@natwest_help NatWest Iressponsible lending - HELP PLEASE new develpements

[ieuanMr]

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.

[ieuanMr]

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

Edited April 7, 2010 by ieuanMr

[ieuanMr]

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.

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan-glad to see your fervour and fight is undiminished.

 

OFT 1107 Irresponsible Lending -- OFT Guidance for Creditors.

 

Until the OFT get some real teeth [unlikely I think] then it is guidance and guidance alone which creditors appear to be able to ignore with more than a fair degree of impunity.

[ieuanMr]

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.

[ieuanMr]

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.

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan--what do you consider to be a ''legal person?''

 

have a look at ...

 

a service for everyone ...

 

& then click on....

 

I put things right ...

 

I'm sure that you will agree with what ''Kate'' says!!

[ieuanMr]

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.

Edited May 11, 2010 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

Best to remember that the title 'Adjudicator' somewhat flatters their actual standing in the FOS hierachy.

 

Sending off for one of their job application forms might give us all a better appreciation of the actual qualifications required to work at the FOS.

 

''maybe she did not read all the literature that I sent her''

 

I assume you said that with tongue firmly in cheek:)

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi Ieuan,

 

Been following and it looks like you're doing really well.

 

Just your list of offers demonstrates these *&^%$*&$ know they have done wrong.

 

As suggested, watch out for the increasing overdraft. NastyWest used this against me coverting a regulated debt into a massive overdraft which was quite convenient for them as they no longer have the regulated agreement.

 

uteb.

[ieuanMr]

Uptoeyeballs,

I don't see any way out of the increasing overdraft. the account was in our favour when we closed it, but they keep putting the payment premium onto it from the £17L loan, which is uneforcable, so either we pay the premium of £200/month or the overdraft increases.

 

We have made a big complaint to the FOS, by this we have played up big time and demanded they stop doing this as in our opinoin it smacks of enforcement by the back door.

 

The overdraft charges are already up to £18/month and increasing.

 

Our only hope is that we are complaeting our claim for irresponsible lending this week and hope that shakes some wood out of the tree.

 

Midenmess, yes my tongue was stuck firmly in my cheek, thanks

 

thanks

 

Ieuan

Edited May 11, 2010 by ieuanMr

[pumpytums]

Hi ieuanMr,

I have been following your case for a while, Nastywest are really a piece of work as I have had dealings with them too.

 

With regards to the overdraft that they are taking loan payments out of. Could you not write to them saying that you now wished the overdraft to be reduced to a figure. It would then be their lookout if they knowingly took payments from "an alternate source" without the credit to cover it? Also is the account online? could you not go into it and cancel any direct debits?

 

Just a thought.

 

 

All the best

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

Hello Pummpytum

My mistake was in not closing the account whilst I was in credit with the Bank. I had cancelled all direct debits and then tried to close the account, in the meantime the Bank had taken the premium for his loan by using the legal clause in the contract which entitled them to take premium directly from his account even though all direct debits were cancelled.

 

I wrote to them to stop taking payment and they refused even though they acknowledge the debt is unenforcable. I now have a complaint with the FOS that they are delibrateley taking premiums from an account using a contract that they cannot find and that they have acknowledged is uneforceable.

 

I am thinking that all the comment on this thread are difficult to follwo and am considering copying my letters onto this thread so consumers can see the strengths and weaknesses of my argument for themselves. I wonder if the admins can give their permission ofr this. Anywone know how to copy documents onto this thread? I will of course use ficticuous names and addresses.

 

Ieuan

p.s. I know many people are reading this thread by the number of read over 15 000 to date so it can't jst be Midenmess and me. I don't know if the reders of the thread know how heartening it is to get a reply from people I do not know and yet are willing to give encouragement. It is overwhelming at times to find the British have this inate sense of fair play and of cultural support for each other, quite overwhelming. My thanks go out to all who read and even more to those who have sent in replies, it is appreciated, very much so. My son is now out of trouble but we fear the bank could find this agreement at any time they deice and he is not out of the woods yet.

 

I see the new government has appointed a minister to oversee business and banking, I just hope someone sends him a copy of this thread. I think if an analysis was ever done of the damage done to this country by the Nazis of WW2 and the Banking industry of this country how close the banks run in second to the Nazis. I think it is for this reason that the Socialists have lsot power, because billions of pound shave been milked by the banks from the consumer, and the Old order must take responsibility for that. The weakness of the FOS must be addressed by this new governement and I see press reports that the FSA is finally waking up and is about to fine two major banking organisations multi million pound fines (we all know RBS is probaly one of these two.)

