cancelled HP charges 30 January £2,289.87 NatWest PPI 17K loan offer only refuse costs + interest 1st March 2010 £307.58 Barclays, PPI + Interest

Typed up my Mortgage Repayment Protection Insurance claim today, took me 4 hours. I wrote to the oeprations manager of RBS at Hardman Boulevard, Manchester (are they having a laugh?). His total claim for repayments of premiums is £1628 plus interest over 8 years. It has taken me months to formulate my claim, mainly because I have been trying to get RBS to provide the documents, they say it is not their policy to supply standard documents like terms and plan details, the CCA 1974 section 7 says they must for a fee of £1.00. I eventually found all the documents I needed to back up my claim, the Policy letter of acceptance, the terms booklet (I thought it was a form) and the statements that show last and first payments and the amounts. So all I have to do is formulate the interest (I have a cunning formula) and have estimated costs at around £1144. The problem is these banks always write back and say they are not into the habit of paying costs. RBS refuse to pay statutary interest at 8% and at the term restitutionary damages they lose all interet. I put in a claim last week for a loan PPI taken out in 2002 and that came to £360 and I put in a claim for his credit card PPI and that came to £360. So that's about £2000 plus interest and damages and also costs, around £6000. So far they have offered around £2340 or thereabouts. I have one tiny clam for Fonecare but that is a small amount. The big claim is for irresponsible lending and they have told me to write to Enfield after corresponding for 6 months. I recn it could be as much as £50 000. I would like to send my final claim letter to an admin and see if my reasoning is legal, I have used the CCA 1974 and the UTCCR 1999 section 5. I am having serious doubts about whether the Ombudsman is the best course, really serious doubts. But I feel I am totally incapable of fighting this in court. I am too afraid I will lose for my son and I really do need to win him some relief from the horrendous situation he is in. What is really disconcerting is the number of people who have replied to me, it must be around 30 different people and that cannot be right, can it? I was thinking maybe I should try Gowans the claim specialists and see what they think. I have all the information tabulated but it would be a big box of papers to send off to them and I would have to photocopy it all. Any thoughts?

Right Elsa My little rant seems to have triggered off one with you, but yes I agree with you 100%. Suddenly the storming fo the Bastile by the froward French seems a reasoanble thing to do. In our worst moments we may consider doing nasty 'orrible things to the banks, but we have to fight it, it's not nice. But sometime in our weaker moments it seems right to do unto them what they did unto us. Imagine living next to a bank manager and charging him for every leaf that dropped from his tree onto our land just because we can do it, and taking him to court for arrears when we know he has just lost his job then when we get to court ask for punitive damages and interest at 30% because one day when we had the opportunity we asked him to sign a clause that every leaf that fell onto our garden he had to pay us a pound. And knowing he was ill and out of work we send him a christmas card hoping he would get well and then arranging the bailifs to call round and give him a wind up just because we can. And then when the bailifs have been and shook him up we arrange for debt collectors to harrass him every day with phone calls day and night just to keep him on edge. Then to rub it all in we take out a large technicolour advertisment in film and show on the TV how we were the most friendly and kindly neighbours one could ever hope to meet. And arrange this advert day and night on all tv stations telling the world what frindly and amusing staff we employed, and how attractive they were, and all the time the governement had had to bail us out to pay for these big adverts and all the time we were paying our staff millions poun bonuses for rbbing our neighbours, and the country owed trillions of pounds to shore up the rotten edifices, and it had become common knowledge that we had bribed judges and used lobby groups to change the laws that stopped us doing the worst kinds of abuse to our cunstomers. And finally the Ombudsman was in danger of collapse because 4700 cases were with them from last July to Decemebr just on our one organisation. Imagine that and all the time an election is drawing closer and closer and the elecorate are getting edgey and want to know why our governement allowed all this to happen, who was in charge when Gorbals Mick the Speaker of the House was defending MP's exesses as privelidge!!! And a voice was heard speaking from heaven that the world had gone mad and right was wrong and wrong was right and heaven had almost given up on the stupidity of mankind. The bestest brains and the most inteligent of our people are employed by organisations that pay them millions to practice usery on the common people. The richest and the best brains employed to prey on those less fortunate than themselves. Lets invent a scheme these best brains said one day, let stop being petty and go for the big money we will invent a [problem] called Advantage Gold, and in doing so charge these suckers for the privilidge of putting their hard earned money into our banks, we will tell them they can have discounts on all the things they never have the money to pay for like skying holidays, health insurance at ski resorts, lost baggage on air trips that they can't afford anyway. So what it they are semi skilled manual workers and we are selling them products designed for the rich, if they are stupid enough to sign this contract save them right. SO lets see we charge them £12.95/month for Advantage Gold, of course we won't tell them the advantage is for us and pure gold to us in revenue. That is £155.40/annum and over ten eyars the poor sap has to pay us £1554 and just for holding his cash from his wages after he has been squeezed by his governemnt 20% and a further 7.5% in local taxes, we woant our cut too. Som in ten years with a million uctomers that will equal one thousand five hundred and fifty four million pounds per million customers, if we can increase our customer base to ten million then that will be fifteen thousand five hundred and fifty four million pounds, goody, we should get a mllion pound bonus for dreaming up this one. What, no...no one will notice, all they will say aren't we doing well. Well lets not stop at advantage Gold said the big nopise at head office, only he was like the Wizard of OZ who was quite a small man and hid behind a curtain of lies and sued a magaphone. Why not sell them PPI schemes, oh we already do that says a voice. NO, but when don't we charge interst on the PPI loan. PPI loan they squeak? Yes we lend them the money to buy PPI and then chrage them interst on the loan. NO...no one would eb that stupid says one small voice. Yes, as long as we have listed all the ramifications and clauses on the back of the agreement, and there will be many confusing clauses wink wink. And as long as we state that we have explaine dal the clauses, and as long as no one notices we pre ticked the request for PPi on the form. A long silence ensued and one voice asked if it was wrong to do such a thing but he was immediatley sacked and given bad references so that he would never again work in the Banking world. That was the start of the begining, and the end never came in sight until one man started a blog and a forum and this one man said STOP!!! this is wrong, this is unethical this is usery...THIS IS WICKED. Even the nazis would have grovelled to be part of such a powerful organisation as the Banking Fraternity of Middle Britian in 2010.

