Nationwide Offseet Loan From Current Account - Now In OD!

[vint1954]

I think the regulations that allowed this were brought in mid 2000 and do remember being "invited" to tick a box to "reveal" the amount I could have on the e-Loan when I logged onto the internet banking. I do though have a vague recollection of having an application form sent for signing before finds were released. I might though be imagining this. 2001 is a long time ago!

 

Does anyone else who has or has had a Nationwide e-Loan remember the application process?

Untill 2004, they needed a signature to back up the online application.

 

2004, not 2000.

[Stagparty]

Thanks for that Vint - I can almost picture the form in my mind (unless my mind is playing tricks on me).

 

I guess this adds ammunition to my case, as I now have in writing from NW that they don't have an agreement.

 

So they have unlawfully terminated an agreement which they can't prove existed....

 

When the final answer comes back from NW saying they were right all along and I refer the matter to the FOS, should NW stop collection activity on the account?

[diddydicky]

having sent the letter in post 58- i would not now refer again to the unlawful termination unless/until they come up with a properly executed/legally enforceable agreement

 

your tack now is

 

no agreement - nothing to talk about

[Stagparty]

Thanks for that Diddy - I agree with you in so much as "no agreement, the e-Loan doesn't exist" but remember they (unlawfully) transferred that to the overdraft which they have now defaulted (incorrectly as no time allowed for service on the DN) and are trying to collect the OD balance. Consequently I don't quite see how I can avoid mentioning the eloan.

 

Any suggestions?

[vint1954]

Thanks for that Vint - I can almost picture the form in my mind (unless my mind is playing tricks on me).

 

I guess this adds ammunition to my case, as I now have in writing from NW that they don't have an agreement.

 

So they have unlawfully terminated an agreement which they can't prove existed....

 

When the final answer comes back from NW saying they were right all along and I refer the matter to the FOS, should NW stop collection activity on the account?

Yes, they will still need a signature.

 

As DD says, you have written the letter from post 58. No more to be said on UR.

 

You need to concentrate now on hammering them over the overdraft situation.

 

Put the UR to the back of your mind pro temp

[Stagparty]

Just an update.

 

I have had a final response from NW saying that they cannot find a copy of the eLoan agreement and that due to the length of time passed since the account was opened they don't have a screen grab of the application either.

They also say that the CCA does NOT cover the circumstances in which they can close an account and that is covered in the contract between the two parties. They go on to say that the CCA governs how they recover a debt.

 

So I am now awaiting the form from the FOS to make the complaint official.

 

I agree to a point with NW - the CCA does NOT cover the circumstances in which they can close an account, however I think it DOES govern the procedures they must follow to actually close the account once they have decided to close an account. It therefore seems to me that NW are being very selective about their interpretation of the CCA.

 

Could someone please advise as to whether or not my interpretation above is accurate or not?

 

Although NW have now given me their final reponse, would it be worthwhile me writing back to reject their arguments as outlined above and also to include that based on the information included in their letter (and also that the electronic signature solely to effect an agreement didn't come into force until 2004) that s127(3) applies (Court can't make an order to enforce a debt as required terms are missing from the agreement) on the basis that they can't produce the agreement?

[Stagparty]

Also, could anyone suggest some appropriate wording or advice for the FOS complaint please?

 

Thanks in advance

SP

[diddydicky]

they cannot simply transfer a balance from a regulated loan to your od

 

end of

 

personally i would write and tell them this and that they should either "put up" or "shut up"

[Stagparty]

Thanks for dropping back in Diddy

 

I have told NW a number of times that they cannot do what they have done, unfortunately it has fallen on deaf ears and they have sent me a "Final Response" letter, hence having to take it to the FOS.

 

I'm just wondering for the sake of completeness, if it ever does go to Court, should I write back and reject what they are saying. Should I also mention that as they can't find the agreement that any Court action would be futile as the agreement couldn't be enforced in accordance with s127(3) ?

 

Thanks

SP

[diddydicky]

i think you might be wasting your breath- the argument has clearly become circular

 

just throw down the gauntlet and see if they pick it up - after all - if they are intent on pursuing you it will end up in court anyway- alll you will be doing is cutting out a load of crap between now and then!!

[Stagparty]

Thanks for the response Diddy. I guess it's now time to press on with the complaint to the FOS.

