Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'failings'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Categories

  • The Youth Academy
    • The Youth Consumer Service
  • Miscellaneous

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 8 results

  1. Good Morning, I'm seeking some advice/direction from you for my mother following my fathers death in 2014. Her mortgage started in 2002 and was called a Natwest Foundations Mortgage, it was effectively an arranged credit line that allowed you to borrow up to the value of the property and pay off extra amounts when suited. Natwest withdrew this product and started locking peoples money in, there was widespread complaint online about this. At this time from research, many customers moved to other products offered by the bank however my father insisted he was staying on the product. Still to this day that mortgage is in place, it reached the 14 year term in 2015 and has rolled on a SVR extension for 3.5 years... I have drafted for my mother with her consent, the issues that she has with her mortgage. Some advice and direction would be greatly appreciated. Issue 1 - Natwest Payment Protector sold as Life Insurance with Mortgage Foundations Mortgage Account taken in 2002 – This was done 100% at home by an Natwest advisor called XXXXXX XXXXX. We have hand written letters that were included in the SAR that show this. Natwest say that they have no records to indicate he ever worked within the company. I feel this is crucial to my complaint as XXXXX XXXXX completed the mortgage with myself and husband at home and advised us on everything. We were advised we had to take a life insurance product called ‘Natwest Payment Protector’ in order for the mortgage to go ahead. From the beginning of the mortgage up until my husband’s death in July 2014, we were led to believe that the Natwest Payment Protector was Life Insurance on the house. It is proven that this is what we believed as when my husband had his first heart attack in May 2008, he contacted Natwest to try and freeze the account. At no point did he use the Natwest Payment Protector whilst sick, which is apparently what it was for! We both were led to believe this was Life Insurance. At this point, I am upset that Natwest did not inform us what this product actually did - If they had, it would have covered the payments whilst he was sick and also would have made us aware of the product they had mis-sold at a time when we could have done something about it. This has had a huge financial effect on myself. Natwest have produced after many letters to the bank, a document with my husbands signature agreeing to the costs and benefit of the NatWest Payment Protector… This was not signed by myself nor do I believe my husband signed this understanding what it was he was signing – I stress, the Natwest advisor forcibly made us take this product as part of the ‘deal’ and this product was ‘Life Insurance.’ Issue 2 - Failing to supply information under SAR My initial SAR request was handled carelessly and was to say the least, incomplete. It was missing huge amounts of information and the majority of what was sent was not legible. I complained about this and specifically requested it to be resent as well as information pertinent to the mortgage to be sent. Following this second request – there is still clearly information missing. Issue 3 - The original mortgage agreement/contract and terms and conditions Despite two subject access requests being submitted a Natwest complaints handler has informed me that – quote ‘A further search has been completed by the Mortgage Operations Centre and they have been unable to locate a copy of your original mortgage offer’. I find this un-acceptable and ask on what grounds this mortgage is enforceable under the CCA between 2006 and 2016? Further to this, despite two subject access requests and specifically asking via letter to the Chief Exec’s office on more than one occasion Natwest have failed to supply the original ‘Terms & Conditions’ of the mortgage. Nor have I been supplied a reason as to why these are not available. In fact, since asking for this information shortly after my husband passed away in July 2014 I have not seen any paperwork produced by Natwest that form an ‘agreed mortgage contract’ nor an ‘agreed credit arrangement’. Issue 4 - Status of mortgage agreement during the years 2002 to 2018 leading to issues surrounding compliance of the CCA in 2006 and FCA Regulations at the ‘supposed’ end of term. My understanding from recent research is that this mortgage is a pre-2004 First Charge Mortgage that was unregulated when put in to place in 2002. 2002 – 2006 Between these years the mortgage should have complied with the CCA, however from research it seems like the £25,000 barrier stops this from being required… In the Natwest supplied SAR upon opening the loan, I find it very convenient that there is a column entitled CCA (Consumer Credit Act) – marked with ‘NO’. I would like this explained to me as the bank deemed this important information to record however I was never informed of a regulatory body nor law that would be/become important… Is this a fair relationship? 2006-2016 Between these years the CCA was amended significantly and as this loan is a pre-2004 first charge mortgage, from my understanding it was subject to compliance with the CCA between 30th March 2006 and 21st March 2016 when the mortgage becomes regulated by the FCA – see PS17/6. During this period, several compliance failings occurred however two of which I feel are significantly important: Failure to send NOSIA – At no point was a specified notice of sums in arrears sent, by trawling through statements I can see that this should have happened several times. The first of which took within the 2006 onwards period is May 2008. Failure to do this would make the agreement 'unenforceable' until notice is given. Failure to send Annual Statements – None sent. Failure to do this would make the agreement 'unenforceable' until notice is given. During this period of time, my husband had passed away and I was completely unaware that the bank had these obligations to me. Further to this, I made several complaints via telephone and in branch as I didn’t even have access to my mortgage account online. Furthermore – I still don’t have access to this online now! (August 2018) Issue 5 - Product Extension Concerns June 2015 – August 2018 (Taking into account FCA Regulations enforced on 21st March 2016) It is my understanding that the verbally agreed extensions following the ‘supposed’ end of term mortgage are subject to the rules and regulations of the FCA now. This loan extension and all monies paid on this ‘extension’ should have been a ‘Regulated Mortgage Contract’ and there should be certain paperwork in place, such as a Loan Contract, Terms & Conditions, Key Facts, Annual Statements etc. There have been serious failings by the bank to comply with FCA regulations during this period. ----------------------------------- Thank you for any advice and direction in advance.
  2. Britain's markets watchdog has fined Tesco 16.4 million pounds for failing to protect account holders at its bank from a "foreseeable" cyber attack two years ago. The Financial Conduct Authority said that in November 2016 cyber attackers exploited deficiencies in Tesco Bank's design of its debit card and in its financial crime controls. "Those deficiencies left Tesco Bank’s personal current account holders vulnerable to a largely avoidable incident that occurred over 48 hours and which netted the cyber attackers 2.26 million pounds," the FCA said in a statement on Monday. It was the watchdog's first fine for cyber failings. Ensuring lenders become more resilient to cyber attacks has also become a priority for the Bank of England. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/uk-watchdog-fines-tesco-£164-million-for-bank-cyber-failings/ar-BBNMgN7?ocid=spartandhp
  3. Charity regulator finds serious failings at unregistered organisation READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-regulator-finds-serious-failings-at-unregistered-organisation
  4. OFCOM have today released a press notice fining Vodafone £4.6m. How long have we been complaining about this on CAG and only now do they accept they did wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37772118
  5. From This is Money :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/redirect.php?x=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2554472/Four-million-savers-short-changed-Aviva-compensation-Insurers-323million-bill-merger-blunder.html
  6. From This is Money :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/redirect.php?x=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2554472/Four-million-savers-short-changed-Aviva-compensation-Insurers-323million-bill-merger-blunder.html
  7. FSA/PN/081/2012 02 Aug 2012 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Turkish Bank (UK) Ltd (TBUK) £294,000 for breaching the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLR). These breaches – which related to TBUK’s correspondent banking arrangements - were widespread and lasted over two and a half years.They led to an unacceptable risk that TBUK could have been used to launder money. This is the first occasion in which the FSA has taken enforcement action against a firm in relation to money laundering weaknesses in its correspondent banking arrangements. TBUK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turkish Bank Limited which is incorporated in Northern Cyprus. TBUK’s customer base is mainly retail. TBUK offers a range of financial services, including correspondent banking. Correspondent banking involves a bank (correspondent) providing banking services to an overseas bank (respondent) to enable the respondent to provide its own customers with cross-border products and services, such as payment and clearing, that it cannot provide them with itself. TBUK acted as a correspondent bank for nine respondent banks in Turkey and six respondent banks in Northern Cyprus between 15 December 2007 and 3 July 2010. Under the MLR, providing correspondent banking services to banks based in non-EEA states is recognised as creating a high risk of money laundering that requires enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the relationship. During this period, Turkey and Northern Cyprus did not have anti-money laundering (AML) requirements that were equivalent to those in the UK. The FSA visited TBUK in July 2010 as part of a thematic review of how banks operating in the UK were managing money laundering risks. The visit gave serious cause for concern in relation to TBUK’s AML controls over correspondent banking. TBUK’s breaches of the MLR included failing to: establish and maintain appropriate and risk-sensitive AML policies and procedures for its correspondent banking relationships; carry out adequate due diligence on, and ongoing monitoring of, the respondent banks it dealt with and failing to reconsider these relationships when this was not possible; and maintain adequate records relating to the above. Whilst not deliberate or reckless, these failings were more serious because the FSA had previously warned TBUK of deficiencies in its approach to AML controls over correspondent banking. Tracey McDermott, acting director of the Enforcement and Financial Crime Division, said: “Turkish Bank fell far short of the standards we expect of firms in managing their money laundering risks. This was despite clear warnings from the FSA that it needed to improve. “Banks must have appropriate policies and procedures in place to manage these risks. Turkish Bank’s correspondent banking business made it particularly vulnerable to money laundering risks and its failings exposed UK financial services to the possibility that money could be laundered through the UK. We will continue to demand the highest standards from banks and to take tough action for those banks that fail to meet them.” TBUK agreed to settle with the FSA at an early stage of the investigation. Without this early settlement and the firm’s co-operation, the fine would have been £420,000. Notes for editors The Decision Notice for Turkish Bank (UK) Ltd. The FSA’s report on its thematic work into banks’ AML systems and controls. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system. The FSA will be replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority in 2013. The Financial Services Bill currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny is expected to receive Royal Assent by the end of 2012. Link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/081.shtml
×
×
  • Create New...