@natwest_help NatWest Iressponsible lending - HELP PLEASE new develpements

[ieuanMr]

Thanks for the quick response Middenmess, you are a gem! Exatctly my thoughts, I felt a bit silly when I read the completed agreements were exempt from CAA requests yet I was very polite in my claim letters and expected them to conform out of politness' sake. I am just writing two £10 cheques for two SAR's and a reminder that the clock is ticking on my claims.

 

I have been reading the Data Protection Act 1998 again and I notice that a data controller must answer a SAR in writing, that he has recieved it within 21 day, that is a MUST under the act. I also notice that after the 40 days I can ask a court to compel a data controller to supply the information and that I can claim damages for costs and distress where the data is of a personal nature, i.e. it is to do with my son.

 

I think its time to issue a second warning of 14 + 2 days to NatWest and threat of court action. And I think it is time to send Ford a warning that they have broken the rules, although I did that in the 'in dispute' letter.

 

I have to give NatWest another 16 days as there is a massive amount of information involved and it is clear that they are struggleing. I have to be careful as there is a defence available to them when they can prove that they have done their best. I think I chall be conscillary and ask for documents that are easy to supply and tell them I am willing to wait a further 14 days for the rest. Then if that fails give them another 14 days before court action but remind them that there will be no further warnings and I make take immediate court action without referring to them again. That should take me up to Christmas and we shall spend some of their money I think. Maybe a few mince pies and a paper hat!

 

If someone had asked me two months ago if I could wade my way through reams of regulatuions and acts and then planned a court action I would have said "No way" Hosea!". But there it is, with the kind advice from a number of people I have managed to scrape some sort of claim together.

 

I have been reading the 'Unfair Trading Regulations' and it is amazing how much protection we have in law. The consultancy Document from OFT, July this year, specifies in great detail all the regulations Ford has broken. The bank too has been defficient in many areas. I printed out his balance sheet amounts over a 3 year period showing the affect of his spending on his loans and it is so dramatic even a child could see that the debts are unsustainable and that his indebtedness is oppressive. I think it also shows that he has an impediment as to dealing with large organisations, masses of paperwork and banks as regards to finance. Although as my wife said, he is very good at getting loans.

 

many thanks again for your help

regards

 

Ieaun

[ieuanMr]

2 SAR's are up soon I complain to the Information Minister?

 

4 CCA's are up

4 in dispute letters gone out a week ago and complain to?

 

Anyone?

 

Ieuan

Edited November 13, 2009 by ieuanMr

[ieuanMr]

I got a sudden and severe case of cold feet this morning after reading that the Unfair Trading regulations are things that cannot be sued for in a court of law. Here was me thinking all these rules and regulations enabled me to sue is in fact without any foundation. And reading from the different posts it seems that some people only think that we can sue for breach of contract and I wonder if it has been in fact done.

 

I think I feel pretty sure in suing for damages if they do not repond to a SAR or is that a CCA? and I can sue for distress caused for the delay and £9.00/hour for costs and £6.00 per letter?

 

So how do I sue now for Irresponsible lending and under what regulation, code, act? I know I that I can prove isrresponsible lending, I have reams of arguments, proof, statements, contracts, regulations to prove it. but what law do I use to sue, common law, breach of contracts? What fapuls me upm is that the ammendments change the original act and loater ammendments are diffuclt to weave into the whole regulation nightmare.

 

anyone?

 

 

Ieuan

Edited November 13, 2009 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

I think that launching straight into battle on all fronts is a very daunting prospect and fraught with too many pitfalls.

 

In one of your earlier posts you said that you would deal with one of the lesser issues first which would give you the know how and experience to deal with the larger and more complicated claims in due time.

 

Dealing with one issue at a time will allow to concentrate fully on it and would probably be the best way in which to concentrate your energy and resources.

 

Knowing that your son has been poorly advised in regard to his financial well being and being able to prove it within the law to a satisfactory resolve are not always closely related unfortunately.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Middenmess

I sent off two SAR's today and that will take 42 days to mature and takes me into Christmas before any further action. I would like to straighten up the car mess quickly however. And tackle the bank on some minor issues such as bank charges and PPI loans. that would take me intothe ew year and I could then prepare for the big two claims for irresponsible lending.

