Natwest Default Notice - took 5 days to deliver

[underdog13]

After months of not responding to my CCA request, NatWest sent out historic and current T&Cs and my latest credit card bill, claiming this satisfied s78 (which I believe they are correct in); they made no reference whatsoever to the executed agreement. Their response was dated 10th December 08 and was received on Friday 12th December 2008.

 

Today, Monday the 15th December 08, I received a default notice, also dated 10th December 08, which allows 17 days from the date of their letter for me to comply with the arrears demand. I think it is usually deemed to take 2 days to deliver a DN; however this took 5 days to deliver, only leaving me 12 days to respond. Will this make the DN invalid?

 

If two letters are posted from the same company on the same day, both by first class, surely they should have been delivered together? As they were not it is my contention that Natwest did not post the DN until after well after the 10th December 2008. In addition, they should be well aware that post is considerably slower at this time of year and allowed extra time for delivery.

 

As Natwest allowed 17 days on the default notice, can they rely on this as making it valid, despite the time it actually took to reach me?

[rory32]

After months of not responding to my CCA request, NatWest sent out historic and current T&Cs and my latest credit card bill, claiming this satisfied s78 (which I believe they are correct in);

Nope it doesn't.

 

Today, Monday the 15th December 08, I received a default notice, also dated 10th December 08, which allows 17 days from the date of their letter for me to comply with the arrears demand. I think it is usually deemed to take 2 days to deliver a DN; however this took 5 days to deliver, only leaving me 12 days to respond. Will this make the DN invalid?

 

Possibly not. The fact though that they are attempting to terminate the agreement while in default of supplying the agreement is more likely to invalidate it.

 

If two letters are posted from the same company on the same day, both by first class, surely they should have been delivered together?

Not once the Royal Mail get involved, especially at this time of year.

 

As they were not it is my contention that NatWest did not post the DN until after well after the 10th December 2008.

Have you kept the envelope the default notice came in? Does it have a postmark on it?

[Blondie40]

You'll get a formal demand for repayment next, should be dated after 27 Dec.

 

Many banks are getting round envelopes being postmarked or franked with a posting date by using pre-paid ones. Royal Mail Mailsort 1 is next day, Mailsort 2 is 3 days, UK Mail and TNT is 2 to 3 days. Although at this time of year you can probably double that.

[underdog13]

Thank you both Rory and Blondie.

 

I did keep the envelope the DN came in and, yes, it was a prepaid one. Mark is Royal Mail 1 HQ 194 -if that means anything.

 

I was told by a member of the site team that a set of T&Cs and a statement of account satisfied a s78 request:confused: OFT and TS seem to be backing the banks on this claim too - as they usually do.

[rory32]

Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

 

Section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

This quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should be presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

[underdog13]

Thanks again, Rory. I'll refer to that when they inevitably try hauling me into court!

[rory32]

Natwest operate in the same way as RBS (well they're really the same people). They do usually eventually buckle without taking you to court if you put enough pressure on them. I would start by sending them the following.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

 

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Yours faithfully

[underdog13]

That's superb - thank you so much, Rory:D A copy of that will be faxed today and sent by recorded delivery as a belt and braces approach. Or, as a second thought, should I wait until the default notice ends and they terminate my account? Then tell them they terminated while they were in default? I think when they demand the full amount, that is an indication of termination?

 

It's immensely reassuring to know they usually buckle before court proceedings if they are sufficiently bludgeoned - thank you, again!

[Blondie40]

Thank you both Rory and Blondie.

 

I did keep the envelope the DN came in and, yes, it was a prepaid one. Mark is Royal Mail 1 HQ 194 -if that means anything.

 

I was told by a member of the site team that a set of T&Cs and a statement of account satisfied a s78 request:confused: OFT and TS seem to be backing the banks on this claim too - as they usually do.

 

Royal Mail 1 is First Class

 

Royal Mail 2 is Second Class

 

Royal Mail M is Third Class (usually 4 to 5 days for delivery)

 

HQ 194 is their Royal Mail ID/Licence number so they can use Mailsort

 

(Useless information about Royal Mail for you - worked at a company that did Direct Mail)

[underdog13]

Not useless at all Blondie; any info is interesting to me - you never know when it will help:)

 

Thanks for replying.

 

Their first class letter took five working days to reach me - bit slow even at this time of year!

[Blondie40]

It probably sat around for a couple of days until they had reached the required "volume" of letters under their Mailsort contract.

[underdog13]

Hmm, my suspicions confirmed, Blondie - hardly fair play when you're serving a default notice.