Thanks Middenmess Through people like you and Elsa and IainHL, and TexanBar who are willing to give their time and support it has been much easier than it could have been. When I started this crusade I had no knowledge just a burning anger of injustice when the figures began to reveal the full story. The cornerstone of any success has been down to this forum, it's admins and it's helpers. The one most important thing I learned on this site is the Power of the SAR and the CCA requests for information, when we have the information we are armed. I have learned so much from the £10.00 paid for the SAR. And there is no doubt in my mind that the Banks are abusing the system, it is all too convenient for them to lose agreement, documents, PPI agreement, terms and conditions and so on. I think the easy days are over, every morsal has to be fought over. As it happens my son is meticulous in keeping scraps of paper and we have agreement going back 20 years. I am convinced the Information Commissioner is taking an easy stance on the attitudes of the banks, and much information lays in their vaults and never coming to the light. The only reason we won with Barcalys is that we had a full true colour original copy signed by both parties and when we showed them that with the PPI agreement they couged up. They had provaricated for 4 months and still refuse our reasonable costs. NatWest operates a defence by dealing in a nagative way with complaints and using a dozen (figuratively speaking) different departments to parry questions. Many letters remain unanswered, many of the points never addressed and there is an ever growing hierarchy of levels where the case has to be explained in detail time and time again. Unless one is willing and able to spend hours writing letters and filing the results it is always going to be the bank that wins. After months of writing letters, the higher level staff have just told me that they are not late with my SAR, and that is 6 months after the fact. That is the most bare-faced lie I have ever been told in my life. We have extended the deadline time and time again for them to provide documents. Some documents are illegible, some, or most I should say, are incomplete. The bank has not provided a copy of one PPI agreement and that is after 5 months of writing to them with a SAR (dated 30th septemebr 2009). The latetest guidline OFT1175con is a disgrace to consumer protection laws, an absolute disgrace! To me it seems the law is being applied by the judges in a negative way and retropsective. Parliament made some strong laws for the consumer in 1974, those rights enshrined in that law have now been whittled away by the courts, the very courts meant to protect us. Before, if an agreement was lost the debt was frozen, that has been the law for decades. It was always treated as a loan where the consumer could then stop payments as there was no agreement. Now the OFT goes to the other extreme, the CCA is not a way of avoiding ones debt it says. Next it will say the consumer has a moral obligation to pay debts off even when the bank cannot prove there was an agreement in the first place! The bank can now provide a reconstituted agreement, soon banks will reconstitute things that never existed in the first place, that is what I mean by retorspective. How can you trust a crook with a stick of dynamite and a locked door with 1 million pound behind it on a dark night? The answer you can't and we can't trust the banks to reconstitute agreements because they are a bunch of liars and cheats and rogues and fat cats. If ever this country needed a revolution it is now, and I for one would take up arms and would be willing to shoot anyone who opposed me. That a labour government could act in collusion with this bunch of neer-do-wells is unbelievable. I sudenly realise I have gone off on a rant...oh dear! how remiss of me. Ieaun