 

I think the complaint is very simple really, NW acted against the Banking Code by terminating a loan account which was regulated under the CCA 1974 and transferred the balance to an overdraft which had not been requested or authorised by me.

 

Would you agree?

 

Also the FOS form asks how I would like it to be resolved, does something like "Instruct NW to act in accordance with the Banking Code and comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974" sound ok?

 

Thanks again

SP

[diddydicky]

place restrictions on NW licence with a probabtionery period to establish that they understand and will in future comply with oft guidlines and the banking code of practice

[Stagparty]

Well that's the complaint gone to the FOS. I guess its a case of sit and wait now but don't hold my breath that they are likely to side with me.

 

Thanks for your help DD. I'll update as and when NW start again.

[Stagparty]

Unfortunately NW have started sooner than I expected - a letter has arrived this morning from Moorcroft Pre Litigation Division.

 

Is it just a case of sending the "I'm confused, this account is in dispute" letter back to them, or highlight the non s77 compliance, the unlawful termination and subsequent rescission, followed by the defective default notice?

 

Has anyone any experience of Moorcroft and how they react to this kind of situation?

 

Thanks in advance everyone

[diddydicky]

can u post it up

[Stagparty]

This is the letter from Moorcroft.

 

Just to recap -

 

The E Loan was terminated without a any (let alone a valid) DN being served. Unlawful rescission has been accepted.

 

The balance was transferred to a current account against the Banking Code

 

NW are in breach of a s77/78 request and have put in writing that they don't have a copy of the agreement

 

NW issued a (defective) Default Notice on the current account - (no time allowed for service, no amount stated on the DN). NW subsequently withdrew all banking facilities. Unlawful rescission has been accepted.

 

NW believe the e-Loan application would have been done electronically (in 2001) and would not have needed a hard copy signature!

 

NW believe that the CCA only affects how they collect a debt, not the circumstances under which they can close an account.

 

Matter now being dealt with as a formal complaint by FOS with log number already allocated.

 

 

Hope the short summary is of use, I am wondering if it worth spelling out chapter and verse to Moorcroft exactly what is wrong with NW's position in the hope it makes them just return the account to NW.

 

Any suggestions anyone?

 

Cheers in advance

SP

Edited July 11, 2010 by Stagparty
Forgot to include the link

[Stagparty]

Can anyone suggest if its just the bemused letter to Moorcroft or give them chapter and verse so they are in no doubt what they are getting into if they choose to press on?

[Stagparty]

Does anyone fancy giving me an opinion on this please?

[diddydicky]

dear sirs

 

this argument has now become circular

 

you say your client has a valid claim, i say it doesnt

 

further correspondence, save for service, or any genuine attempt to resolve the matter will therefore be filed unanswered

 

y f

[panther12]

dear sirs

 

this argument has now become circular

 

you say your client has a valid claim, i say it doesnt

 

further correspondence, save for service, or any genuine attempt to resolve the matter will therefore be filed unanswered

 

y f

 

lol I like that - short sweet & to the point. In fact I've just used it to send to one of the annoying creditors I'm dealing with.

[Stagparty]

I have a dispute with Nationwide where they have terminated a loan account and transferred the balance to my current account which was already at its overdraft limit, this transfer took the current account way over the overdraft limit.

 

Nationwide are claiming they have the right to combine accounts according to the terms of the loan.

 

(For now please ignore that they have terminated a regulated loan under the CCA 1974 and transferred the balance to a non-regulated account)

 

I've been told that set-off CANNOT increase an overdraft/create an overdraft without my permission but having read the Banking Code a number of times I can't find any specific reference to this. Could someone please tell me exactly where in the Banking Code this comment is made?

 

Thanks in advance

SP

[Stagparty]

Can anyone help on this, I'm trying to respond to the Financial Ombudsman saying that Nationwide are correct!

[rameses_qc]

It all boils down to fairness. How fairly was the customer treated by the bank? What discussions took place before the off set?Have a read here

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/84/84-banking-complaints-involving-setoff.htm

[Stagparty]

Thanks for the response Remeses - Nationwide's communication has been poor throughout this matter - but I am still looking for validation of the point that an overdraft cannot be increased or created without a customer's consent.

 

Can anyone please help on this specific point?

[Bazooka Boo]

Can't find anything in relation to this, just that the banking code is obsolete? It seems it is now superseded by the lending code???

http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf