@natwest_help NatWest Iressponsible lending - HELP PLEASE new develpements

[pumpytums]

I would personally go to the bank with your son and ask for the overdraft to be limited to it's current amount. If they refuse ask them to put the refusal in writing they can refuse to close the account as it has a negative balance but they cannot refuse to limit the overdraft. This is an agreement between yourself (son) and the bank.

 

Failing that withdraw the lot that should stop them in their tracks. Trust me you do not want a OD of £5k plus it's incredible difficult to defend against and if it goes to fast track the costs could be way bigger than the £5k.

 

Pumpytums

[pumpytums]

Sorry to Hijack Ieanmr,

Elsa I need someone to look at my thread I nee some advice on mediation and stop it going to fast track can you help?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/269329-how-do-i-stop.html

 

Pumpytums

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi Ieuan,

 

Though I'd chip in to see if it gives you any more ideas!

 

I don't know what documentation you can get your hands on, but a read of the T&C's could help.

 

Taken from Current Natwest T&C's for Current Accounts:

 

"6.5.3 You may terminate your overdraft facility at any time by telling us

in writing. If you do this you must repay any overdraft immediately."

 

Notice is says repay the *overdraft*. Then on to closure:

 

"7.2 Closure by you

7.2.1 You can close your account at any time for any reason without

charge, and we will forward any existing credit balance on your

account to you, provided that:

(a) you inform us in writing that you wish to close your account.

We may allow you to close your account over the phone. If

you notify us by telephone, we may ask you to confirm any

notice in writing; and

(b) you return all (unused) cheques and cards issued on your

account with any cards cut once through the magnetic strip

and once through the chip; and

© you repay any money you owe to us, including the amount

of any cheques, card transactions or other payment

instructions you have made and any charges or interest

incurred which we have not taken out of your account; and

(d) the Account Specific Conditions for your account permit you

to do so; and

(e) you inform all third parties with whom you have arranged Direct

Debits and Standing Orders of the closure of your account."

 

Notice is says repay *any money you owe to us*.

 

So, it seems you should be able to terminate the overdraft, but not close the account.

 

The risk is, I suppose, that Nasty West will then create a new overdraft, but I really cannot see how they can.

 

Elsa has a good point too. The bank has nothing to offset against and I would bet the loan t&C's (if they found them!) would say something like "we can offset against any credit balance in other accounts you hold with us."

 

uteb

[IainHL]

The bank are withdrawing funds to pay off the £17 000 loan by way of 'offsetting', this is common law and they can do it.

I would agree with Elsa here. The "funds" they are withdrawing to pay off the loan are not "real" funds your son has in that bank, but "virtual" funds (an overdraft) and they should not be doing it.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks guys, I took Elsa's advice and lloked up OFT on Debt Collection here is what I found:

 

OFT664

July 2003 updated 2006

Debt Collection Advice

 

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

 

b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further

borrowing or to extend their borrowing

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

 

d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives

 

g. failing to refer on to the creditor reasonable offers to pay by instalments

 

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.

 

I have wrtiten to the FOS and given the informationaboce and I have about 3 weeks to find out more before my case goes to the Ombudsman for a final descision.

 

Ian, thank you are right, we found the Trems and Conditions book and we can stop the overdraft. We will try to get to the bank today and stop this overdraft.

 

I could pay off the overdraft but doubt if they will close the account.

 

Pumpytums, there is 21 months yet before this overdraft creeps over £5000, but thanks

 

Regards all

 

Ieuan

[Undercover-Elsa]

Just trying to get to the bottom of the FOS complaint so forgive me for being pedantic, but did you specifically tell the FOS that they were offsetting from an overdrawn account? If they condoned this I would be shocked.

Is the account still within it's allowed overdraft limit?

[middenmess]

Two quotes from the FOS adjudicator show what Ieaun is up against

 

" I do not feel it is 'fair and reasonable' to expect xxxxxx to escape his liabilities to the bank, simply because he and the bank have been unable to locate a copy of the loan agreement. To permit xxxxxx to evade his financial responsibilities based on such a technicality is not in my view 'fair and reasonable' however, as I have already said, a court may take a different view."

 

I confirm that I am aware of the OFT Guidance to Creditors on Irresponsible Lending (1107 of March 2010) and in particular section 7.19 on 'off-setting'.

 

And Ieaun has written again on 20th July to the ''called to the bar' adjudicator....

 

They have taken money out of my son's account even though it is in the red, and continue to do so against our wishes.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks to all for replies and support, it has really been helpful these past few days. Made us think. We realise now after reading the terms and condition as suggested by IainHL that it is futile paying off the overdraft as the bank will simply start again with a clean slate, the bank have already told us that they cannot close and account whilst we have outstanding loans.

 

My latest e-mail communication to the Adjudicator last night.

 

Mr xxxxxxxx

I beg indulgence in the presenting of information to enhance my appeal with the Ombudsman, I am 67 years of age and it is difficult for me, if you would allow me to write to you in dribs and drabs as I research on this matter I would be grateful.