It's just that I am clear on the legisloation on Unfair Trading prctices but what law do I use?

1. damages for failing to respond to a SAR

2. breach of contract due to unfair lending

 

Or is there other legisation I can due under.

 

Thanks for your continued interest and support

 

regards

 

 

Ieaun

[ieuanMr]

Success!!!

HFC Bank turned up trumps with an offer. After a speculative letter and a CCA that was refused they have sent me an offer for two sums including interest:

1. £320.65 (includes interest of £89.11)

2. £1445.0 (includes interest of £317.20)

 

I have decided not to persue for restitionary damages or even check their figures, we just want the cash in my son's hands. I will write an acceptance letter in full and final settlement.

 

When we have the money in his bank we will log this as another success for this forum.

 

Many thanks to all who contributed to this success and God bless you all

 

Ieuan

[middenmess]

Well done Ieuan that shows that they have been in error with their dealings with your son but a couple of things come to mind..

 

As they have made this offer more or less willingly I would imagine that there is some room to negotiate for a little more--this might be achievable by just making a phone call to the writer of the offer and telling them that you'd like to close the matter but feel that they could increase their offer a little.

If you are polite you will have a good chance of getting a little more but if you don't then all you have lost is the price of a phone call.

 

The second thing is you state ..''we just want the cash in my son's hands'' but are they offering a refund by way of a cheque or are they intending to offset these sums against the existing borrowings?

[ieuanMr]

Thanks for the thoughts Middenmess, I did so well in sending off the CCA's and SAR's with the NatWest accounts that I looked back at some of my son's older borrowings (he keeps everything). And I thought I would send off a speculative claim. I was flabbergasted this morning to see that they had made an offer. My son hadn't even bothered to read the letter and just brought it in for me to deal with.

 

I made my 1st complaint on the 3rd of October and sent a follow up letter on the 3rd Novemeber and sent a CCA at the same time. I got a response from them written on the 2nd November and our letters must have crossed. I received a rejection to my CCA as it is void because the contract had been finalised. I sent off a SAR this morning and received their offer just after I had posted it.

 

I spoke with my son and we decided to accept their offer because of their early response and no hassle offer, although I will now consider your suggestion and try a bit more leverage. As they have offered to return ALL the premiums paid and with interest the only basis of a claim is the restitutionary damages. Their offer is without predjudice and I suppose they are trying to show transparency in case it goes to court. I did quote the recent court case of a woman obtaining judgement and all her contract money paid back and that may have sent shock waves down through the halls of these very large and very wealthy organisations. In which case it can't hurt to try to obtain more by way of restitutionary damages. Maybe I couod try £100.00 for costs also.

 

Bearing in mind the total interest recieved is £442.54, I could ask for a further sum of £500 to cover damages and my costs. He can only say no. As the toal clam is well within the upper limit of the small claims court then I doubt if they want to go via that route because they will not get any costs back.

 

I quoted the 1974 Act in my claim and section 140A article (1) unfair relationship and:-

article© anything done or not done either before or after... i.e. they had a duty to warn me of cheaper or more applicable protecion and to sign-post them for me....also I quoted

 

Article 4 .....notwithstanding the relationshipm may have ended.

 

I sent a similar letter to Barclays and they refused to recognise the contract number (that I took directly from the contract). So why are Barclays and NatWest playing hardball when HFC has coughed up with no argument?

 

Reagrds Ieuan

 

I am still struggeling with what act to quote when claiming and what act is actionable in law? It is a minefield out there. There are three acts 1974, 1999 and 2006 and which one do I use and which one is actionable in law? Anyone????

[ieuanMr]

We had a chat today and in consideration of their speedy action have decided to take their offer in good faith and without further delay, we need to bolster our son's finances I wish everyone would deal like HFC Bank.

