@natwest_help NatWest Iressponsible lending - HELP PLEASE new develpements

[middenmess]

Unless I'm being extra thick today,then..

 

The fact that I have been called to the Bar

 

would be understood by most of us plebs to mean that someone has taken a large step up the legal ladder and become a barrister.

 

Now either I've got that wrong or this adjudicator is stating this as an attempt to convince that being a barrister means that he has a superlative overview of this case and Mr.Ieuan junior should crawl away and not have the audacity to challenge a respectable financial institution.

 

A quick phone call to the FOS confirms that they have no barristers working there as adjudicators.

[pumpytums]

Maybe he just collects glasses at the weekends?

 

Pumpytums

[Undercover-Elsa]

Or maybe his mates were shouting him 'cos it was his round?

[middenmess]

Maybe he just collects glasses at the weekends?

 

Pumpytums

 

He would appear to be more qualified to do that than being an 'impartial' adjudicator

[ieuanMr]

Further to our complaints against NetWest and you for the handling of this case I wish to make sure you have examined my son's case according to OFT1107 dated March this year.

Scope for Guidance section 1.22 speaks of context, This why I have put everything relevant to my son in with my complaint I believe it shows a systematic and prolonged preying on vulnerable consumers by the bank.

 

In my opinion the bank has to be fair in its dealing, and the bank has to demonstrate it has been fair, I believe I have shown this and that it is self evident from the cash flows and statement and by my arguments in my 12 page letter of the 22nd June 2010.

 

I consider it an improper practice as mentioned in 1.22 to hold a consumer's mortgage and then sell him product after product that are unsuitable because of:

1. they are top of the line and too expensive

2. not really relevant to the consumers needs. This has been adequately describe din the press and by judgements against bank regarding PPI for instance.

3. It's not just my judgement on the banks but it is obvious by consumer action groups on the Internet, by the number of judgments against the banks in the courts and by the rulings of OFT .

 

This being the case I don't understand how you can speak of fair and reasonable, the banks have been caught out on many occasions and even been fined by the OFT, this is relevant and context. My son has never been involved in any illegal activities neither have I. If the Bank has been wrong in selling PPI to my son on a number of occasions than the balance of probability shifts to my son's favour and the bank have been shown to be disrespectful of the fairness expected by government and law. Take this offsetting for instance, we have offered to meet with the bank and discuss a way out of our deadlock, they have not responded. 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. How much money can they take out, will they take out £17 000 and then charge 12% this is obviously unfair and harassment. If they wish to be honest they will ask the courts for a decision, that would be fair.

 

I believe it is a fundamentally flawed and therefore unfair situation to allow banks to sell mortgages, hold the consumer money in their vaults, use the power and undue influence to then get the consumer to sign up for unsuitable products and agreements. The banks have a massive advantage in influence, power, and legal teams to write up agreements in their favour which allows the consumer very little scope to negotiate. This is certainly true when people are desperate for instant money whatever the circumstances. The bank then knows if the consumer defaults for any reason it can use it's power of offsetting to exert it's will. The consumer on the other hand has no resources, has little legal experience and cannot negotiate against the banking goliaths.

 

I would point out to you section 1.24:

The OFT would consider repeated and/or sufficiently serious cases of failure to exercise forbearance and/or acting unduly oppressively to constitute an improper and irresponsibly lending practice that call fitness into consideration.

Here the consumer is dumped by the regulators, my own case has been thrown out as improbable, yet when OFT examines the number of complaints it may very well find that the bank is at fault. The OFT may issue a fine on the bank yet the individual isl left high and dry. So not only can we not fight the system through OFT (although their decision may help of future consumers) the FOS will not take context into consideration. We then are left with the courts, we cannot avail ourselves of lawyers as they cost so much money, we can't use CAB as they are pretty pathetic, employing only the unemployable remnants of wannabe lawyers who failed their exams or are too useless to employ. The system is patently unfair and unworkable.

 

1.3 I would point out section 1.30 regarding assessment of affordability, in his mortgage application it can be seen a number of errors regarding his financial obligations, the forms have been filled in with inaccurate figures and my son has signed it but he is not responsible, all he wanted to do was get a loan. It was the bank's job to be responsible and check those figures. Lending money based on a 95% of the value of the property in not responsible behaviour by the bank.