Successes so far: 20 August £7,500.00 Fraudster repayment 05 November £ 107.46 NatWest Home Insurance/UK Ins 11 November £ 50.00 NatWest Home Insurance/UK Ins 16 November £ 125.34 HFC Bank 16 November £ 89.11 HFC Bank Interest on above a/c 16 November £1,128.60 HFC Bank 16 November £ 317.20 HFC Bank Interest on above a/c 30 January £ 650.00 Ford Dealer, no interest paid 30 January £ 1,202.38 Santander Cancelled HP charges 30 January £2,289.87 NatWest PPI 17K loan offer only refuse costs + interest

Thanks Elsa Will do, Ieuan

It depends on the quality of you case against them of course. If they don't have a properly executed agreement and have written to say they don't have an agreement then you are fairly safe from the court. However they must declare that they have lost the agreement in writing AND now they have to state categorically that the loan is unenforcable. I recommend you download this link and read as it explains the new ruling very thoroughly. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/OFT1175con.pdf They can issue default notices and they have no teeth but it all depends if they have written to you and declared that they have lost the CCA, if they have they can reconstitute an agreement and send it to you without a signature but if they can't find or prove that there was an agreement in the first place then they have to tell you when dealing with you. You should write to them and discuss so that they have to declare that it is unenforcable, if they don't do that then they are in serious breach of the CCA and that is actionable in law. Once you are sure of you facts I would take out a complaint via the Ombudsman or the court, though personally I am a bit wary of the courts as it is so complicated. They can report you to a Credit Agency and ruin your credit record. They can threaten court action but not if the agreement is unenforcable, make sure they have said it is unenforcable then you can write back if they threaten court acion and say that it is an offence and that you are reporting them. If they have closed your account then they cannot add any more charges, they refuse to close mine. I would not send the credit card back to them, say you destroyed it ages ago if you have, or that it is lost if you have lost it. But I would do everything but return a signed card to them, they only want it for the signature. Hope this helps regards Ieuan

Thanks Elsa and IainHL for comments. The payment of £218.26 is taken every month to service the £17K loan account and says 'NW Personal Loan', this is the loan that they lost the agreement and cannot send my particulars of the PPI arrangement, although they have offered to payback all PPI payments but not the interest i.e. the interest I am claiming because it was a bad deal in the firs instance. This account was opened when we closed the Advantage Gold Account and was intended as a temporary measure until our parachute account was opened. Thank goodness I took advice when I did. When we stopped using this account it was in surplus by a few pounds but since we moved to Barclays the bank has continued to take money for the mortgage and for this loan. We have since back paid all monies owing on the mortgage and arranged a S.O. from his Barclays account but this continued pilfering from a dormant current account is annoying. We stopped all D.D.'s months ago but when we found out the bank were continuing to debit this £218.26 I wrote to them and instructed them to stop, an instruction they ignored. We are now over our authorised overdraft with them and the interest rate has gone up, so I suppose we are into unauthorised overdraft and yet they refuse point blank to close the account and demand to know if we have made other arrangement to pay this unenforcable loan. I made a complaint with the FOS a while back about this situation and I guess the best thing to do is to update FOS about this continued pilfering. I am at the stage of finalising the details of our whole cliam at the moment but this sounds serious to me because they could take us to court for the unauthorised borrowing and yet in away it might be good as they them have to explain why they are enforcing an unenforcable loan! I have read the OFT1175con very carefully and as they have admitted that the loan is unenfocable I cannot undertand how they continue to take money from an account agaisnt our wishes especially when the loan is unenfoceable by virtue of their adminance that they cannot find the loan agrement. We have an agreement but it is unsigned by both parties. Page 30 of OFT1175con in the Part Two - the Plain English Guide says that: 1. The lender cannot demand earlier payments off the debt 2. threaten court action 3. take possesion of anything you bought on credit, or which you used as security when you took out the agreement But does not specifically mention taking money from current accounts. I will take Elsa's advice and check on 'The Right to set off' and the overdraft is at £771.54 at present Elsa. Thanks again evryone for valued support. regards Ieaun PS I've had a quick look and you are rght Elsa it seems the bank cannot offest when a debt is indispte and clearly from all our letetr to NatWest we are in dispute. It has taken me 6 months to learn what offsetting is..duh. I will add this latest communication from the bank to my complaint to FOS. A guy named Wheatley is dealing with it.

