Bookie burns her bridges...

[battyman]

The problem is when you offer to pay these companies, in my case, credit cards a fair amount, they (most of them) refuse and even if they agree its only for 3 months and I was paying £50 a month to them. One took me to court. My biggest fear is losing the house. So although I wish I could do what you are doing Bookie if I did they would come after my house. So I am stuck for years trying to pay these blood suckers on a very small pension.

[middenmess]

The problem is when you offer to pay these companies, in my case, credit cards a fair amount, they (most of them) refuse and even if they agree its only for 3 months and I was paying £50 a month to them. One took me to court. My biggest fear is losing the house. So although I wish I could do what you are doing Bookie if I did they would come after my house. So I am stuck for years trying to pay these blood suckers on a very small pension.

 

Hi Battyman

 

I think that starting your own thread with your problems might garner some help to deal with ''these bloodsuckers' as even if they proceeded to court,a court would only order you to pay what you can actually afford after taking into account your I & E.

[Bookworm]

The problem is when you offer to pay these companies, in my case, credit cards a fair amount, they (most of them) refuse and even if they agree its only for 3 months and I was paying £50 a month to them. One took me to court. My biggest fear is losing the house. So although I wish I could do what you are doing Bookie if I did they would come after my house. So I am stuck for years trying to pay these blood suckers on a very small pension.

I'm a mortgagee too, honey... But anyone who tries to get an unsecured debt secured against my house is going to have a fair old fight on their hands, I can assure you.

[angry cat]

The cancellation notices and copy docs. Regs 1983, do not fully apply in this case.

Edited July 27, 2010 by angry cat

[angry cat]

LACORS - Subject Content Details

[Fred Bassett]

If you're worried about charging orders and you have a joint mortgage, then it's worth reading this: Charging Order? The myth - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[angry cat]

CCA 2006 fully implemented 30th & 31st October 2006:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060014_en.pdf

[Bookworm]

The cancellation notices and copy docs. Regs 1983, do not fully apply in this case.

Sorry AC, can you explain that? :-? (Told you it wasn't my specialist subject! ) Does it make a difference?

[Bookworm]

If you're worried about charging orders and you have a joint mortgage, then it's worth reading this: Charging Order? The myth - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

Regards.

 

Fred

I'm not, but thanks for the link anyway.

[angry cat]

Re: the on-line application, they should have sent the applicant separate cancellation rights.

Did they?

 

And, did either party take out the PPI?

[Bookworm]

No PPI, no, this is me you're talking about.

 

Separate canx rights, I'll check the paperwork. Thanks.

 

(Bloomin' 'eck, lots of people on my thread! Hello everyone!!! *waves*)

[angry cat]

Sorry AC, can you explain that? :-? (Told you it wasn't my specialist subject! ) Does it make a difference?

 

Of course!

as per their letter in post #49 Re: Reg. 7...

Edited July 27, 2010 by angry cat
error

[angry cat]

Whoops my error, post #49

[angry cat]

No PPI, no, this is me you're talking about.

 

Separate canx rights, I'll check the paperwork. Thanks.

 

(Bloomin' 'eck, lots of people on my thread! Hello everyone!!! *waves*)

 

Distance Marketing Regs...

Do check!

[Crapstone]

Take it to the Ombudsman if you need time. You should have been given your rights to cancel with the original paperwork and not to follow after making the agreement. You don't buy a dress and get sent the care label a week later! Dig those heels in and make as much fuss at their expense as you can.

 

xxx

[merlin100]

Good luck Bookie and go for it!

Like most on here Ive been there and got the T Shirt etc.

My liberation began when I finally got rid of a greedy ex-wife 6 years ago. A couple of years later I found this site - and how things have changed!

No CCAs etc means they can all go and sing - and if they get stroppy you just follow it up with the more legally binding stuff and they crawl back under their respective rocks and sell the debt on. Great isnt it?

 

On a more serious note though, since I converted to a "cash only" life, I have never owned so many things that can truly be called mine.