 

NatWest are getting to me, they have ignored the SAR and are now sending me SAR's to sign for 3rd parties like UK Insurance. Apparantly they have their own database, but of course if one is asking for data by way of an SAR and one is considering legal action because of broken regualtions then that regulation about 3rd parties does not aply. Also NatWest has a policy of sharing all ones data with all it's subsidery and associate companies and outside companies if it determines necessary. When they then decide that 3rd party information is not available to the consumer then they are breaching contract law under unfair terms, they must be even handed in applying these regulations.

[ieuanMr]

SAR doucments arrived today from NatWest consisting of a print out of last 6 years of statement that I already have plus some forms and data from their own records, no manual intervention from archives or historical information. I specifically asked for statement going back to 1995 but nothing here. They did return my son's cheques for 3 CCA's that they did not action. They include a rider that manual intervention notes do not exist.

 

They say that if manual intervention took place they are not required to make any record of it or note of the action that was adopted. Therefore no notes relating to manual intervention would exist.

 

They state that PPI and other details will come from the relevant depertments.

 

MILESTONE!!!

Sent off my first claim for my son threatening legal action they have 14 days to comply and then another warning then court action. That would take me to the last day of 2009. I am embarrassed as I don't have details of his bank account going back to 1995.

 

I think a phone call is called for and I wil update the forum after the phone call. Just noticed...no phone number on the letter.

 

Got a letter yesterday refusing details on one a/c number that they don't recognise and I have no idea what it is either...stalling?

Edited November 17, 2009 by ieuanMr

[ieuanMr]

Here is a marvellous linnk to anyone struggling with:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006

Unfair relationships part 8 Enterprise Act 2002

OFT Guidance published 2008

 

Irresponsble Lending

OFT guidance or Creditors

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft854con.pdf

 

This one explains how and what and is invaluable

Unfair relationships

Enforcement action under Part 8 of the

Enterprise Act 2002

 

Hope it Helps!

[ieuanMr]

Got two positive reactions today:

 

1. Solicitor speaking on behalf of Ford XXXXXXXXX, he was very articulate, polilte and correct and leaned on me to settle for the return of the car + £50. I explained the Unfair Tradng regulations to him and he sounded bemused. He suggestedd I get legal help, he thinks I will lose in court. We parted amicably with me saying he had already broken the rules regarding not replying within 21 days to my SAR. He said, "Oh! Mr Ieuan you love to beat us with that stick." I wish I could I might enjoy it!

 

2. NatWest finally looking at me with serious intent, my last letter mentioned breaches of the Fraud Act by way of omissions with appropriation of funds via a DD with the view to benefitting a 3rd party (the Bank) this must have struck a painful blow to the nether regions as the person (high up) gave me her telepohone number. I phoned to sound her out and she seemed slighlty removed from this petty world of incompetant middlemen and amateur lawyers. She sounded deeply out of syncronisation to be told how sloppy, careless, thick and dense her lower staff were. She actually sent me a broucher on the complaints procedure. Alas, it was all spoiled by RBS sending my hard work on the scheule of PPI complaints back to me as it had my son's address and not my address on it.

 

I have a feeling in my bones that 47 letters between us in 3 months is nothing compared to what it will end up as, I keep a record of every communication with the time taken and with notes. I send that off to them every 5 letters or so, that's another six quid, right?

 

Sent off copy of General Power of Attorny to NatWest, Santader, Ford XXXXXXX, Barclays and to NatWest Home Insurance. they have to deal with me now and use my address. We will use the term 'Vulnerable' for my son's attempt to manage his affairs and I can prove by the records alone that he is weak on administrative skills, especally up against stalling masters like the bank.

 

Every letter they provaricate over is logged and filed and will be a terrible indictment to their incompetance on judgement day.

 

Ieuan

Edited November 20, 2009 by ieuanMr

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan-you seem to be making slow but steady progress and I think that taking the Power of Attorny is a necessary but positive move.

 

Just a minor point as it might have been a typo from you but a SAR should be completed within 40 days not 21!

[ieuanMr]

Hello Middenmess!