 

Funny how we have to prove when exactly they received important missives. They only have to show they sent them and we are deemed to have received:rolleyes:

[Blondie40]

I'd keep hold of that envelope, you could ask them to prove the actual date of collection by Royal Mail.

 

The purpose of Mailsort is that companies pay less (33p for 1st Class instead of 36p) however the mail has to be pre-sorted either by the companies themselves (unlikely) or the mailing house they use.

 

We used to receive mail from companies un-sorted, it was then sorted by us into relevant postcode areas, ie W1 or W2 etc, bagged and tagged (all W1 mail in one bag) with barcode tag on to identify which postcode it is for, then collected by Royal Mail who would then transfer bags onto relevant lorries destined for that area. Hence no sorting by Royal Mail.

 

In most cases a letter dated 5th of month, would be sorted on 6th of month, (if done in time) collected by Royal Mail on 6th of month, and at the earliest delivered on the 7th.

 

Royal Mail describe Mailsort 1 as next working day delivery however this is based on the day they collect or receive it, does not take account of how long it takes mailing house to sort.

 

Sadly I know, way to much about Mailsort, I'm quite surprised that knowing the importance of a time scale involving default notices companies are using this method. But as you say they only have to show they sent them and we are deemed to have received it.

 

Perhaps its time someone challenged this in court - how they go about it I have no idea - they would need an expert witness from the Royal Mail.

[underdog13]

Thanks for that Blondie - I will definately hold onto that envelope!

[angel_1]

hiya underdog,

 

 

thought i would come and say hello on one of your threads

 

anyway interesting what blondie has said also, i asked my postlady to sign when i got my default notice on the outside of my envelope and she explained about the timings a bit and who collected the mail and how they get it to deliver it, so im not surprised at all that you got it 5 days after posting, mine arrived on the 6th day

 

the postlady did tell me to contact our local main sorting office as the bar codes on the envelope would mean something to them and so its one of my jobs to do soon

 

will update all when i do and get a good reply

 

have a fun day tomorrow

 

laters angel x

[underdog13]

Thanks for that Angel - well I was privileged to get mine in 5 days at this time of year then, wasn't I, lol? Lucky me;)

 

Joking aside, though; that's really interesting info. Do let me know how you get on.

 

Hope you have a good day tomorrow, too. Be lucky:)

[angel_1]

hiya underdog

 

im always thinking lucky thanks for the clicky - appreciated

 

and at times ive been very lucky with my competition wins, just need a final big one to enjoy life as it should be enjoyed

 

until then the fight for survival continues

 

take care and always keep positive

 

laters angel x

[Blondie40]

Hi Angel 1

 

The barcode that appears on the envelope is your postcode and house number or name - or Delivery Point Data for the technical term - in a format that can be read by a machine, thus speeding up sorting.

[underdog13]

Just checked the stated arrears amount on the DN - they are not entirely correct; only £1 out - so would that be deemed deminus or do DN arrears figures have to be strictly accurate?

[underdog13]

Got a very snotty and threatening reply to Rory's superb letter.

 

They ignored all of the points made in the letter I sent, still failed to provide any document signed by myself, refused to deal further with the matter and informed me they will be pursuing the entire balance. The whole tone was rude, abusive, dismissive and threatening; nothing new there then!

 

Considering my options now - send a SAR, contact the chairman, make a complaint, or all three.

 

Bit concerned about the forgeries - sorry 'reconsructions' - that Natwest boast about. Would a chairman be more likely or less likely to dabble in fraud?

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Underdog

 

I too have come to say hello on your thread. I am currently having a couple of disputes with the good old Nasty, they are Nasty by name and Nasty by nature.:grin:

 

I totally agree that they are so rude and dismissive, but you have to understand that they cannot really say Ok your right, its a fair cop;) They have to deny everything.

 

So you have to stand your ground with them, they are not so stupid that they don't know what they can do and can't do.

 

You discussed on the other thread that you were concerned regarding the Judge Lottery, so don't you think that would worry them as well:grin:

 

You just keep at them and don't give them an inch.

 

Sorry I ask everybody this was there ppi applied to any of your accounts:grin:

[underdog13]

Hi HHNF,

thanks for popping in:)

 

They certainly are nasty by name and nature - I called them something worse and got cagbotted:eek: Oooops.

 

I know they are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their position, but they could keep a civil tongue in their head. I despise them, but am always scrupulously polite in my dealings with them, (if not on these threads:p).

 

Defo going to stand my ground, and then some! They've really riled me now - they won't like me when I'm angry;-) I've been storing up a little pile of complaints; biding my time, giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. I can be as sly and vindictive as they are.