Edited May 12, 2010 by ieuanMr

[pumpytums]

Hi ieuanMr,

I see I take it they keep taking payments from the account, increasing the OD amount. If you write to them saying you now want the OD decreased to basically it's current OD amount that will stop them increasing the overdraft any more. If they refuse to decrease your overdraft limit then you have even more ammo against them.

 

Pumpytums

[uptoeyeballs]

I wrote to them to stop taking payment and they refused even though they acknowledge the debt is unenforcable

 

Apologies if this is grandmother and eggs, but their MO is that once the loan has been paid off/greatly reduced they'll then enforce the overdraft after adding interest/charges for good measure. They no longer need the loan agreement.

 

Pumpytums idea is interesting as I cannot see that they should be allowed to increase the overdraft if you have given instructions that they should not.

 

If they continue to take funds then that would be against an unauthorised overdraft and surely that must get them further in the doo doo.

[pumpytums]

Apologies if this is grandmother and eggs, but their MO is that once the loan has been paid off/greatly reduced they'll then enforce the overdraft after adding interest/charges for good measure. They no longer need the loan agreement.

 

Pumpytums idea is interesting as I cannot see that they should be allowed to increase the overdraft if you have given instructions that they should not.

 

If they continue to take funds then that would be against an unauthorised overdraft and surely that must get them further in the doo doo.

 

Thats what I was thinking,

Is the balance on the loan still way above £5k?

 

If they refuse to decrease the OD, then surely thats decending into the realms of money laundering?

 

I don't think they would have a leg to stand on if they refuse to reduce an overdraft limit if it's not maxed out.

 

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

Thanks both

I assumed they would close the account when I instructed them to do so, now I see their strategy...it is very clever. I wonder what the FOS will make of my complaint, no answer yet and it's been two months now.

 

I will bash off a letter immediately instructing them to stop increasing the overdraft and see what happens, if they refuse I will add this to my complaint to the Ombudsman.

 

Thanks again , much appreciated.

 

Ieuan

[pumpytums]

Hi Ieuan,

just had another thought and it's a cracker. Financial companies should not encourage customers to borrow money to pay off debts. By the sound of it Nastywest have gone one further they are turning a lower rate loan into a higher rate overdraft. No thats got to be against so many banking and consumer rules it's funny.

 

So the loan could be at say 10% the overdraft has got to be 17%+ that sounds well dodgy to me. They are effectively charging double interest too interest on the loan and then interest on the overdraft.

 

I hope this helps

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

That sounds right to me puppytums, but of course the new ruling from a judge regarding lost contracts/agrements means they can try and collect the money and report me to credit agencies and charge interest but cannot enforce the debt.

 

It is my opinion that they are enforcing the debt by taking from an overdraft we have not asked for. Whether the FOS sees it that was will be interesting to see when they get round to it.

 

The remaiing debt on this loan is £14 000.00 or somewhere around that figure.

[pumpytums]

Are you sure regarding that ruling in that case the Debtor was the claimant. I if they decided to take you to court the onus is on them to prove it. Where as in the case you mentioned the claimant was claiming that their was no agreement. I know its the same thing but from different ends if you get my drift.

 

Is the overdraft considerable at the moment?

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

Hello Tums

 

The ruling I am speaking off is the recent OFT clarification based on a court ruling regarding unenforceable agreements.

 

There is always the possibility that the Bank will find the lost agreement and we would like to get matters straight and not leave them fester.

 

The overdraft is about a £1000.00 or thereabouts and growing monthly by £218.9 plus interest of £18.00/month and growing.

 

Extract from a Earlier Post

 

I noticed yesterday that the OFT have issued a new guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has it's bad points for us as consumers and some good. It at least clears up some anomolies but in my opinon contradicts itself from earlier OFT decisions but I suppose the courts have the last word. But it strikes me that the OFt is ina precarious position in all its pronouncements because anything it issues can be overuled by a county court...or it seems that way.

 

• Page 30 of the new guidlines says: if the bank does not provide the documents/agreement within 12 working day then the agreement cannot be enforced.
  
• This means the bank cannot demand an earlier payment that the contract says
  
• cannot threaten court action
  
• take possession of anything that you bought on credit
  

The bad points are the lender can:

• request payment
  
• issue a default notice
  
• pass details to a CRA
  
• pass on informatin to a debt collector
  

One important point, in discussing their claim with you, the consumer, they must state that the debt is unenforcable in the courts, if they don't do that then they are in breach of the OFT code of conduct and you have a complaint against them.

Look up OFT via google to get onto the site and see OFT1175con

Edited May 14, 2010 by ieuanMr

[pumpytums]

Hello Tums

 

The ruling I am speaking off is the recent OFT clarification based on a court ruling regarding unenforceable agreements.

 

There is always the possibility that the Bank will find the lost agreement and we would like to get matters straight and not leave them fester.