Thanks for your continued interest Middeness, it is so encouraging when people such as yourself give their time and support to our small efforts. I may do as you suggest, ask them to offer the balance to close the account as a gesture of goodwill...trouble is we intend to take them to the Ombudsman for an unfair relationship due to their irresponsible lending over a number of years and it is no small sum. Some good news today that I almost missed as the Woolwich typed their offer on the reverse side of the letter, I have not seen that before with NatWest, maybe they are trying to save paper. But they have agreed to pay all the PPI back plus interest and to pay interest since the loan was taken out. Only £300 in all. They refuse to pay our reasonable costs but are paying the money directly into my son's account. When we opened the parachute account we were not aware that Barclays owend The Woolwich. So in the last 6 months I have gained almost £1800 from Marbles Loans for PPI mis selling, £650 from the Ford dealer for cheating on their sale of a car to my son, £307 from the Woolwich. NatWest have offered around £2360 for mis selling on one of his loans but refuse to pay interest and refuse to pay our reasonable costs. I wonder why they are so small m inded to jib at the interest it will look very bad for them if they go to court.

I am looking at IainHL'spost of the 21st January 2010, it is quite interesting because I got a letter from the bank yesterday agreeing to stop taking money from my son's account. I mean they take the money from his overdraft to pay for the £17 000 fixed sum loan, a loan they have lost the agreement to and have said so in writing. I wrote to them on the 22nd January 2010 and told them to stop taking money from his account, I refered to it as enforcing. In view of the recent OFT1175con document they cannot enforce a payment by going to the court or by direct action against my wishes, i.e. deducting from his account. I suppose the only way they could justify taking the money is because of a clause in his agreement that states that they can do this when other means fail. yet, they openly admit they have lost the agreement, if one existed, so they cannot rely on legal clauses that in law do not exist. There is a beauty in this logic I find, especially as it works out in our favour. So the bank has written back to say they are stopping all debit payment to his account except tranfers to his loan accont (I don't actually know what that means...tranfering to his loan account). Well that is interesting, my letter instructing them to stop doing something has worked but only becasue of the OFT document I think. They then say it is not possible to close his account as he is £772 overdrawn. Yet he is overdrawn becaue they keep taking moeny from it. A catch 22 situation methinks and a very annoying one. I am beginning to realise how debilitating it is to be in this sitution and all the letters this forum recieves is like the myriad cries coming out of hell. Poor people and yet there is nothing anyone can do to alleviate their misery. Should I pay the £772 just for the satisfaction of closing the vehicle of his demise over so many years? It would be worth it just to be shot of them. IainHL' thinks they might have a basis for court action and we woud be on the wrong end of the stick if that happened. They are insistant in their letter to know our intentions with this debt. And I am wondering if they did go to court if that might not be beneficial as the whole can of worms would come out then. Please let me know if I should pay off this overdraft just to be able to close the bank account? In a later paragraph of the letter from the bank they ask should they cancel the direct debit to the loan account, so this seems like an internal device to pay off the loan, but we stopped all direct debits to them months ago and that is why we complained to the FOS that they were still using a DD against our wishes. The bank asks should they cancel the DD and wish to know our intentions to meet the sums due. Well we have already told them we don't intend to make payment for a loan as we are in dispute over the whole mess of irresposnible lending. I mean he owes £150 000. And started in 1994 with a £25 000 mortgage. There is a veiled threat in their letter but very carefully worded, they require clarifcation if we intend to make payment on this loan. I have avoided making any comment regarding this loan so far, but if the loan is unenfoceable then there is nothing they can do in court, so as I don't have to answer the question I will not and just ignore it. They have advised us to present a form DMHEF, not sure of the ramifications of this. The bank denies that it is overdue in its suppying of documents regrding my SAR of the 30th Septemebr 2009 despite still not being able to supply documents with the various loans and credit card agrements. I am in the middle of making up my complaint to the FOS regrding the whole mess. I expect it to take up 12 pages and this then will be presented to the bank as my last statement and then use that letter in my claim to the Ombudsman. The bank will not pay the interest on their offer. I know it has been advised by this site that we should accept offers and then sue for the interest at a later date, but don't they put in a clause that you drop all claims, complaints and so on with their offer? It seems to me this is the course of action the bank's actions are forcing you into. The alternative, as I see it, would be for you not to take action at the moment, continuing instead to let the bank help themselves to the increasing overdraft until such time they decide it has got too big and then decide to take action against you(r son). The problem then is likely to be that you will be defening an action on an overdraft by referencing a lack of agreement on a secured loan and the bank helpling themselves to the increasing overdraft, and that could be difficult.