 

section 2 General principles of Fair Business Practice

2.2 not to use misleading or oppressive behaviour when advertising, selling or to enforce a credit agreement. -

In my opinion this offsetting from an account in the red is enforcement. Further the bank is charging a completey unwarranted level of interest which is punitive. My son cannot afford legal action and so the bank is taking advantage of their powerful position, (knowledge and experienced teams of lawyers with unlimited funds compared to us).

 

The bank should make a reasonable assessment of whether a borrower can afford to meet repayment in a sustainable manner. -

If this had been done after selling a £17 000 fixed sum loan in 20006 he would not have had to borrow a further £30 000 in 2007, all his money was going on repayments and just surviving. We have shown this on our cash flows. At one point he was paying £550 and £250 /month to the bank in repayments of loans and mortgage alone out of a take home pay of £1300/month. because of the fall in interest rates he can manage better now with repayments of £400 and £250 /month. However if interest rates go up it may be he will have to sell his home and all the money will be taken by the bank, his home of seventeen years. Of course the bank have been irresponsible it is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

Inform the borrower the key features of the credit agreement to enable the borrower to make an informed choice. -

I don't see that the bank has done this and this is bourne out in the selling of PPI. The bank never explained the details of those poor products and reaped in huge rewards so it is with the rest of the products sold to my son, only you cannot see it.

 

Monitor the borrowers repayment record during the course of the agreement . Offering assistance where the borrower appear to be in difficulties.

-My son went to the bank in 2009 he has already exhausted all his funds, the bank refused (quite rightly to lend further, what he needed was advice him) he then borrowed £3000 from Tesco, this helped him for several months and that too was exhausted. Here is a pattern of behaviour which is bordering on the mentally deficient, he obviously cannot understand the lending process. The bank offered no help and no advice, they had creamed the cat, skinned him and now closed their doors to let him bleed to death all on his own. how could they lose they had his house didn't they?

 

Treat borrowers fairly and with forbearance if they experience difficulties (excuse my mocking laugh). The proof is in the pudding, My son came to the bank for help they trend him down, they were too busy counting their bonuses and planning next months Caribbean holiday). We took over in July and turned it around by Christmas.

 

2.3 There should be transparency in dealing between creditors and borrowers. -

How have the bank honoured this requirement of the OFT regulations, they still refuse to supply the agreement for the £17 000 fixed sum loan, they have no agreement for the PPI, they sent an illegible copy from Mrs Trolley ( I sent you a copy I believe). How is this behaviour of the bank complying with section 2.2? I can't be wrong on every occasion I must have at leas one point stated correctly?

 

Disclosure of key contractual terms...ensuring terms and conditions are fair and not unduly balanced in favour of the creditor. -

Surely the biblical rate for usury was 10%, surely 12% is usury? where is the fairness in that? The bank is charging 12% on their offsetting and it costs them 1/2% this is wicked, absolutely wicked.

 

Fair treatment of borrowers. Borrowers should not be targeted with credit agreements that are clearly unsuitable for them, subject to high pressure selling aggressive or oppressive behaviour or inappropriate coercion or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair, improper, whether unlawful or not. -

We have already had our claim for fraud turned down by the FOS, but in my claim I showed that the bank knew there were only 2 bedrooms to his home thereby attracting a lower rate of insurance and although they adjusted their rates when the found out they did not back date the payments, this was decietfll and unfair. Yet the FOS in the wisdom choose not to consider this.

 

Advise the borrower with an opportunity to ask the creditor for further information and explanation. -

This was never done hence the bank has been unfair.

 

I will stop for now and will continue tomorrow to review the actions of the bank. I hope you will put this letter forward as part of my appeal.

 

I received your letter today explaining the appeal process.

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan

 

I can feel the heat of your wroth from here!!

 

Gander well and truly up!

 

..and addressed to one who ''has been called to the Bar!!''

[pumpytums]

Nice letter,

did you mention that they are compounding interest? Repayments from the loan capital + interest been converted to an overdraft that itself charges interest?

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

It seems I have led my self up the garden path, the FOS seems useless what to do next?

 

I've been looking at other threads and there are two that seem to bear fruit, one is Pumpytums, she won when the agreement could not be found and Gemby (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/263433-natwest-should-i-settle.html)

 

On both occasions the bank had lost the original agreement and the bank either settled or the judge threw their claim out (as in Pumpytums case). Considering that the bank have lost the agreement on the £17 000 loan and are charging the premiums to my son's current account (which is in overtdraft) then it is fairly simple to apply to the court for NatWest to produce the documents. I have already served them with a Data Protection Act request and paid £10 fee last Autumn. If they fail to produce the document I can ask for damages and those would cover the £2000 overdrfat charges and premium. The judge can then order the loan unenforcable and that should be the end of it. Why didn't I think of this before? My application shoul not cost me more than £50.00 and as the claim is under £5000 NatWest cannot claim solicitors fees, and if I follow the advice online I should be able to fill in the legal doucments properly, I have NatWwest registered office address and our county court is only 20 minutes away.