 

Now they've barred my bank accounts, I've got nothing to lose. Complaints will be fired off to all and sundry, one by one. Hoping to cause them as much aggro as possible and slow matters up for them calling in my loan and overdraft (just know that's what they've got up their sleeve, next).

 

I didn't have any PPI and no charges on the account - I really was a model customer for decades. The first time I need help, they treat me like something they've stepped in.

 

Will never give them an inch and will keep at them like a starving rottweiler:grin: This is war now. Hell hath no fury, indeed - you've picked an excellent name there: I think you know just how I feel

 

You've made a very good point about the judge lottery; hadn't occured to me that they might be worried - thought they were so supremely arrogant they were immune to worry. Wouldn't it be wonderful if I got a judge with his/her own reasons to resent Natwest?:D Must start thinking more positively - New Year's resolution:p

[postggj]

hi underdog

confused on this envelope biz

 

any chance of posting onto your thread for me to have a look

ill give you the full sp then

[underdog13]

Thanks Postggj. Will scan envelope tomorrow for you, when I've got access to scanner:)

 

There's not too much to show, though. Just the standard Royal Mail 1 printed in top right hand corner and a bar code.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Underdog13!

 

Sorry to butt in, but the following may help to establish the Date of Service of the Default Notice. This has been posted elsewhere by me, and is based on details that first came to light via Surfaceagentx20:

 

It's not really the Date on the Default Notice, because if you have the Envelope it came in, and that has a Postal Date, then that is the Date the Date of Service is based on.

 

However, if you don't have that, then it'll be assumed that the Default Notice was Posted on the same Day that it was Dated.

 

If it is also assumed they Posted it via 1st Class Post, then the Date of Service should be two Working Days after Posting. Indeed, I don't see why we have to assume 1st Class unless they can prove otherwise!

 

This is about the best reference that can be used when talking about the Date of Service for general Letters and Notices (with thanks to Surfaceagentx20):

 

Click here to read the full details.

 

Council Tax Manual - Section 3 - Appendix 3.6 - Service of documents by post

 

Appendix 3.6 - Service of documents by post

 

All Text Amended

 

1. Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

 

This states:-

 

"7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

 

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail

 

"With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

 

1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

 

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

 

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

 

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

 

3. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

 

4. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8 March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

This is why keeping the Envelopes can prove vital, especially if they used 2nd Class Post!

 

The Mailsort system does use a Customer based Barcode, and that is based on the Royal Mail 4 State Customer Code Barcode, or RM4SCC for short.

 

Indeed, that is the Barcode that Blondie40 is referring to. That one is dead easy to read.

 

However, there are sometimes two light Orange Barcodes, and they are NOT based on RM4SCC. These are apparently called Route Codes, and I have yet to crack how to read them.

 

Royal Mail won't tell me!

 

I think the upper Barcode may contain a Date, but when I specifically asked Royal Mail about this, they went all quiet and stopped talking to me! I suspect they were concerned that the Orange Barcodes could then be used to complain about their Service perhaps? For example, because they prove date of handling by Royal Mail, and in turn timescales for Delivery?

 

Anyway, it's possible those Orange Barcodes do contain a Date, which is why I am advising everyone to KEEP ALL ENVELOPES! If I can crack how to read those Barcodes, then I know dozens of my own inbound banking letters could then have the Date of Posting established.

 

However, these Orange Barcodes are a b*gger to read. They seem to be using a coding system that is unique to Royal Mail. They are very similar to other Postal Barcodes, but unless you know the Character Maps, it's hard to read what they say.

 

I can advise that the Lower Orange Barcode of the two seems to be the one that contains the Delivery Address details, only because on my own inbound Letters, that seems to stay pretty constant, no matter who has sent the letter.

 

It's the Upper Orange Barcode that I think is the interesting one, because that changes on every letter I get, suggesting Outbound Details, Routing Details and, potentially, Date of Posting/Handling Details.

 

I've been working on this for a while now, and may try to reverse engineer the Character Map from the inspection of many letters. It's a major task, and it may not be possible if, say, Royal Mail use a Character Map that is not intended to be Human Readable, even when decoded.

 

I'm thinking of getting a friend to send me a letter a day for 1 Month, from the same Post Box. That may give me a Month's log of Barcodes from which I may be able to spot the fields that change, and why, and may be able to pull a Date from the Barcodes.

 

If any Cagger works for Royal Mail and can tell me how to read these Barcodes, please drop me a PM ASAP! It could save me a lot of grief!

 

Once I know, I will tell you all how to read them! If there is a Date, then it could render many Default Notices invalid, and could also show when bankers have been back-dating other letters to try and pretend they complied with a deadline (such as CCA Request etc).

 

Cheers,

BRW