If you are saying RBS did this without your knowlege there is a thread you really should read, especially if it has then been passed to Capquest and you are actuaully beig chased I mean, really read this thread! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/11427-walton-rbos-86.html

pmsl Can't say I've tried the kippering lol, not the sort of thing I get offered at the weekend, but doesn't sound sexy I'll pass! Their DN demanded payment of arrears by 15th July. Their letter dated 13th July demanded full payment by 21st July. Done deal :grin: Many many thanks for that, to everyone, will update what response I get

sorry, just answered my own question...if I accept the termination it doesn't matter does it!

I have not paid them a penny since 2 months befor that letter, so thats fine. Can I just double check with you...the letter they sent (too early) stated I had failed to comply with the DN blah blah. We now demand that you pay to us not latre than close of business on 21st July 2009 the principal outstanding on the account. It THEN says if I am unable to make full repayment by the specified date, there are a number of actions available: agree a mutually acceptable repayment plan or write to them with my proposals, including my first payment wiht my letter. Is this standard carp trying to get to you agree payments urgently and as the 21st has now passed, is that time up, account terminated? Can they claim that in their system the a/c wasn't ACTUALLY terminated, the letter just said that...they didn't go ahead and do it. could they use that as a defence?

No! No I haven't lol! Just drafts I think I understand why you say that...is my entire letter now just arguing things that no longer really matter....and in doing so could signify my acceptance there is still an agreement to argue/complain about? Even if this all goes pear shaped the balance is now only £375 () so am prepared to risk being stuck with it really! Thankyou for that letter, will send recorded in the am...shame, was quite proud of my letter/novel Just to give you a laugh, when I sent the original back signed to set it up they lost it. They sent a 2nd, and lost that also.....then a third before they set the loan up, and they cannot find any

love it

of course! with anything I post you do not have to even ask

Hi all, how did you get on with this, did things go ok for you? I found this thread when looking for info as I had to give uo my job after having my son a few months ago, but starting back work soon. Split with partner end of April and claimed income support etc. They messed it up at first but then ok, but have now had a letter from a compliance officer wanting me in for an interview 2moro about a 'query that has arisen regarding your claim for benefits' What does that mean, any advice Hunni-bee would be much appreciated! Really hope you got somewhere wiht this lot Biggranty:)

Read this one flyboy, FOS decision on a pre 2005 agreement. It explains their logic in upholding the complaint: http://www.financialombudsman.com/publications/technical_notes/omb-decision-C.pdf

And yes, Elsa, I now have a parachute a/c open Do not mean to rant rickyd, I now you are pointing out the facts as they see them and consequences...I am aware they will lose no sleep over my wee fight, but I will lose sleep if I do not stand up for myself cause it's easier

Hmmm, lots to think about there. As for apparently defualting on a loan account becaue they refusd to put the account in dispute after they failed to provide a CCA, how then does this legally entitle them to close ALL my accounts with them simply because they are with the same bank? Not just because they have simply set their systems up that way....are they legally allowed to? By the same token then, if that kind of logic is allowed then if I have a bank account or loan with Natwest and I (apprently) default on my RBS loan...they can then close my Natwest banking and demand full payment of overdrafts, loans with them as they are in the same banking group? Each account is opened and has a seperate contract with its own T&C's (hence the huge bank charges fight as there are contract terms being argued). So how does a percieved default on one contract allow them to terminate all of them? Apart from that, they cannot supply a CCA, refuse to recognise this as a dispute, (as you state I am not obliged to offer payment at this time) start the default process as I have not paid, manage to get 2 default notices very wrong, then terminate the account even earlier than the date specified on the default notice (which was too early) and tell me this makes no difference. And again, I have never refused to pay and intended to clear the full balance in a few months but they put me through hell so am now exercising my legal rights at this time. Let me tell you, they are experts at quoting law and T&C's at you to explain they are allowed to bully, impose charges, take action or your money when it suits them. =But when I quote the same laws & T&C's back at them that allow ME to do things now that it suits me? Apparently thats not allowed and they DON't like it - therefore they will try and bully me by summarily closing all my accounts and riding roughshod over the CCA. Nope. 'fraid not. And I am not simply 'enjoying my moment', there is plenty I could be doing otherwise but I am sick of them being judge, jury and executioner and I am not supposed to challenge them? They will trash my credit file because they have decided it doesn't matter what the CCA says, what their default notices say, they just can.......and I am supposed to bow to this bullying scare tactic and cut my losses? Nope, 'fraid not