 

I think I have been getting confused with OFT1175 dated March 2010, this publication is refering to CCA's and not the Data Potection Act, therfore case law has not been overturned and if the bank cannot produce the agreemnet to the satifcation of the court then it is the end of the Agreement. I don't think I can claim back payments already made however. But I may be able to claim Restiturionary damages which might take the claim over £5000.00.

 

I really don't think we have anythign to lose, we either get clbbered with this continuing growth on our overdraft and we don't fully undertsand the ramifications of that or we get the whole thing sorted out by the court. It should be very simple, all I have to do is produce my original DPA request with their answering letter saying they cannot find it and apply to the court under the act. It means that all efforts (I use that word 'efforts' loseley) by the FOS will cease but I cna take little stabs at what I think they owe us as tiem allows through the courts. I wonder if I should wait until the judgement is made by FOs on the PPI as it looks as if we will win that one.

 

I just found a pm from pumpytums in my inbox from last year, if I did not reply please forgive me Pummpytums.

 

I am just going to read up on the CCA and DPA and see what I can come up with. Is anyone willing to help me with the wording of this? I know I have to state a claim in money terms and I have to have a registered office address and I have the claim kit from this site.

 

Or do cagers think I should wait three months for the FOS to finally make up their minds?

 

 

Ieuan

Edited July 21, 2010 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan

 

The general advice is not to initiate a claim against the bank as the entire burden of proof then lies with you.

 

So much easier for them to take you to court and you can then defend against their specific claim.

 

As they are still 'taking' the premiums albeit adding to his overdraft they are unlikely to default him and begin court action against him.

 

It might be an idea to begin a new thread specifically about this loan and receive advice from those experienced in dealing with them.

 

I think that otherwise this whole scenario is destined to run and run to your son's continuing detriment.

[ieuanMr]

Wel, forgetting all the negative things we can do like rant, hire a bus and ram the local branch, set fire to their tyres, picket the local branch, send not very nice letters, scrawl on the walls, do a farmer Giles with the muck spreader etc. etc. We could alternatively walk away and forget about it all and ten years form now let the bank destroy us when all the legislation has been tinkered away to steal our rights we shall ponder the middle course.

 

The banks hold all the access...only this forum and forums like it (if it is not the only one) have cost the banks millions of pounds, mabe a billion pounds, which we the consumer and taxpayer are paying for.

 

Ranting does not good, it's a waste of energy. Focus and proceed in a dignified manner.

 

I looked at the 1976 aka 2006) Consumer Credit Act, they've changed the rules and awarded the bias to the banks. I can still go to court and claim damages for the bank failing to comply with the DPA 1998. But it's not getting to the core of the problem.

 

The problem is this:

1. the bank have admitted they have lost the agreement and that the agreement is unenforceable

 

2. The FOS have rejected our claim for Irerssponsible lending and it may well be our appeal will fail also so we will have to sue the courts. The FOS advises us to negotiate with the bank.

 

3. The bank is deducting monthly premiums from our dormant account by way of increasing the overdraft now up to around £2000 and charging 12% p.a. on account balances. We have tried to close the account, the bank have refused. We have appealed to the FOS for the bank to stop deducting money from a negative balance as it is enforecment, the FOS agrees with the bank.

 

4. Eventually the overdraft will reach a level that will not be able to be paid back

 

5. eventually the bank might find the agreement

 

6. OFT1175 January 2010 section 5.4 that the bank:

i. cannot threaten court action

ii. under 5.5 enforecement acton is statue barred but the debt remains

iii. under 5.5 the bank may register defaults, pursue the debt, register the debt with a CRA but may not threaten court action if they do the OFT will be judged as this as oppresive and/or misleading

under 5.6 no comunications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT where the bank is aware that the debt cannot enforce the agreement (from our POV this is important because deducting premiums agaisnt our wishes from an account in the red is enforecement not just a threat but actually enforcement).