The latest guidlines state that the bank does not have to provide a photocopy, a signature or a proper copy if there was a properly executed agreement at the time. They need only provide a reconstituted copy, they can even type up a copy as long as it is legible. If they have lost the original copy they can state that it is a reconstituted copy and that they always provided properly executed agreements at that time. However, the good news is that if they never did have a porperly executed argreement then they cannot reconstitute a copy. If the do reconstitute a copy they have to say so. And if they have lost the original agreement but are certain there was one propely signed then they can argue that the reconstituted copy complies with the act. I suggets you down load OFT1175con, print it out and read thoroughly. I think I am right in this as I have the copy here in front of me. Page 31 says: do not be misled into thinking that information requests are a way to make your debts go away. Don't take it out on me I am only the messenger. regards Ieaun

Looks enforceable to me, it is a valid copy of the agreement. It is signed by someone. Under the latest OFT guidance an unsigned copy is not necessary. A reconstitutes agreement is OK. Suggest you lok up OFT1175con for further details, page 29 gives the Short English Version. regards ieuan

Sorry, but you cannot demand a signed copy any more under the new guidelines from OFT, See OFT1175con see Part 2: THE PLAIN ENGLISH CONSUMER GUIDANCE (page 29). The copy can be an unsigned copy and it can be a reconstituted agreement as long there was a properly executed agreement inthe first place. The bank is allowed to request payment from you, issue a default notice and pass your details to a CRA. The banks is not allowed to demand early payment of the debt, threaten court action, take possesion of anything bought on credit or take possesion of a security to obtain the loan. Or pass your information to a debt collector. I recommend you read that OFT document before issuing notices. The good news is that if the debt is unenfoceable because they cannot find the documentation then the Bank MUST tell you in writing at the time of your CAA. regards Ieuan

Spot on Emandcore, how can a creditor threaten legal action without asking for enforcement? But then we are not judges.

Thank you

I read that post (1501), thanks Middenmess. I spent two days writing up my complaint to the FOS regarding the failure of the bank to send any documents within the prescribed times and asked for £3000 as a remedy. But looking at some of the posts some people have been involved with the Ombudsman for years. I sent off a schedule of letters with remarks for each letter. I am planning to make one more complaint regarding breaches of the relevant OFT Guidelines. I am wondering if these consultational papers have any weight in law, should I be using them to make my case? Is OFT 854 Unfair Relationships passed as law? I suppose OFT1107 Irresponsible Lending is just a consulatational paper and cannot be quoted until passed as law? What about the most recent OFT1175con, is this just a consultation paper. I went back to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and looked at the latest ammendments regarding the section 7 disclosure and it has been updated. So I suppose the consultational document from the FOS may be used as guidelines for making complaints to the courts or to the FOS. Reading up the court cases online on this site I have come to the conclusion that I lack the necessary experience of litigation. It is all so very complicated. I notice that the banks break the rules in many cases and on many occasions with impunity and reading of the FOS complaints htis seems to be the case with them also. So wha is the befit of having all these laws if the supervising organisations are not going to act on them? natWest still has not send my documents under my SAR of the 30 Septemebr 2009 and I am wondering if the Ombudsman wil uphold my complaint. If they do not I can still use te court. It seems case law is being made on a daily basis by the courts regrding consumer protection laws and isn't always plain sailing to those who have to embark on these legaistic voyages of dicovery. To me the OFT1175con reads completly different to the CCA 1974, and now that ha sbeen rewritten. We cannot then use the section 7 for fishing expeditions to see if a contract is properly executed. But I suppose we can use the Data protection Act to ask for information and they do have to supply it but not the exact documents only the information stored on those documents. Well time will tell I suppose. Ieuan

What is SRA?

Well, I made a complaint to the Ombudsman for sending all my mail back and he asked me to resend it. I have started paying the mortgage again as our solicitor advised us that the documents were valid. It does not mean the total lending was not irresposnible and I am starting to write up our claim. Thankfully we had enough money to pay off all the back payments on the mortgage element. We also paid of the car and still have money in his account although he is on a tight financial leash as regards cash. The offer for the PPI charges is on hold as I am not happy that they have refused our minimal cost of £100 and refused interest payments. The Bank are thinking of making us a total offer to drop all our seperate claims and have told us that they will respond before the 28th February. I doubt it will be what we want, but it's a start in the right direction. Barclays are being very nice to us after 5 months and sent us a claim form for the PPI on his loan that was paid off a few years back. My biggest problem seems to be keeping all the files in order I am glad that we have finished with the car firm and now can concentrate on the two banks and a dozen claims. Now, the Ombudsman has entered the equation and I have three claims on the go already with anouther three or four to write up. Thanks for response Middeness old pal. regards ieuan