And Im talking about expensive goods - £1000s of fishing tackle, flat screen TVs, cars etc, and NO_ONE can take them from me:)

 

And as an added bonus, my kids ( all adults) now inform me that poor old mummy is sinking under a mountain of debt because she still cannot contain her greed. Maybe I should contact her and show her how this all works?

But then maybe not:D

Bloody cow.

[Bookworm]

Well, Natwest, bringing up the rear, sent me a letter today informing me that I have gone over my limit (actually, no dear, YOU have gone over my limit) and that it is imperative that I bring it under and/or "contact them to make arrangements to get the account in order"... Funny, I could have sworn that I sent them a letter to that effect weeks ago *(which they have completely ignored). Nice to see they're still as incompetent as ever.

 

 

 

*exactly 2 months ago in fact, just checked the beginning of my thread!

[Bookworm]

Natwest just phoned:

 

- hello, is this (first name)? [1st mistake]

- Yes.

- This is Natwest, we need to discuss your account.

- No, you don't, there is nothing to discuss until you respond to the letter I sent to you 2 months ago.

- *short silence* Well, that's nt going to happen [really?], we need to talk but first I need to ask you some question for security.

- And I am not going to answer them, I have told you, all in writing, so don't phone, reply to my letter first.

- Look, I am not calling to be argumentative, but we need to clear security.

- Not gonna happen.

- If you don't, then we will have to go to the next step.

- Oh good. Then I will be able to tell you in writing that I am still waiting for a reply to my letter from 2 months ago. So you can stop phoning.

- We won't stop phoning, we will keep on phoning.

- That's harassment.

- No, it's not.

- Oh but it is, especially after I have repeatedly asked for everything to be done in writing and informed you that I would NOT talk to you by phone.

- Well, if you don't talk to us, we'll have to go to the next step.

- Ooooh, I'm scared *laughs*.

- There is no need to be like that!

- Oh but there is EVERY need to be like that, since you don't seem to understand very simple instructions.

- Well, I am going to have to terminate this call then.

- Good. At last you get the message. Don't call again.

 

[MONX]

Love it Bookie!

 

 

Nothing less than they deserved.

[Bookworm]

Mistake!!!

 

Natwest called. On a Sunday.

And he called me by my 1st name.

And he tried to talk over me.

And he hung up on me.

 

BIG mistake. HUGE. ENORMOUS.

[dragonkeeper]

Bookie

 

please post your response to #70

 

it will make a damn good read

 

 

 

dk

[Bookworm]

Bookie

 

please post your response to #70

 

it will make a damn good read

 

 

 

dk

 

If you insist.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Natwest,

 

I wrote to you (our local branch) on June 1st to explain of our difficulties and making an offer to you for gradual repayment of our overdraft.

 

To this date, I have yet to receive even a simple acknowledgment of said letter.

 

What I have received instead were letters from your collections department in Birmingham, and now phone calls. These are what cause me to write to you now:

 

1 – I have expressed at every phone call that any queries or discussions would be made in writing ONLY. Your operatives insist on calling as if it were a god-given right, which it of course isn’t. Whenever I have said I would NOT engage in a phone conversation, their systematic answer (and this is not just one individual, from which I conclude it is in fact an accepted method in these offices) is that they will keep on calling, including as it turns out on a Sunday lunchtime.

 

Let me ask you; at one point does one cross the line from a legitimate phone call to harassment? The answer is simple: if the person on the other side says to you they will NOT under any circumstances engage in conversation with you, then you must know that calling them again will not achieve a different result unless you are planning on wearing them down into talking to you, and that is harassment.

 

2 – Your operatives insist on calling and saying: “hello, is this [first name]?” To which the answer really is: “not to YOU, it isn’t”. I don’t believe that I have given your people permission to address me as if we had been at school together, and you may do well to advise them that it is common courtesy to call one by their full name. “Mrs [surname]” will do nicely, thank you.