 

Nice to hear from you, I was afraid you had lost interest. I meant that they had to respond in 21 days and acknowledge the SAR. But the documents arrived this moring together with a solicitors letter (very shirty letter too threatening to report me for being unreasonable to the Ombudsman) it would be interesting to see what the Ombudsman would say about his threat. (re: Ford XXXXX)

 

I think I have my case prepared now sufficient to go to court, I just need to answer their letter and put down enough legislation for the judge to make a ruling. The only problem I have is who do I sue? It is my understanding that I have to sue the owner of the debt, that would be Santander, and that Santander are responsible for their agent or broker (Ford XXXXXXX) or do I have to sue both of them as Santander insits in their contract.

 

regards

 

Ieaun

[middenmess]

I can't help with who you should sue but as you will be a LIP you might find this thread interesting from post 222 onwards regarding the Francovitch ruling

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank.html

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Middenmess, that was a very good link and facinating to read. It appear however I am out of my depth as regrds litigation and am wondering where to go from here.

 

Regarding the car, I can answer the solicitors asumptions and veiled threat with ease but I don't think I know enough about court procedure to take this any further.

 

Regarding NatWest everything has ground to a halt with their stalling tactics and they have even returned all my PPI claims,a sserting I have the wrong adress for my son.

 

I have been researching relevant Act and Court practice proceedure and shall aply for | CPR 31.16 to see the original document from Santander, their copy that they sent me looks as if it has been tampered with.

 

Ford xxxxxx's solicitor accuses me of being unreasonable, I have always couched my letters in a reasonable vien even to the reducing some of the statements in the template forms from this site so as not to offend. I don't know what he means by unreaonable, they have threatened to report me to the Ombudsman for being unreasonable!

 

regards

 

Ieuan

[middenmess]

Hi Ieuan--I think that opening a new thread on the 'Legal' forum at

 

Legal Issues - The Consumer Forums

 

and asking for advice on one 'problem' at a time will be the best way forward for you as each of your issues have different areas to address.

[ieuanMr]

Thanks Middenmess, that was a great link and I have already incorporated some of it's ideas in my response lettter to the solicitor, i have for instance offered to mediation.

 

I turned up a great link on the net to do with Consumer Credit Act Procedure, Practive Direction - Consumer Credit Act 2006 -Unfair Relationshops. Personnally I think they are screwed, but time will tell.

 

I will open that ne post now. Thanks for all your help and I hope youm keep in touch.

 

 

regards

 

 

Ieuan

Edited November 23, 2009 by ieuanMr

[ieuanMr]

I got a response from NatWest this morning saying they have lost the agreement, what to do, what a dilema. They've lost the agreement and it is worth £30 000. My son has paid off £11 248.18 and stil owes £16 369.40. They assure me that the debt is valid and that we should continue to meet our obligations. They promsie to report us to a CRA should we fall into arreas.

 

They are quoting McGufflick v RBS that they are entitled to take any action short of enforcement Including registering a default with a CRA. We stopped the Direct Debits 2 weeks ago but they still managed to deduct £218 from his account, cheeky so and so's.

 

They insist that DPA 1998 s10(2)(a) and Scedule 2 paragraph 1.2 and three of the DPA. That they have to process data to operate our account. Maybe we should close the account We opened the parachute account weeks ago.

 

They also mentioned that they cannot understand how I can say the account is in dispute and I am gobsmacked that:

 

1. 40 letters back and fro claiming an Unfair Relationship

2. They charged £6000.00 PPI up front on a £17K loan

3. They cannot supply the original signed document

 

Isn't enough evidence of a dispute.

 

Any ideas on the legal ramifications? Needless to say we won't be payng any more money to this maverick bank.

[42man]

No signed agreement, then I would say it would be unenforceable and a government act Consumer Credit Act 1974 would trump any high court decision. (which it seems they know) Without going through 8 pages of your thread how old is the debt if I may ask ? If it is less than 6 years old then you might find this interesting - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/93884-wescot-rbofs-oh-dear-2.html#post935411

[42man]

They really should keep a signed copy for money laundering reasons !!!