 

7. The bank cannot threaten to register the debt with a CRA unless it intend to do so

 

8. under 5.8 Misleading debtors (people who owe money) into making payments amounts to unfair commercial practices under CPUTR 2008

 

9. Under 5.9 non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002.

 

10. Ramifications of non enforcebale debt according to page 30 of the OFT 1175con means the bank:

i. cannot demand earlier payment of the debt

ii. threaten court action

iii. take posseion of anything bought on credit or which you used as security

the bank can however:

i. request payment

ii. issue a default notice

iii. pass details of the default to a CRA

 

In view of the above it must be illegal for the bank to continue to take premiums agaisnt out wishes from an overdrafted account, surely this is enforcement by the back door and illegal? Yet the FOS have judged that I should pay our son's debts!!!

 

How do we proceed? Do we go to court and ask the court to reslove this? Midenmess says no, what do all you cagers out there think? this post has had over 19 000 hits, surely someone can guide us?

Edited July 22, 2010 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

Ieuan

 

Good post but should [in my opinion] be the lead post in a new thread with a title to attract those that will have the advice you seek.

 

Something like

 

Natwest destroying my son's life

 

Nat West-admit no agreement but continue to add punitive charges.What can I do?

 

Otherwise new readers have 288 posts to read to get the whole story!!

[pumpytums]

Hi Ieuan,

did you contact the bank and ask the OD to be reduced? Last time I mentioned this it was only at approx £1k.

 

I cannot see they cannot reduce an overdraft. It' an agreement between you and the bank and if you want it reduced they have to do it. If they refuse then that's another weapon for you if they want to take it any further.

 

You really must contact them on this ASAP if you have not done already. Is the OD facility able to go over £5k?

 

Pumpytums

[ieuanMr]

Thamks Pumpytums, I shall do as you suggest. I am taking Midenmess' advice and transfering the thread to a new thread.

[ieuanMr]

The banks hold all the access...only this forum and forums like it (if it is not the only one) have cost the banks millions of pounds, mabe a billion pounds, which we the consumer and taxpayer are paying for.

 

I looked at the 1976 aka 2006) Consumer Credit Act, they've changed the rules and awarded the bias to the banks. I can still go to court and claim damages for the bank failing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. But it's not getting to the core of the problem.

 

The problem is this:

1. the bank have admitted they have lost the agreement and that the agreement is unenforceable

 

2. The fos have rejected our claim for Irerssponsible lending and it may well be our appeal will fail also so we will have to sue the courts. The fos advises us to negotiate with the bank.

 

3. The bank is deducting monthly premiums from our dormant account by way of increasing the overdraft now up to around £2000 and charging 12% p.a. on account balances. We have tried to close the account, the bank have refused. We have appealed to the fos for the bank to stop deducting money from a negative balance as it is enforecment, the FOS agrees with the bank.

 

4. Eventually the overdraft will reach a level that will not be able to be paid back

 

5. eventually the bank might find the agreement

 

6. OFT1175 January 2010 section 5.4 that the bank:

i. cannot threaten court action

ii. under 5.5 enforecement acton is statue barred but the debt remains

iii. under 5.5 the bank may register defaults, pursue the debt, register the debt with a CRA but may not threaten court action if they do the OFT will be judged as this as oppresive and/or misleading

under 5.6 no comunications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBT where the bank is aware that the debt cannot enforce the agreement (from our POV this is important because deducting premiums agaisnt our wishes from an account in the red is enforecement not just a threat but actually enforcement).

 

7. The bank cannot threaten to register the debt with a CRA unless it intend to do so

 

8. under 5.8 Misleading debtors (people who owe money) into making payments amounts to unfair commercial practices under CPUTR 2008

 

9. Under 5.9 non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002.

 

10. Ramifications of non enforcebale debt according to page 30 of the OFT 1175con means the bank:

i. cannot demand earlier payment of the debt

ii. threaten court action

iii. take posseion of anything bought on credit or which you used as security

the bank can however:

i. request payment

ii. issue a default notice

iii. pass details of the default to a CRA

 

In view of the above it must be illegal for the bank to continue to take premiums agaisnt out wishes from an overdrafted account, surely this is enforcement by the back door and illegal? Yet the FOS have judged that I should pay our son's debts!!!

 

How do we proceed? Do we go to court and ask the court to reslove this? Midenmess says no, what do all you cagers out there think? this post has had over 19 000 hits, surely someone can guide us?

