Gruff v RBS - CCA Request - Wont accept a postal order

[42man]

It is dodgy ground and possibly a costly gamble but I'm hoping others on the CAG with more experience may contribute....(it might even be worth PM'ing Finlander with a link to your thread asking him for an opinion)...

[The GodMother]

erm hello

 

just reading this thread as it sounded interesting and 42mans has said summing i dont quiet understand.

 

you have mentioned the HM Crime branch of the treasury.

 

Now other than solving crimes, sorry this is just a assumption based on the name, what do these ppl do?

 

Can these ppl further advise on Money Laundering regs?

[42man]

Hi GM....well i'm not sure to be honest but Rory32 used it in this thread and RBOS ran scared !! I can't find the thread now !!!

[The GodMother]

thanks.

[gruff]

Hi Gm & 42man

 

Yeah this was something that worked for rory and was before the rankine precedent but the various record keeping requirements state they have to keep details of business agreements for a period of 6 years after account closure to help prevent money laundering, terrorirsm and fraud. They seem to think in not keeping such documents they are complying with these regs, i beg to differ ... they have lost the agreements they are required to keep in just over a year bur they some how think they are immune from these requirements because "regrettably these things get lost"

 

Now I'm sorry that is not our problem, thats theirs! they know what they should do but seem to blatantly disregard it.

 

On rory's thread which is linked a bit further up it does state the acts where these "record keeping requirements" apply.

 

IMO its just another time where the banks feel the laws don't apply.

 

See below from Rorys thread the link is on the first page...

 

The relevant Acts and regulations relating to money laundering (and record keeping accordingly) are along the lines of The Money Laundering Regulations 2003, The Proceeds of Crime Act and The Anti Terrorism Act. I think it's also in one of the drug enforcement acts as well and probably a few others.

 

Each of the offences can lead to up to a 2 year jail sentence and/or a fine. The exception being the anti terrorism act which can lead to a four year sentence and/or a fine (a little more serious than not providing an agreement).

 

Also please be aware that The Financial Crime Branch of HM Treasury are the gestapo of the regulatory world.

[/Quote]

[gruff]

This is the link to rorys original thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/93884-wescot-rbofs-oh-dear.html

[gruff]

Record-keeping

19.—(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a relevant person must keep the records specified in

paragraph (2) for at least the period specified in paragraph (3).

(2) The records are—

(a) a copy of, or the references to, the evidence of the customer’s identity obtained pursuant

to regulation 7, 8, 10, 14 or 16(4);

(b) the supporting records (consisting of the original documents or copies) in respect of a

business relationship or occasional transaction which is the subject of customer due

diligence measures or ongoing monitoring.

(3) The period is five years beginning on—

(a) in the case of the records specified in paragraph (2)(a), the date on which—

(i) the occasional transaction is completed; or

(ii) the business relationship ends; or

(b) in the case of the records specified in paragraph (2)(b)—

(i) where the records relate to a particular transaction, the date on which the transaction

is completed;

(ii) for all other records, the date on which the business relationship ends.

(4) A relevant person who is relied on by another person must keep the records specified in

paragraph (2)(a) for five years beginning on the date on which he is relied on for the purposes of

regulation 7, 10, 14 or 16(4) in relation to any business relationship or occasional transaction.

(5) A person referred to in regulation 17(2)(a) or (b) who is relied on by a relevant person must,

if requested by the person relying on him within the period referred to in paragraph (4)—

(a) as soon as reasonably practicable make available to the person who is relying on him any

information about the customer (and any beneficial owner) which he obtained when

applying customer due diligence measures; and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable forward to the person who is relying on him copies of

any identification and verification data and other relevant documents on the identity of

the customer (and any beneficial owner) which he obtained when applying those

measures.