Sound advice, especially about the lawyers used! They defaulted on my CCA request months ago then wrote to tell me they cannot find it and do not have enough details in the system to enable them to 're-create' it! 1st default was a mix of my a/c and some other Natwest customer's a/c! This default the dates, term I have breached in the agreement are wrong and they have started the default early also. I think they use a toy bingo machine as a calculator in collections

Done lots of reading and amended the complaints in the letter to this. I removed the Invalid default section - keep this for later as you say and added Karenruthj8's line and think its much better, thanks guys. Complaint Details I will outline the main points applicable in this case for the purposes of my complaint. Bank Accounts under Collections Control I am quite sure a financial organisation as large and reputable as yourselves is aware of the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and the obligations and protections contained in this Act. I am therefore confused as to why all my bank accounts are still with the Collections Dept and I am being chased for payment. I am now being forced to deal with an extremely rude, unknowlegeable and incompetent Collections Dept for simply for exercising my legal rights. The loan agreement is in dispute and should not be showing as outstanding arrears or affecting my normal daily banking. I will not accept “that is how our system works” as your systems should not be set up to contravene my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Should these accounts not return to branch control I will take this as an attempt to punish me or treat me less favourably simply for choosing to exercise my legal right at this time. I also have a serious complaint regarding my treatment as a whole by your Collections Dept which I will be lodging a complaint and supplying full recordings of the phone call this relates to, to be investigated fully. A - Account status – under dispute or not I note that every time I ask if the bank considers this a dispute you refuse to answer, but your actions are a clear NO. Your staff have advised that your breach of my request has no bearing on the status of my account or the situation. Your advice and behaviour implies the relevant section of the Consumer Credit Act or the OFT guidance on the issue does not apply to RBS, so I ask for final clarification on the banks position on this question – Is my account in dispute or not. B - Default Process There is also the fact that you are still following the default process in these circumstances, which is also against section 13.6 of the banking Code. A default is placed if I have defaulted on an agreement – since you are unable to supply an agreement you cannot claim I have defaulted on any specific contractual term. Please confirm if you think it is acceptable to place a default on an account under dispute. C - Transfer of bank accounts to CMS You have also advised that should I not ’remedy’ the default you will transfer my account to Credit Management Services and close access to my normal bank accounts which will then accept credits only. As you have not clearly stated this as an action you intend to take on the default notice – as required in Schedule 2, Section 6 of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 - I do not believe you are entitled to take this action. Again, I will not accept “that is how our system works” as you are taking this specific action on my bank accounts upon a perceived default on my loan account and Schedule 2, Section 6 of this Act requires that your default notice details a clear unambiguous statement of your intended actions upon default. Your staff also advised both 2 days and then 3-4 weeks for this to happen and as I now cannot reasonably rely on their advice or know which to believe, please confirm the process and timescales involved in the event of this transfer. D - Data Protection Act Further to this you cannot provide proof of my signed permission to share this data with third parties, including credit reference agencies. I will point out that this loan account has never shown on my credit file, and if RBS decide now, only in the event of this perceived ‘default’ to record this account, it would be clear you are using the default procedure purely as a punishment for exercising a legal right. For avoidance of doubt I have enclosed a notice pursuant to Section 10 of the Data Protection Act with regards to the processing of this loan account data. What I require A - Clarification finally on the question you refuse to answer: Does you consider your breach of my request for a true signed agreement for this account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/8 to constitute a legal dispute on this account? Your staff advise me the account is not in dispute and there are no notes in the system to confirm this. I require you to clarify if my account is in dispute or not within RBS. B - Stop the default process. C - My accounts – (current account and key account) returned to branch control. Should you refuse please confirm this with your reasons and the process, consequences and timescales involved. D – Comply with the Section 10 notice enclosed. Do not mark my credit file with any of the negative information at all relating to this perceived default or take any steps to only now register this account with the Credit Reference Agencies. Upon satisfactory resolution of the issues raised in my dispute I will be happy to come to an amicable repayment arrangement with regard to any amounts proven to be legally owed. I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is still a formal complaint. I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and await your rapid response. Yours faithfully

