@natwest_help NatWest Iressponsible lending - HELP PLEASE new develpements

[ieuanMr]

Yes indeed Elsa

Started a long letter to day outlining all corresponance with NatWest, 25 letters so far. Suggested one person contacted me in future and if they will deal with me directly as my son's advisor. They guess it is me writing all these letters anyway as son is oblivous to the ramification of debt, banks (although his lip snarls back when NatWest is mentioned, it's rather like having to chant w.a.l.k. in front of a dog in case said dog guesses you are talking about walk), credit agrements, interest, ratios APR and so on.... I think he feels much better to having his account at Barclays now, he resisted their attempt to sign him up for a credit card.

 

I have to read the Consumer credit act now and learn it's provisions by heart and try to select the relevant passages in my complaint.

 

regards

 

 

Ieuan

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi again,

A couple more links you may find useful..

OFT Debt Collection Guidelines for Creditors (what they can and can't do)

 

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (often referred to on here as CPUTR)

 

Elsa x

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Elsa

You are truly a gem, this is what may help me with the Fixed sum loan:

 

(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—

(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

(2) In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor).

(3) For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor.

(4) A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

(5) An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C).”

 

I got that from the site you gave me and the regulations are from the 2006 Act. Now I need look at the guidance notes at that time. The way I see it is that the high up front PPI of £6000.00 as soured the whole deal. Part a) is relavant and part b) in related activities i.e. PPI pushed the debt up from £17k + int to £30k in total. That must be unfair. part c) is relevant because they have not adviced that this was exortionate, that it would have been better to have paid on a monthly basis, that it was better bought on the free market and cheaper.

 

regards

 

ieuan

[Undercover-Elsa]

Well done ieuan

[ieuanMr]

Recieved a crazy letter from Santander today written by someone who calls the complaint form by three different titles. Have sent of a complaint at the confusion of their complaints proceedure. It looks as if we have wasted a month dealing with the car supplier and should have immediatly gone for the throat of the debt holder. Stlil, we live and learn.

Their complaint proceedure is torturous and apparantly designed to wear down the plaintive and channel complaints into their preferred vessel the: Fianance and Leasing Association. Failing that they liberally quote the Fianancial Ombudsman Service like pepper on a pitza.

I am deteremiend to take them to the county court, I do not think they have the least interest in addressing this complaint and shall issue a CCA today and a SAR to the car company.

Reading the OFT literature and the Consumer Credit Act 2006 that Elsa sent me has convinced me the courts are the best route. I took 6 years dealing with the Equitable via the Ombudsman and wish now I had been a memebr of this forum, I won but it wore me out.

It amazes me that these large organisation don't seem to employ lawyers or people who can draft a sensible letter to an inquiry. They seem to utter absolute dribble and standard letters, many of which have a hint of a threat behind them.

 

Iean

[ieuanMr]

Under the terms of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act

section 140A refers to Unfair relationships between creditors and detors.

 

I have printed them earlier but the 2006 act goes much further ina later but related section.

 

Power in Court in relation to unfair relationships

 

section 20 part 9 says this:

If, in any such proceeings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the realtionship bewteen creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove the contrary.

 

For the past few week I have been concerned about how to present the case for my son but after reading this all I have to do is to quote the relevant section of the act and say the contract is unfair and to quote why I think it is unfair. It is the duty then of the bank or supplier to prove that it is fair. The judge will decide.

 

I feel that my case for irresponsible lending is bound to succeed simply by presenting the number of products sold to my son and by virtue of the fact that he has almost nothing to live on after payment of all these premiums. He was £500.00 in the red every mobnth before we stopped the fraud and the premiums for things he didn't need and now after stopping everything he still has only £200.00 a month to live on after all expenses including food.

 

I intend to take county court action against the bank as soon as the SAR documents arrive.

 

ieuan

[ieuanMr]

Whilst filling out a schedule of debt and mortgages yesterday reqlised that there were two more PPI's that fall within the 6 year rule and so I sent of a claim to The Woolwich for £2600.00. That includes the whole debt including the principle and the interest and the PPI plus interest, I also claimed 8% for the period of the loan .