[pumpytums]

subbing for updates

[IainHL]

Ieuan, a possible course of action, if you had the funds available, would be to clear off the overdraft so the current account had a nil balance and then insist that NatWest close the account. Perhaps do so verbally at the branch and in writing. NatWest may still refuse to do so, arguing that you must have a current account with them to be able to service the loan. If that is the case insist they cancel the overdraft facility on the account. Again do this in the branch and in writing. See if they will convert the account into a Step account (no overdraft facility). Do this at the branch only (I am thinking here you might get a low level clerk who does not realise the implications of what you/they are doing).

 

If all of this fails then I feel your only recourse would be a claim under the Data Processing Act 1998 as you were contemplating. I believe I have seen threads on this, but have not researched it myself. Do you have any you have read that your could point me to?

[pumpytums]

The following was pulled directly from Nasty's website

 

NatWest Overdrafts

 

 

If you need some extra money and you're over 18 with a NatWest Current, Current Plus, Advantage Gold or Advantage Private account, a Credit Zone Overdraft could give you the flexibility you need. Once you've agreed your facility with us, you can use it at any time - without having to contact your branch. There are other overdraft facilities specially designed for students and graduates.

Advantage Private and Advantage Gold customers enjoy a tailored interest rate.

Great flexibility because you can borrow up to your approved limit at any time, plus you:

can increase or decrease your limit whenever you want

only pay monthly interest on what you borrow (when within your agreed limit)

don't have to renew your overdraft

 

 

I would contact them today. The problem is will they continue to take loan amounts out? Is the account online can you cancel the direct debit?

 

Pumpytums

[Undercover-Elsa]

I agree Pumpytums. I'm going to post on the new thread, but I think as a start a letter should be sent by Recorded Delivery, not going into great detail, just:

 

Ref Current Account Number xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I write to inform you that I require the overdraft limit on this account to be frozen at £xxxxxx (state required limit) and not increased under any circumstances without my express written permission. No further funds are to be taken from this account unless with my written consent.

I hereby cancel the Direct Debit/ Standing Order being taken from the Current Account above in respect of Loan Account Number xxxxxx, as clearly the funds are not there to service it. All other Direct Debits, Standing Orders or other periodic payments are cancelled forthwith.

 

Any further payments made from this account will therefore be against my express instructions.

Please respond within 7 working days confirming that my request has been actioned.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Elsa x

[middenmess]

They have refused to close the account,but by what right/law/T & C's can they do so? That in itself is manifestly unfair.

 

They obviously realise that if closed they would be unable to deduct further sums towards the loan and might eventually have to issue a default notice and the threat of court action to recover the loan,but with no agreement they would be unable to proceed.

 

Or can they legally continue to refuse to close the account in these circumstances?

[IainHL]

I would contact them today. The problem is will they continue to take loan amounts out? Is the account online can you cancel the direct debit?

The problem is that even if you cancel the (visible) DD NatWest will probably still take the loan repayments. In the past certainly loan repayments were serviced with an internal transfer (TR on the statement) rather than a direct debit (DD on the statement). I have not banked with NatWest for some time, so don't know if this is still the case, perhaps someone with an active current account/loan can confirm this. Actually Ieuan should be able to tell us the narrative on the statements for the loan repayments they are taking?

 

Ref Current Account Number xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I write to inform you that I require the overdraft limit on this account to be frozen at £xxxxxx (state required limit) and not increased under any circumstances without my express written permission. No further funds are to be taken from this account unless with my written consent.

I hereby cancel the Direct Debit/ Standing Order being taken from the Current Account above in respect of Loan Account Number xxxxxx, as clearly the funds are not there to service it. All other Direct Debits, Standing Orders or other periodic payments are cancelled forthwith.

 

Any further payments made from this account will therefore be against my express instructions.

Please respond within 7 working days confirming that my request has been actioned.

Yours faithfully,

I do believe Ieuan has already written a letter stating those sentiments at some point in the past. NatWest of course have ignored him.

 

The problem that Ieuan faces is that NatWest hold the cards in this situation, and he needs to find a way to force their hand. Hence the course of action I suggested above. Ultimately I fear though he may well be forced into taking action to resolve the matter and stop the bad position from escalating. On the other hand I suppose he could write again as you have suggested, and sit and wait as NatWest continue to service the loan from the ever increasing overdraft. There must surely come a point at which they will be unwilling to increase it further, and will start a claim against him, at which point he can use all his correspondence with NatWest in his defence. I would imagine that point would be before the whole loan is paid off, I cannot see them increasing the overdraft to the full £17,000, in which case the lack of agreement should work in his favour.

 

I just get the impression that Ieuan wants a course of action that gets the situation resolved sooner rather than later.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks guys, good imput I will answer you all in the new thread.