[ieuanMr]

The problem now is this that the standard SAR letters on this site are inaccurate and out of date and can no longer be used in their present form. I say this reluctantly as they did give a kind of power to the consumer to thrash the banks with. However this is not bourne out in a recent case when judgment was made on the 6/10/2009 see:

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdf

 

This test case between McGffinck v. Royal Bank of Scotland shows in detail the considerations.

 

Because the bank cannot provide the signed agreement does not mean the money is not owed. The bank can show clearly that the money went into my son's account at a certain date. They can show also that we paid the exact amount for a period of two years and that now we have stopped. The debt is unenforceable, but it still exists and as it still exists can be reported to debt agencies, it can also be demanded although the bank has not done this yet. The bank acknowledges that the debt cannot be collected in anyway and no court will enforce it.

 

The only fishy thing about this case is that the bank reported this to me and there it is on the internet as bold as brass but is it true? Now, I don't know if it is true or not, but I would like to know.

 

My son is worried about his crdit rating so he wants me to negotiate with the bank and cut a deal.

[middenmess]

'My son is worried about his credit rating so he wants me to negotiate with the bank and cut a deal.'

 

No disrespect intended Ieuan but having a good credit rating has been your son's downfall!It would be an idea to check his rating on say Experianas it might already be marked.

 

'Cutting a deal' might not prevent the bank from marking his credit file down.

In the McGuffick case,I believe that there was an an enforceable agreement which was not in question.

[ieuanMr]

You are right of course he has been too honest, But we are talking of a half dozen claims and this is the 2nd biggest, what's wrong in cutting a deal if they know they have to pay PPI back + interest + restitutionary damages? Plus any damages due to irresponsible lending. I mean this case is so complicated.

 

That McGufflick case was a set up to explore the courts judgement on what we alway state in our SAR requests, that they can't harrass us in any way or charge interest or increase charges. the bank were squeaky clean in the procedures and held that doucment all the time, the judge knew that, they knew that only the consumer group did not know it until too late.The bank got the ruleing they wanted. The bank can report any debt they want to, it cannot be quiried only on an individual basis. In fact the judgement allowed them to demand the money back, but they would be in danger if they made it a hassal or with any physical threats , or telephoned at odd hours. We are already protected there by the Unfair relationships.

 

I will have a word with my son, I do think he is naive, but we can use this as a negotiating tool. They know all the PPI's are going to have to be given up + interest + restitutionary damages, it just how stupid they want to be, and if they can provoke us into doing something stupid they win again. I thought the arguments put forward in the McGufflick case uhm how can I say this, out on a limb.

 

How can you deny a debt exists if they have an agreement with the figures and the bank statement show that you recieved it? and your bank statement show you make regualr payments month after month. The judge knew that there was an agreement and the law says if a signed agreement cannot be shown they cannot enforce it. And that is what happened, but now they are being vindictive and reporting anyone who wins for the debt and that judge has ruled that they are right.

 

The only chance we have is to claim irresponsible lending, unfair relationship and allow the judge to see all our letters and charts and whatever we have to show him and they have to prove they were not unfair.

 

Our total claim must be in the region of £80 000, so the bank must want to settle right? I mean they can't stall for another 3 months, that would be testing any reasonable person. In these credit act cases we have to follow a procedure and that is set down in that link I posted, we have to offer arbitraion, I just wish I knew how it works. Then when we have exhausted all negotiations then we can go to court and not before. That is what I learned in the past week.

[middenmess]

Reading around the threads it is accepted that the McGuffick case was a disaster to use as a 'test' case especially as McGuffick's team accepted that the agreement was enforceable.

 

When you say that you think that the bank will want to settle,I think that you are being a little on the optimistic side because as they have in house legal teams it costs them very little to drag it out and wear you down.

 

As soon as you indicate that you want to 'cut a deal' it will be seen as a sign of weakness and they will work on that mercilessly and will offer,if they offer at all, a pittance.

 

I don't know your financial circumstances but going to court could prove a very expensive exercise if you do it alone as you admit it is a very complicated claim and they will have the best in legal expertise to fight their corner for them.

 

On other threads I read about using The Bar Pro Bono Unit: Free Legal Advice and Representation

Is it possible that they --depending on your circumstances--could help you?