 

It's a specualtavie claim but one lady won, this year, and had everything refunded, it is up to the court to decide. I have all the details here with signed copies of the contrract by the lender and the borrower and the debt has been paid in full.

 

The regulations given me by Elsa were really helpful as I now know that even though the debt is paid I can still claim back and that the only thing I have to prove is that the upfront PPI is unfair under the terms of the 1974 act.

 

This morning I will write out a claim for £5000.00 +int +PPI +Int + 8% against Marbles Loans.

 

Ieuan

[middenmess]

Hi ieuan--I dont think that the '6 year rule' applies to PPI.

 

As I understand it can go back to the inception of the policy assuming that you have the necessary statements etc.

 

Others may know better,so please accept as my opinion only.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Middenmess

I did not know that, useful to know I think.

 

regards

 

Ieuan

[IainHL]

There you go, Sir

Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Make a cup of tea first....

Elsa xx

 

On the Statute Law website that Elsa has linked to above, if you just put in Consumer Credit as the search term you will also get links to the 2006 Act (which you seem to have found from somewhere anyway), plus all the Statutory Instruments relating to the Consumer Credit Act. These can be very useful for checking the precise "rules" the creditors have to follow, such as time periods for response, and legibility of the copies they supply in response to your requests.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks IainHL

One rule I noticed from this site is that the tick box should not be preprinted as it implies that the debtor has to sign it as a condtion of the loan and this may be construed as undue influence. I notice that with two of his agrements. I shall go and follow that link you gave me and study it further.

 

regards

 

Ieuan

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ieuan,

You are doing so well...

I'm proud of you!

 

Elsa x

[ieuanMr]

thanks Elsa...blush

 

I've been thinking through this as a possible court case(s) and I am wondering what happens when a PPI is rolled over. It seems to me that it is the PPI's that are killing any possiblity of paying back these loans. Every time he took out a new loan to clear the last, and I suspect he did this to take advantage of the lower APR rates, but the problem is the PPI's get rolled over too. I need to work out how this influences his debt, is it a major factor? in which case it would be the contributing factor to his eventual demise, i.e. his ability to pay back.

 

regards

 

Ieuan

[ieuanMr]

I started writing on this site around the 26th Sepetemebr this year, a month ago. Since then I have formulated to some extent what I intend to do, although not completely clear in my mind I have a rough plan of action. The advice I have been given has proved to be of immeasurable value because it has set me on a course of discovery and of action.

 

I realise some of my own letters are just beginers complaints without any legal weight behind them and may be viewed by the legal profession with distain. I find that the SAR's and CCa's make them sit up and think.

 

I have so mnay going on I have ahd to open a schedule to keep track of them all, so far:

1. I have written numerous letters of complaint to different companies and deprtaments of NatWest

2. sent out 2 SAR's with possibly 2 more to follow.

3. sent out 3 CCa's and with 3 more to follow.

4. I am actively persuing action against 4 orginisations (i. car purchase, ii. NatWest irresponisble lending and PPI's - bank charges -credit card charges- Advantage Gold lack of due care and diligence, iii. Barclay/Woolwich PPI, iv.HFC/Marbles Loans 2 counts of PPI.) Planning 1 more for myself credit card charges with MBNA.

 

My thanks for the trmeendous support of evryone and especially Elsa.

 

I am at presnt struggeling with how to procedd in the emantime hopefully my small claims kit will come shortly.

 

Ieuan

[ieuanMr]

I just noticed the poll on the bank charge survey, I recieved 6 years rom NatWest going back 6 years. They sent a letter saying the Office of Fair Trading says only 6 years but I wrote off again for statement going back to 1995. No reply yet and I sent ages ago. According to the survey 35% got only 6 years of statements. At first NatWest were very good at responding but now have slowed down considerably. I am itching for something to do.