(6) A relevant person who relies on a person referred to in regulation 17(2)© or (d) (a “third

party”) to apply customer due diligence measures must take steps to ensure that the third party

will, if requested by the relevant person within the period referred to in paragraph (4)—

(a) as soon as reasonably practicable make available to him any information about the

customer (and any beneficial owner) which the third party obtained when applying

customer due diligence measures; and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable forward to him copies of any identification and

verification data and other relevant documents on the identity of the customer (and any

beneficial owner) which the third party obtained when applying those measures.

(7) Paragraphs (5) and (6) do not apply where a relevant person applies customer due diligence

measures by means of an outsourcing service provider or agent.

(8) For the purposes of this regulation, a person relies on another person where he does so in

accordance with regulation 17(1).

 

Taken from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F/1/money_laundering_regulations2007.pdf

 

Thanks so far, the fight is on...

[citizenB]

There is also this little gem.. I havent a clue where I got it from. I am actively searching for the source..

 

“Document Retention

 

According to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b).

 

As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

 

This interpretation fits in with Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21) - of particular significance is sub-paragraph (6) which states:

 

"The duty to preserve records under this paragraph includes a duty to preserve all supporting documents relating to the items mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)."

 

Finally, key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended. This is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007. “

[The GodMother]

thanks for the CB i am naming it owned in my list of important things.

[gruff]

Thanks for that CB thats great stuff and will provide good ammunition for the next letter, I emailed the treasury earlier quoting rbs brazen response in regards to the regs and asked what their view was on the matter? How can these laws protect us with the banks attitude ect ect.. I also asked how this could be escalated if needs be. Be interesting to see what they have to say, will post it here as soon as it arrives.

 

Thanks Gruff

[citizenB]

Look forward to the next episode gruff.

 

Thank you for the click

[debbbbsy]

hi,

RBS have already fallen foul of the Money Laundering Act in 2002, the FSA fined them £750,000 for failing to keep the correct data.

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/rbs_12dec02.pdf

 

You may find this interesting.

 

Debs

[The GodMother]

oh dear they need a new fine i think

[gruff]

Hi All,

 

Had a response back from the treasury today and also spoke to the FSA who said that the monely laundering regulations are "know your customer" and relate to identification - which is what they fined them for.

 

There are statutory record keeping requirements, as your bank has acknowledged. They are contained in regulation 19 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. You can access them here -

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F/1/money_laundering_regulations2007.pdf

Of course, the regulations set high level standards and objectives for firms and are not themselves a guarantee that papers will not be inadvertently mislaid.

In the first instance any complaint (because of the loss of the papers) would need to be directed to the bank itself.

Keith Davis

Policy Adviser, Money Laundering

Financial Crime Team

HM Treasury

[The GodMother]

thanks i needed that.

Might come i very useful.

[citizenB]

Good stuff, Gruff. However, RBS appear to be "mislaying" quite a few documents and if I were the treasury, I would be asking questions

[gruff]

Yeah this is something I would have brought up in my letter but I'm going to let it slide for a bit and see what happens.

 

Checking my account today online, the loan has actually had this months payment come off it, yet no money has left my account.

 

I nearly fell off the chair with surprise

[citizenB]

Yeah this is something I would have brought up in my letter but I'm going to let it slide for a bit and see what happens.

 

Checking my account today online, the loan has actually had this months payment come off it, yet no money has left my account.

 

I nearly fell off the chair with surprise

 

It might be a good idea to check a bit later on and also tomorrow. Good news for the moment though:)

[bazaar]

Hi Gruff, very funny

I particularly like their line that goes 'Even where we are unable at present to meet our obligations under s.77(1) we are entitled to take all steps short of commencing enforcement. Commencing enforcement would include bringing proceedings. However we would not take that step because the borrower could simply request a stay of proceedings until the s.77(1) information is provided.'

 

I interpret that as ' We will only walk up to the cliff, we dont want to jump because its too high, wheres my mummy?'

Please give us money, pretty please, sniffle.