 

The overdraft is about a £1000.00 or thereabouts and growing monthly by £218.9 plus interest of £18.00/month and growing.

 

Extract from a Earlier Post

 

I noticed yesterday that the OFT have issued a new guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has it's bad points for us as consumers and some good. It at least clears up some anomolies but in my opinion contradicts itself from earlier OFT decisions but I suppose the courts have the last word. But it strikes me that the OFt is ina precarious position in all its pronouncements because anything it issues can be overuled by a county court...or it seems that way.

 

 

• Page 30 of the new guidlines says: if the bank does not provide the documents/agreement within 12 working day then the agreement cannot be enforced.
  
• This means the bank cannot demand an earlier payment that the contract says
  
• cannot threaten court action
  
• take possession of anything that you bought on credit
  

The bad points are the lender can:

 

• request payment
  
• issue a default notice
  
• pass details to a CRA
  
• pass on information to a debt collector
  

One important point, in discussing their claim with you, the consumer, they must state that the debt is unenforceable in the courts, if they don't do that then they are in breach of the OFT code of conduct and you have a complaint against them.

Look up OFT via google to get onto the site and see OFT1175con

 

 

Hi ieuanMr,

I see so the OD is not too horrific at the moment.

 

I would immediately write and phone up Nastywest. I basically say I now insist my overdraft to be limited to £1000. If they then decide to take payments from it when there is no available credit thats their problem. I would also state that you request that no more payment be taken from the account as it will cause charges to be issued also insist that the direct debit for the loan is stopped. I would say something along the lines that if they don't comply with your requests you are no longer responsible for the bank account as they have gone against your instructions.

 

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

May 20th was Pumpytums last post and today is the 17th June, almost one month later.

 

I have been ill and the stress of writing so many letter has caught up with me and I decided to take a rest.

 

We had one decided against us by an Ombudsman and we insisted it go before the Ombudsman, I was told it could take a year. We insisted fraud was involved but they don't agree. We said that NatWest had claimed the insurance was tailored for my son's needs. The FOS decided, despite the tailoring was in writing, that that didn't really mean what it said in print. In other words they all say that in their literature but they don't really mean the insurance was tailored to his needs. To say we are disappointed is an understatement.

 

We keep getting letters from the FOS omitting our date which we need as a reference. We complained several times and finally received a response which explained in great detail yet failed to agree with my reasonable request they reference their letter with my date of heading. Disappointed, fed up and now downright grouchy. They must be the only organisation in the world that does not cross reference unreferenced letter with the date of heading. They also fail to quote their reference number in their letters. I have no idea what letters have been received by them and if some have gone astray in the post.

 

An adjudicator phoned me today, hooray! at last an intelligent and educated voice. He told me he was legally qualified (degree level) and that he would communicate by e-mail if I agree, to cut down on time. He also agreed to e-mail me when he has received mail from me using the date on my letter. I told him I was stressed and that petty officialdom now tended to make me snarl and get nasty. I mentioned my M.P., I somehow imagined that I heard a muted cough of a laugh in the background ...or is it my imagination? He told me NatWest were not playing ball and had failed to answer their request for information. He is concentrating on my complaint that the bank has failed to supply documentation and my complaint that they are enforcing the debt by withdrawing funds from my son's bank account, one that we had tried to close.

 

The bank has stepped up their harassment by sending a standard letter insisting we pay the disputed arears, they have failed to respond to my detailed 3 page letter and just sent another demand accompanied by a number of phone calls asking to speak to my son. They are hinting at legal action. The adjudicator told me that their defence is that they have a valid agreement but cannot find it. They wrote several months ago and said they had lost the agreement and that it was unenforceable. My feeling is they are playing hardball without a bat.

 

When this is all over I intend to picket the local branch for one year with placards with nasty writing on it.

Edited June 17, 2010 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan-sorry to hear that you have been unwell but can well understand the cause of your malaise.

 

Their relentess obstinacy is designed to wear you down a bit at a time and has proved a very successful weapon in their armoury.

 

I fear that your determined campaign will never achieve the outcome that you are seeking despite the fact that you have legitimate grievences against NW.

 

Perhaps it's time to take a step back and review your stategy which the Bank seem able to deflect with practised ease.

 

Time to think 'outside the box'--they've done nought but frustrate you with banal statements and drivel when they do bother to reply,why not use that methodology with them?

[texanbar]

Oh Ieuan, sounds like you've hit another brick wall. You've done fantastically well to keep going for as long as you have. Let off the gas a little,if only to give yourself some healing time and reflection. Patience is an incredible powerful negotiating tool, so take a break and see what else may come.

 

Big hugs

x:)x