 

I wish to quote the South Shields case and extract from a Consumer Forum enclosed here:

 

Quotation:

A recent judgement at South Shields county court may have far reaching effects not only for pre-2007 Consumer Credit Act agreements but also for Consumer Credit Act agreements under the new 2006 legislation.

The case which was brought against MBNA in respect of an alleged credit card debt was decided for the claimant predominantly because MBNA were unable to provide a true copy of the original credit card agreement. This is very established law and causes no surprises as this principle has been often tested since 1974. In fact the only real surprise is that MBNA decided to defend the case at all.

What is particularly significant about this case is that there had also been mis-selling of Personal Protection Insurance (PPI) The judge referred to this aspect of the case in her judgement and decided there had been an unfair relationship between the claimant and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

This case is highly significant for claims brought under the old 1974 legislation because it adds another important basis upon which Consumer Credit Act agreements may be rendered unenforceable. This is in addition to the very much more usual ground for an enforceability that the agreement is flawed in some way because it is not properly executed, or that a true copy cannot be produced by the lender.

It now seems highly likely that even where an agreement seems to be properly executed, if the agreement has been accompanied by PPI which has been miss-sold, this miss-selling itself is a basis upon which to vitiate the entire loan agreement.

This principle that a miss-sold insurance policy is capable of tainting and invalidating the entire agreement is likely to become a very dominant feature in challenges to Consumer Credit Act agreements which have been concluded under the new 2006 legislation.

 

Whereas the 1974 legislation required very strict adherence to highly detailed requirements in any agreement, as well as requiring a fair and balanced relationship between the contracting parties, the 2006 Act is not so concerned with the form of the agreement and whether all of the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed. The entire focus of the 2006 legislation is upon the relationship between the lender and the borrower and seeks merely to ensure that there is a fair, balanced, transparent and non abusive relationship between them.

 

The decision at South Shields County Court suggests very strongly that where an apparently fair agreement is accompanied by mis-selling of PPI then that mis-selling may well be taken as evidence that the lender has exercised an unfair relationship and has therefore tainted the entire loan agreement.

 

 

End of quotation

 

It seems to me that my son's claim is very similar and that mis-selling of PPI alone makes this relationship unfair and hence unenforceable. I therefore request that this claim and the PPI be reviewed together. I also believe that the fraud claim on the home insurance is also related and request they all be viewed together as I believe they show a systematic lack of due care and diligence by the bank that make all agreements unfair.

 

I take note that you are not bound to give your opinion based on the law of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that you are not a people's champion I hope however you will take cognizance of the systematic and institutionalised abuse of fair play by the bank which makes the relationship between my son and the bank an unfair relationship. As such you should find in our favour.

 

xxxxxx ieuan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 23/07/2010 14:55:52 GMT Daylight Time, xxxxxxx [email protected] writes:

Dear Mr xxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your email which has been added to your file. Rather than simply quoting extracts from the OFT guidlines and various legislative provisions, it would assist us if you would issue all your final submissions in one go, before the deadline of 12 August 2010. When doing so, please also state that you have nothing further to provide, as no further evidence or submissions will be put forward after 12 August 2010. Your file is currently with my manager who will be in touch shortly.

 

Regards

 

 

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

[ieuanMr]

Hello all,

Nice to be back, I have been off ever since the new format changed. I have tried for a year to get on but have only just managed it after a new password was sent to me. If anyone remembers my claim (for my son) was against NatWest for selling too many products and lending too much also PPI and so on.

 

Well we went down the FOS route and they were very much useless as advised from cagers. We won easily agaisnt 2 other banks with 3 claims on PPI, just taking a few months and one case against a moter retail outlet that tried to rip us off, but NatWest has proved an extemly tough nut and we are not there yet.

 

NatWest were ruled agsint by the FOS one 1 claim of PPI about £500.00 including interest. I must admit I made a mistake and signed off in agreement and they paid it into my son's account which was in overdraft, so in effect they paid the money to themselves.

 

However we did win another claim for fraud, the fraud was thrown out and although NatWest had already paid us £1000.00 compensation the FOS found in our favour after appeal on the misselling of contents insurance. They coughed up £400.00 altogether and agian I made the mistake of accepting and it was paid into the overdraft account.

 

We then won the largest claim that of PPI on the £17 000.00 loan, this time the bank agreed to pay the money to my son directly,

when we signed the agreement they reneged and refused to pay up.

 

The FOS then took 3 months to view my appeal and again they ruled in out favour but said the debt must be paid back and so offsetting was OK with them.

 

Aftr rmuch discssuion my son and I agreed to refuse the deal with the FOS and to go to court.

 

If we accepted the deal it would have meant us paying back the £17k loan plus interest and as they have lost the agreement they have written to say it cannot be enforced in a court.

They can still chase us and send statement but cannot go to court.

 

Since they still have not answered our data protection request for the contract from 3 years ago

we feel we have a case to ask a judge to rule on the debt and claim damages of £5k on the loan.

If we can get that set aside then we could go after the PPI later. Small bites in the small claims court.