It also seems like this is taken from an internal memo by the way it is written, almost like some high up is advising how to proceed to get payment but stopping short of court action. Interesting

[citizenB]

Hi All,

 

Had a response back from the treasury today and also spoke to the FSA who said that the monely laundering regulations are "know your customer" and relate to identification - which is what they fined them for.

 

There are statutory record keeping requirements, as your bank has acknowledged. They are contained in regulation 19 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. You can access them here -

 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F/1/money_laundering_regulations2007.pdf

 

Of course, the regulations set high level standards and objectives for firms and are not themselves a guarantee that papers will not be inadvertently mislaid.

 

In the first instance any complaint (because of the loss of the papers) would need to be directed to the bank itself.

 

Keith Davis

Policy Adviser, Money Laundering

Financial Crime Team

HM Treasury

 

I like the last bit where it says the first instance complain to the bank itself.. As you are unlikely to receive any other response than the one they have already provided, what would be the point ?.

 

BTW, having received a letter similar to yours from RBS, except OH's is from the Halifax.. he has now received an extremely polite letter from Blair Oliver Scott, requesting OH phone them regarding a payment plan. This is obviously the first step in their enforcement, which of course they know they are not allowed to do having told him so !!

 

So I agree with Bazaar, they must have been told to rein in their harassment programme

[42man]

Gruff....another cagger who's postal order was rejected by the bank !!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162876-worth-requesting-cca-anymore.html

[make them aktiv runners]

Gruff....another cagger who's postal order was rejected by the bank !!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162876-worth-requesting-cca-anymore.html

 

 

Not quite, underdog was concerned he had seen another post and was wondering whether he could send a postal order. I do not read all threads and hadn't a clue which he was referring to.

[Bubblebuddy]

When you obtained the loan from us, the consent you gave at that time to the processing of your personal data covered reporting defaults to Credit Reference Agencies. Such processing of your personal data in these circumstances would be fair, lawful and warranted.

 

We woudl inform you that, given the processing of your personal data in this manner were consented to by you as part of the arrangement for lending you the money; it is not open to you to unilaterally withdraw that consent. Accordingly, we do not accpet your notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and do not intend to comply with it.

 

Isn't this statement basically saying that you agreed to them processing your data, presumably in the small print on the "agreement" which they now can't find. So it would not be a case of you unilaterally withdrawing that consent, as it can't be proven it was ever given in the first place!

[The GodMother]

Yes it is but as we know just because the law states one thing it does not mean they comply.

[gruff]

Hi All,

 

Having checked my account today it appears RBS have helped themselves to the amount of the loan direct out of my account despite having cancelled the direct debit (I know, I should have had eveything transferred over to a new bank account but thats not due to happen until the end of October) The direct debit has been reinstated - which I've now cancelled again.

 

Having spoken to the collections department and tried telling them the account is in dispute and that I was not making any more payments until such a time as its not they still refused to give me the money back. Also they didn't seem to know much about my ongoing dispute and even at one point said he'd never heard of the CCA let alone the points on it with regards to them being in default - thats what you get for a phonecall tho I suppose.

 

Are they allowed to just help themselves to money like that?? Its wound me up something cronic now having left me with no money until the end of October.

 

Having felt that I was going to let this slide and see what they do, I am now prepared to start taking action again but am unsure of the best way to proceed.

 

I'm feeling several complaints letters are in order, should I complain to

a) the bank and mention that this is a official complaint with regards to the money laundering regs, companies acts ect...

b) trading standards - they've made no contact with regards to me not making the payment.

c) financial obundasman

d) all of the above

 

and I guess after (a) complain to the treasury and various other departments, although unsure as to how far this will get considering the government bailout of rbs.

 

And would i have grounds to report this matter to the police as theft??

 

As always any help and advice is greatly appreciated.

 

Oh and on a side note should a mod see this there seems to a permissions issue on the libel thread.

 

Thanks

 

Gruff