I actually sent them a letter on the 15th October asking for bank statement going back to 1995 and it's the 25th today, allowing for 2 days each way that is 7 days for them to consider my demand. I asked them for a copy of the relevant OFT guidlines that say they only have to supply 6 years. Should I complain tothe OFT in say a few days? (allowing for Mail strike delays). I suppose I could draft a letter to the OFT tomorow and send it Wednesday, or should I warn them first? I wrote asking for details of Credit card charges on the 7th september 2009 and still have not recived a rely, I have writen three time now asking for details of the credit card charges. The last letter on the 15 October 2009.

 

Ieuan.

Edited October 25, 2009 by ieuanMr

[ieuanMr]

It's much worse than I realised. There is a loan from The Woolwich, 2 with Marbles Loans and 1 more with NatWest, all with PPI up front plus interest of course.

 

His way of coping has been to take out ever increasing loans to pay of the existing one until he hit the buffers in July. He went to NatWest for help and they turned him down. He missed a payment and he was charged £38.00 plus interest of £28.00 and probbaly logged as a defaulter.

 

NatWest in the meantime have been sitting pretty, their staff have had their bonuses, been on their exotic holidays to get over th stress of selling so many PPI policies to finanicially ignorant peasants and as soon as he defaults one more time will issue a demand for the mortgage to be paid immediately. On default they can then sell his house and pay back all their loans. The ejected former house holder can then doss down inthe street or shoot himself for all they care as long as they can get more suckers into the their bank or should I say web.

With all the money from the PPI's (tremendous profits) they can advertise on Tv showing a handsome carring banker purring with platitudes as he makes chocolates (not very well so we can feel good about it) to suck in the suckers.

 

You want a dream fullfilled with a nice husband and a rosey future come to NatWest, you can live on their fluffy advertisement for ten years before things catch up with you and the ship runs out of steam to wreck your life, marriage, finacial stability, mental health, by that time you will be ready for the mental institution, dosshouse, prison, old peoples home and serve your right for trusting the professionals.

 

We bought our house in 1967 for £3 600.00 at 7.5% fixed interest over 30 years. We still live here, have never taken out a 2nd mortgage, never paid PPI, and never paid arrangement fees. What happend to those halcyon days when banks did not lend on mortgages?

 

Ieaun

[ieuanMr]

Received a letter from NatWest today in reply to my demand for statement going back to 1995 (lett. of 22 Oct). They cannot comply with my demand as the letter is not signed by my son, my wife signed as co-signatory to his account. They accepted the co-signatory request a month ago.

 

I thought that they had to comply with letters even if there is no signature.?

 

Ieuan

[middenmess]

Re. your post at #66.

 

I think you'll have to hook your errant offspring up to a lie detector to finally discover exactly what he has signed up to!!

 

Did he always fill in these applications honestly as if he did there would be no way that any responsible company would have advanced him all that money knowing that he couldn't service them all.

 

#67--Natwest et al will find any possible means to slow down your progress in obtaining information from them.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Middemess

It is a thought, and fair comment. I have grilled him over the past 6 weeks and his story is consistant, in fact he seems to want to help the bank. He didn't even want to claim more than he thought necessary. But I have logged every loan and can now see what has happened. He has not been going full term on these loans, he has been swapping loans quickly as the interest rates dropped over the last few years and of course it makes sense. But he has forgotten that the debt is growing all the time, and the PPI's getting bigger. And he has been ripped off by a so-called pal. The good thing is he never threw any paper work away and I have almost the full picture. He has written in the applications 'Building and renovation' but has also written to pay off existing loans.

 

I believe he is financially illiterate although not dull. And squeezed by his pal and the bank he has come off worse. He realises that now and wants to salvage as much as possible. I finally managed to make my complaint about he PPI's today and will send that off to RBS.

 

We just don't know where this will lead, we just feel someting is wrong, my son has been careless and the bank irresponsible only a court will decide.

 

Thanks for comments, they are fair.