any comments on this train of thought welcome as this issue has bugged me for some time and this may be a way of dealing with it: The Information Commissioner put out a leaflet about our details on the electoral register being sold for marketing etc for a fee and how this was unfair as we pretty much don't have a choice to be on the register - it listed a high court ruling, The Robertson Case, in support of this. From this ruling we are now allowed to 'opt out' of the direct marketing side of the electoral register so why can't we use the same logic with the CRA's and stop a major source of their revenue? We don't have much of a choice about being in their files, but can we follow the electoral register lead and 'opt out' of letting them package up our info and sell it too? The ICO leaflet reads: The ‘Robertson Case’ A ruling by the High Court in November 2001 (following a case brought by a member of the public, Mr Robertson) changed the law governing the use of personal information on the electoral register. The High Court ruling confirmed that it was unlawful to sell copies of the electoral register to private businesses without giving people a choice not to have their information used in this way. The Commissioner’s view The Commissioner believed that because individuals are required by law to supply personal information for the electoral register, and they commit a criminal offence if they do not, any non-electoral uses of the information should be kept to a minimum. The previous arrangements allowed the sale of the entire register to anyone prepared to pay a fee, and the Commissioner thought this was inconsistent with the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly the requirement to treat people’s information fairly. The High Court ruled that, by not allowing people to opt out of being included in the register that was for sale, the previous arrangements were in breach of UK human rights legislation. Will be looking up this Robertson Case but any comments? - good or bad

Brassed off, late I know! This bit of the CCA 1974: 107 Duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit in relation to which security is provided, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the surety and payment of a fee of £1 , shall give to the surety (if a different person from the debtor)— (a) a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it; (b) a copy of the security instrument (if any); and © a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (i) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor, (ii) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and (iii) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. (2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amount and dates mentioned in subsection (1)© (iii), he shall be taken to comply with that sub-paragraph if his statement under subsection (1)© gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to— (a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or (b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with. (4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the security, so far as provided in relation to the agreement; and (5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

"just cause" would be their answer to that then? I know one of the issues the MP's questioned was, if this is an internal thing only...why the need to add signature, T&C's etc Did RBS sign these also, as in a normal agreement and was it a stamp or someones signature...and who's?

See this is what was confusing me...and to be honest, if the agreement was correct it shouldn't be this confusing or needing a huge discussion to see whats been borrowed! They have not shown the Total Credit, Total Charge for Credit, what your PPI premium was, whether it was a single premium being added to the total credit - no Total amount payable, nothing! Its one of the worst, most confusing agreements I've ever seen lol

magic, will do, thanks. Wanna make this watertight!

AS sparkie advised, both to Natwest and RBS Need to get proof together, this may still just be very poor and innacurate paperwork, I mean everything they've sent so far has been a pile of poo. But there are just too many wee coincidences cropping up

Right thinking about this, do I remove the entire invalid default section or just leave a simple line it stating that I think they are invalid - challenging them? I want to be able to prove that I did challenge them and they continued regardless, does this show too much of my hand or put another nail in the ole coffin?

Hi Elsa I think you are right, they should KNOW why their defaults are invalid without me spelling it out (yet) and it makes more sense to approach it this way....mentioning an offer after the dispute - carrot & stick. I offer a carrot once they have lowered the stick. Thanks muchly again GerryPerry - basically I was on maternity leave and still kept the payments up but when I had to give up my job (going back in a few moths yippee!) I only asked to be a bit late with 2 payments, thats it. And yes, they then got all arsey, put me through a right carry on. Even just deducted the 2 payments from my a/c out the blue one day after agreeing the repayment! (got that back eventually). Daft thing id, when I got back to work I was just gonna clear the lot in one go! So yes, game on

The purpose of requesting the CCA is one to see if they have it - if they don't the loan can go into dispute and they cannot take court action until they supply it. The other is to see if it is the same as some folk have found major differences between their original and the banks 'copy' (allegedly ) or things added. My mate recently discovered the bank had added PPI without her knowledge and the signatures were very different on what was supposed to be a carbon copy! Compare their copy with what has actually gone on in your statements - see if everything matches up ok Always worth checking

you are right, they did mention somewhere the accounts would only accept credits! we'll see about that then.... and one phone monkey said closure in 1 to 2 days, 2nd monkey says 3 to 4 weeks, so lying and trying to confuse me - all recorded. thankyou

Wasn't retrospective I don't think but they were found to be unfair. Unless the bank made it clear that they were adding it to your loan and therefore paying lots interest on it then it was unfair and misleading. Their paperwork certainly gives NO CLUE this is what was happening with your premium! Their own agreement hangs them methinks I agree, I think your agreement is way wrong