 

We have an ongoing claim with the FOS for harrassment and are claiming £5k damages,

which we won't get from the FOS but if we go to court on that then we can show we did use all means to settle in arbitration.

 

NatWest paid us £100.00 for harrassment but I feel it is not enough.

 

I have made mistakes and have settled some claims and accepted the FOS descision,

PPI paid monthly with no interest, and I inadvertently signed to a deal when I should have refused regarding unfair trading by irresponsible lending.

 

We now wish to focus on the Data Protection Act and ask a judge to rule on the status of the debt and calim damages for failure to answer the DPA request, (£10.00 fee).

 

We appreciate all the advice received from members of this forum over the years and would welcome any constructive advice.

 

I am a bit uncertain of small claims proceedure and we cannot get any solicitor to help us in preparation,

we have tried a number of firms and no one seems interested including our family solicitor.

 

We really feel agrieved by NatWest off=-setting all payment because in effect they are enforcing the debt against our wishes.

We never actually agreed to a £2k overdraft facility we just wanted to get rid of the silly account that cost my son £12.00 a month for no use at all.

 

The FOS do not seem even remotely interested in this fact.

They told us that they don't rule on a point of law but decide what is fair and reasonable.

 

On the good side my son has stabilised all his outgoing and now has saving in his account.

When we closed the NatWest account it was in surplus by £1.00,

Natwest refused to close it however and kept taking the premium for the loan,

now it has reached £2k overdraft again, even after almost £1k has been paid in claims from claims against them.

 

We are afraid to settle with the FOS because we feel the Bank will use their legal team to force us to pay up.

If we go to court, even if we are ruled against the jduge will decide what is to paid back and what if any compensation.

The FOS will not consider our claim that the bank have used our money in their business and a court may consider that.

 

I will go to court for the infraction of the Data Protection Act Request as they failed to find the contract, any ideas?

 

Regards

to all

 

ieuan

Edited July 13, 2012 by ieuanMr

[dx100uk]

4 threads merged going back 4ys with the complete history

 

dx

[ieuanMr]

So today I went to the county court and was told my claims went through Salford. I lloked upo the information on the web and now have to decide how to make the claim. Oiur initial claim will be for:

 

1. Failure to respond to our Data Protection Act Request (SAR) of the 30th September 2009 and to ask the court to enforce our request that is, to supply a signed copy of the £17 000.00 loan including the insurance and the PPI.
   
2. In the absence of that contract to make a judgement on the loan, whether it must be paid or is deemed invalid and therefore cancelled.
   
3. In the absence of the document we require under the SAR to pay us damages of £5 000.00
   
4. Examine the PPI element of the loan and determine if this is a fair contract and decide wherether it invalidates the whole loan
   
5. If the PPI element of the loan is deemed to be unfair then to determine if it invalidates the whole loan and therefore should the loan be cancelled or liable to be enforced by the Bank.
   
6. Determine if interest is to be paid to us on the PPI element of the loan at 8% p.a.
   
7. Determine if we are entitled to claim damages for the use of the PPi element that was used by the bank to further their commercial interests during this period.
   
8. Determine if the bank has actually enforced the loan by taking funds from my son's account without his permission under the legal guise of 'offsetting'.
   

I would appreciate help from the forum in correcting my terminology as I am completly inexperienced in this matter.

[IainHL]

ieuanMr,

 

Just a quick response, from memory, without re-reading the whole (merged) thread. Personally I would start with a claim to enforce their compliance with the DSAR, possibly including damages to your son's reputation by their reporting to the CRAs if the agreement is not forthcoming. From there I would then consider what other claims to bring against the bank.

 

Remind me please, have you actually ever had a written admission from NatWest that they cannot locate the agreement?

 

It seems to me that your son's case is so complex you need the assistance of a far better legal mind than I possess to advise you. Possibly even so far as a consumer champion solicitor (though I do seem to recall you might have tried to find one of those before without any success).

 

As for your local court, they are correct, as of sometime earlier this year new claims of a certain type must all originate with the processing centre in Salford before being transferred out to your local court (if appropriate).

 

For what it's worth, I do agree the bank have been very naughty in continuing to service the loan from the overdrawn current account, despite your explicit instruction to the contrary. What was the date of your letter to them instructing them not to do so, and attempting to cancel the direct debit for the loan repayment? Have you ever managed to get the bank to cancel the overdraft on the current account, or reduce it all?

Edited July 18, 2012 by IainHL
Finger trouble!

[ieuanMr]

thanks ian

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Ian

 

We have had an admission from the bank informing us that the debt is unenforcable as they canot locate the contract.

 

I have been thinking seriously this past week and come to the opinion that I will put the whole case to the Salford court as Follows:

 

1. Claim for an unfair relationship due to:

 

a. failure to act for a SAR request under the Data Protection act 1974

b. Irresponsible lending.

 

It should be obvious that the bank have been unfair as they sold so many products and 5 cases of PPI 2 of which the FOS found in our favour and also they were found unfair by the FOS as regards the contents insurance.

 

I will do that this week.

 

regrds

 

Ieuan