 

regards

 

Ieaun

[middenmess]

It might be unwanted advice but I would seriously consider having Power of Attorney for your son's finances--it might well make your ''job'' a tadge easier to perform.

 

Managing your affairs and lasting power of attorney (England and Wales) : Directgov - Pensions and retirement planning

[ieuanMr]

Thanks again Middeness

Our solicitor has advised agaisnt it and my son is very unsure about it. I think he feels I would be taking all control. It is strange he trusts a so called friend and parts with £47 000.00 over a ten year period for some shoddy work and minimal effort with some gardening work and cleaning work (there were places cockroaches would be loathe to go) and yet he can't trust the ones who love and care about him so much we would give everything to see him financially secure and independent.

 

Thanks for your continuing support.

 

I fianlised a really good letter to the RBS yesterday and using Works gave a schedule of all his PPI loans over the years, by itself it shows a complete diregard for reality in throwing money at him, I also used the OFT information and guidance of July 2009 and the 1974 Act and the 2006 Act to make my complaint using relevant sections of Unfair relationship because of

1. terms

2. what and what not the creditor has not done. I also quoted the terms of the Advantage Gold Account that the terms have stated that they will monitor for fraud, and that they will collate information to make credit related decisions about him. the only descision the seem to have made is to turn of the tap of credit when the water got too hot.

 

I have 4" of letters to NatWest now and am waiting for the SAR and CCA's to turn up. Then we have to decide whether to:

1. take it all to the ombudsman

2. take the whole package to law, but then it is so much money the bank may ask for it to go to the High court which we cannot afford

3. take it in job lots to the county court but we won't get realistic costs paid to us then only the minumum.

4. Take it to the ombudsman for a descision and let them do all the work then take it to law when we have some reasoning and calculations from them.

 

 

 

regards

 

Ieuan

[Rhinoagainstcharges]

Congratulations on taking action on your sons finances. I would like to just put a couple of matters to you which you may or may not want to take into account. Your original post stated you had cancelled the house insurance, later post stated this was contents insurance. Would suggest that you certainly do need buildings insurance. secondly whilst the PPI may have been missold this does not make the lending on the principal loan irresponsible. Oh, on one final point loans for the purchase of a principal property are not covered under the Consumer Credit Act

[ieuanMr]

Right, thanks Rhino

I must admit I am green, I thought the further advance on the mortgage was covered by the consumer credtit act of 1974. I suppose this is the intention of the 8 week delay before going to the Ombudsman is to iron out points of law. But then the whole thing is frought with difficulty because they have loaded the scales againt him, there must be some sort of case for loading him up with so much debt.

I have been bothered by the lack of House cover because there is somthing in the mortgage agreement to say that we must use NatWest for cover.

But then things are so tight he really has no money to spare. he doesn't get much overtime lately and the ony way out of this mess is to claim something back to ease the pain. If he loses the house through fire or storm he will get the same price the site as he would get for the house as it stands. Our original intention was to get him through to Christmas and then asses his finances, at the moment he is solvent and has some money set aside. He is due a raise in slaary in the new year and that will help and he will get more oevrtime as his comany is planning nmajor gorwth. If we can get him thorugh to next summer he may then be stable, especially if he gets some money back.

Take for instance paying £5000.00 off the mortgage, this will reduce his payback premium of only £22.00 per month, the equivilant of the premium for house insurance. They have loaded him up with so much debt and so many unecessary products that it has contributed to his whole mess. They must take some blame for this mess as they have flounted the rules and been unfair. Why should we insure (for all extents and purposes) their property to protect them. take the life insurance, he pays it for cover of £30 000.00 life cover, he has no dependents, he ahs no one that he needs leave anything to, it is for their shortfall if the worst comae to the worst that they have advised him to buy life cover, and there is some element in that of PPI.

This whole mess is so complicated I think only a judge could make sesnse of it. If I emply a solicitor it is going to cost me thousnads even if I could find one. Wwe have absolutetly nothing to lose as now the new law puts the onus on the creditor to prove that they were fair.