 

 

3 – To the “is this [first name]?”, my reply has been every time, without confirming yes or no: “Who is this?” to which they reply: “It’s Natwest”. Does one assume that every operative you employ has particularly cruel parents who called them Natwest and they all ended by sheer coincidence, or maybe morphic resonance to work for you? Or could it be that they have no wish to be identified by their names when they proceed to harass people?

 

4 - Your operatives have now systematically breached the Data Protection Act in that even though my answer, as above, is never to confirm whether I am the person they want or not, they then proceed to discuss things which they shouldn’t be discussing until they have in fact confirmed my identity and cleared the security questions. Oh, I know I make things difficult for the poor lambs by in fact refusing to answer their questions and thus clear security (see point 1 as to the reason why), but that really isn’t the point, is it? I mean, it could be anyone, mother, carer, daughter etc... and I could have left simple instructions: “if anyone calls, tell them to contact us in writing only and finish the conversation”, yet despite not knowing whether they do have the right person, these people carry on trying to bully that person into talking to them, and reveal private information in so doing.

 

5 – Your operatives have the very nasty habit of trying to talk over me. I found myself explaining over and over again that I would only communicate in writing and that I was still waiting for a reply to my letter from 2 months ago, and they keep on interrupting, trying to talk louder than me, trying to shut me up and generally being quite obnoxious. And of course talking about things they shouldn’t talk about (see point 4).

 

6 – Today’s operative (he called himself Natwest, but that might not be his real name), when I asked him to stop talking over me (so I could tell him about the letter) said that he was terminating the call and hung up on me.

 

Now, can you spot the number of times your operatives are in breach of the DPA, breaches of the OFT guidelines on disputed accounts, and of course breaches of every rule in call centre training manuals? I’m sure you can. Unfortunately for you, so can I.

 

Even though I don’t actually have to explain myself to your company as to why I won’t engage in telephone conversations, I am going to tell you just to make sure you can’t deny knowledge of this:

 

I am registered disabled, and am on a daily basis on medication for the pain which cause me to feel drowsy, forgetful, and not always completely compos mentis. I can not fully trust myself to remember precisely what has been said in a conversation, and I certainly do not trust YOUR people to tell the truth either(I have after all been a Natwest customer for 20 years so am well versed in their methodology). For this reason, I expect every business to be done in writing (call it a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act if you will) so that I can refer to those letters whenever I need to carry out any further business.

 

Secondly, I am of limited mobility and trying to get to the phone can cause me great physical discomfort. I can accept that in the case of necessity, but your operatives’ bullying behaviour hardly comes under the heading of necessity.

 

With this in mind, this is what I want you to do:

 

1 – I want you to stop calling me at home for any reason whatsoever, and I want this to stop NOW.

 

2 – I want you to confirm in writing that you will in fact stop phoning me.

 

3 – I want you to REPLY to the letter I sent you on June 1st, even if it to say that you cannot accept my offer, and then tell me what the next step is. In WRITING.

 

I should also warn you that phone calls are routinely recorded and may be used as back-up for any complaint that may follow to the OFT, FOS and/or Disability Commission.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Mrs Bookie

 

 

 

They phoned this morning, btw. I'm afraid my reply was quite unladylike... I said: "A letter is on its way to you, f*** off" and put the phone down. Well, I was not feeling great and trying to reach the drugs, so they really caught me at a bad time.

[The GodMother]

Oh l like the letter. I have infact also corrected call centre or Phone monkeys several times when they have called me by my first name and told them l have not given them written permission to call me by that name. When they ask me what they are allowed to call me i have been known to tell them.

 

1) The Boss, as l am incharge even if they dont believe it.

2) Her majisty, well l can dream.

[dragonkeeper]

bookie

 

Nice and polite with underlying nastyiness written response.

 

I like to see and write letters of this nature.

 

As for the slip of the tongue. Do's your face look like it's bothered or gives a ****.(put your own word in a few fit)

 

 

 

 

bk

[PriorityOne]

"Natwest?! Get your bleedin' arse down them stairs.... your pot noodle's gettin' cold!!" ROFLMAO!!