 

Ieuan

 

For all extents and purposes this thread should be viewed a closed.

[Undercover-Elsa]

New thread here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/269193-bank-enforcing-way-overdraft.html

[Undercover-Elsa]

They won't close it with an overdrawn balance.

Ieuan, we need to concentrate on this specific issue, so can you quote seperately, for clarity, exactly what you said to FOS about them taking payments from the overdraft, and what their response was (just on this subject)

I do think you should send the letter, as this important issue may have got lost among all the other issues.

Elsa x

[ieuanMr]

I have read the threads o the former thread, thanks to all who contributed. We have written formely several times to close the account and they refuse. The bank also want us to make a statement of our intentions, if we say we intend to stop all further premuiums thay will refuse to close the account even f we do pay off the overdrfat. paying off the over draft will be counter productive as they will then have a new limit to work on. 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. My argument is they are enforcing an unenforeable agreemnt. The bank have admitted in writing that the loan is unenforceable but the FOS can't see that or won't see it. FOS have told me that my son should pay off his loan and rejected out claim in its entirity save for PPI. FOS states that the offesting is a right of NatWest and should continue.

 

We had a family meeting last night and ecided on the follwoing:

 

1. persevere with our FOS appeal

 

2. find out how much the overdraft is set to

 

3. research a good claim lawyer

 

Here is a copy of my e-mail to the FOS:

 

May I respectfully point out that we are not intending to avoid paying our debts, we are endeavouring to normalise this situation. In our opinion the bank has been unfair, this is proven:

1. by their selling of PPI to my son on several occasions when it was clearly not in his best interests

 

2. Lending ridiculous amounts that have been extremely hard for him to pay back not on one but on a number of occasions, on many occasions of lending an amount of money the bank has sought to maximise their dealings with my son by selling spurious and unnecessary products, or products of little worth so much so that he was left with a surplus of £55 per month

 

3. In 2002 the bank swapped an unsecured loan (with PPI) for a 2nd mortgage and this is unfair as it is not in my son's best interests. Natwest have offered to reimburse but not the interest involved.

 

4. The bank are guilty of fraud as they found out that the house had two bedrooms and not three and did not back date their refund therefore making a monetary gain by omission, which is covered by the Fraud Act. The fact that they have reimbursed my son does not alter the fact that fraud took place and there should be a penalty.

 

5. The bank has refused our instruction to close the current account and continue to take money against our wishes, charge interest at 12%, continue to charge the extra £18 remaining from the PPI illegally sold to my son.

 

6. Any money we pay off on the £17 000 fixed loan would not be recoverable if judgement is made by a court as regarding unfairness by the bank therefore there is no benefit us paying further sums to the bank unless we come to an agreement. If you look at my letters we have offered to go to arbitration but they have still not responded. We have written numerous letters to try and resolve this matter without much success. Even when the bank offered a refund on PPI charges they refused to pay interest on this PPI of the statuary 8%. Under the circumstances we find it ironic (to say the least) for you to accuse us of avoiding our responsibilities, I think you should remind the bank of their responsibilities.

 

7. Our refusal to pay the remaining £200 per month premiums of the

£17 000 loan should not be seen as us avoiding our responsibilities, as the debt is unenforceable in a court of law and as the bank cannot in law threaten us with court action we have offered arbitration and they failed to respond. Our refusal to pay is our attemot to make the bank sit up and face up to what they have done to my son. They have run roughshod in greed and avarice to maximise their profits from and ordinary consumer, who has no legal knowledge and trusted the banks, that the bank would do the right thing and he has been left with a legacy of debt. If any judgement is to be made it must be made on my son AND the bank, that would be the right thing to do.

signed xxxxxxIeuan

 

 

 

Letter from FOS

I confirm a deadline of 12 August 2010 for your last submissions before the case goes for a final review.

 

However, may I remind you that although as an organisation we must have regard to the law, we are not bound by it and can depart from legislation and case law when we feel it is appropriate to do so.

 

I look forward to receiving your final submissions no later than 12 August 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr xxxxxxx

I am still examining OFT literature and would like until 12th August to peruse as I feel you have not given full justice to the current legislation in your summing up.

 

 

[Undercover-Elsa]

As I understood it the right of offset only applies to CREDIT balances. I agree strongly that what they are doing is unlawful.

 

I think this thread would get more attention in the Debt Collection forums, Ieuan. Much busier. You might want to hit the red triangle and ask a mod to move it...

Elsa x