I went through 8 years with the pensions ombudsman and they did a reasonable job. They certainly dug out relevant parts of the law of which I kne wlittle and made a desciion in my favour, I could then have gone to law and expanded my claim some more.

I think that if the ombudsmand gets involved they will make the case for me and then I can then chose to abide by their decision or to go to law.

 

The whole thing about claiming cancellation of the whole debt is that the PPI was suffieciently onerous as to put the whole project into danger. The only outcome was my son would certainly default at some time, that is unfair.

 

thanks for coments and for feedback, I do appreciate it evry much.

 

Ieuan

[Rhinoagainstcharges]

Hi, only the original advance for the house purchase is out side the CCA. You are correct, further loans secured by the property are covered by CCA regulations. As regards the PPI whilst it is almost certainly expensive and your son almost certainly was not offered alternative insurance was it actually missold. Had he been made redundant or had an illness I would think he and you would be grateful for it to repay the loan which you could not otherwise have done. Don't get me wrong as I do not know all the circumstances you probably have a good case but do not assume all PPI was missold and unnecessary. Best of luck to you anyway.

[ieuanMr]

The PPI was missold in my opinion because it took the total repayments up to 55% of the debt, this was unnecessary as cheaper insurance was available. Charging PPI upfront and then adding interest is onerous, unecessary and downright greedy on the part of the banks. The terms were tortuous to read and I can see very little benefit to my son. The payments were limited to a fixed period so he still had to find work pretty quickly and there were so many limitations in the contracts. He would be better off saving his money. If he had lost his job he could have sold the house and then rented and still been solvent. The PPI's simply made the whole debt unsustainable. I am about to do some histograms and cashflows to prove this, but it is hardly worth it because the bank statements tell the story quite well, as soon as the money is paid into his bank the PPI is removed instantly sometimes as much as £6 000.00.

PPI's are a vehicle for rich people who have a lot to lose by sickness or redundancy they are not for poor people as poor people cannot afford them.

The lenders broke the rules by not showing due diligence and care in offering loans to someone who was so much in debt. his spending habits were unreasonable and they could have advised him to cut back. Large sums were paid out of his accouint for poor and shoddy building work and the bank had no input other than to increase his borrowings.

 

They had a duty in the pre contract negotiations to ask questions and to verify facts, they did not do this and they had a contract to say they would monitor for fruad and to advise on credit realted issues, they chose not to do that.

 

They sold him 'top of the range' insurance and products he could not afford to use, (insurance deals for holidays; in Switzerand and skying) he's never had a holiday in 15 years, he cannot afford one.

 

The proof of the pudding is that is debt has risen from £25K to £112K since he's been with NatWest, his home shuld be a palace with that kind of expenditure.

 

They did not warn him of thr true cost of this PPI. They had a duty to suggest he shop around in the open market, they did not.

 

They told him the PPI's were a good deal, they are not, they recommneded them, if they recommended them they should also point out the pitfalls, they did not. Some of the boxes were pre printed, this does not show transparancy or offer a real choice.

 

They have taken a ordinary working guy and fueled him with debt that he could not possibly pay of, this is blantantly unfair even if he has been a fool to himself.

 

We took over in September, we cancelled evrything that we could and he is now solvent. He has £59.00/week left after we feed him for £15.00/week. This proves that the debts were unsustainable. If he can sort out the car problem soon he will be £108.00/month better off. That will give him £74.00/week to buy some crisps and maybe a pint now and then. He doesn't even have a TV licence, he doesn't watch TV.

 

Our whole strategy is to persevere for the next year, tidy up the house and try to sell next summer for around £120K. Pay off loans and buy a house near his work where he won't need a vehicle as fuel costs are £100.00/month. Anything we can get back from the bank and/or the fraudster will help him survive.

 

If he loses his job, get sick or gives up he will have to sell quickly. That is why I am using my money to build the drive (£400.00 to now) I will make gates, and do essential decorating as time allows.

 

Ieaun

Edited October 29, 2009 by ieuanMr