@natwest_help Expert believes customer's signature was forged!!!

[spartathisis]

Is there a credit card around that isnt securitised?

 

The debt is sold and not owned by the cards, but the courts/taxman let them sell/litigate etc, criminal.

[Rhia]

This isn't a credit card. If I am correct this was an overdraft which was "converted" into a loan. I was wondering if such things were also securitised (not that this is much to do with PW's case).

[Mike_hawk]

Rumour has it........the disclosure refers to a loan converted to a false instrument.

 

Rumour would also have it that claim was served at 25th August, claimant awaits the banks defence [as do several other interested parties].

[the ghost of thain]

subbing

[debbbbsy]

" Due to the passage of time"

 

What a wonderful phrase this is, when I provided documented proof to the RBS showing that there recovery manager had committed fraud, I recieved the same response.

 

It seems that in the banking world, especially at the RBS/Natwest any blatant act of fraud by a member of staff can be simply washed away, excused " due to the passage of time".

 

Perhaps we should all use this phrase when backed into a corner when we have no real defence to allegations being made, when documented proof is suppilied showing fraudulant conduct, the response is blunt , we suffer from an accute attack of memory loss. In the real world, it simply wouldn't work.

 

Debs

[DoubtingThomas]

Subbing - absolutely fascinating!

[Mike_hawk]

Apologies to anyone looking for a PM response.......... not possible at the mo.

 

For clarirty:

 

This refers to a CCA regulated loan agreement [discharged in full], a second [and false] instrument was created by a bank employee at a later date

 

The false instrument is lodged with CRA's and persists in causing financial damage

 

The false instrument is still actively [at 02.09.11] pursued by RBS/Natwest.

 

The total sum unlawfully set-off current account to service false instrument rests at circa £9,000.00

 

The total encumbered interest and charges [above] rests at circa £11,000.00

 

Various other financial damage rests at circa £19,000.00

 

The banks efforts to restitute accounted for less than 2% of damage

 

RBS/Natwest are aware of this thread so please keep posts factual and short of conjecture

[debbbbsy]

RBS/Natwest are aware of this thread so please keep posts factual and short of conjecture

 

We had current accounts that were closed by the banks recovery department and replaced by loan capital & interest accounts without our knowledge or consent. According to the RBS this was a normal practice implemented in the 1990's.

 

It is (according to the RBS's legal department) known as the "Transitioning Process". These accounts are the customers original current accounts for the purpose of litigation, but for accounting purposes, and to enable the bank to apply post judgment interest ( and artificially inflate there balance sheet) they are Loan Capital & Interest accounts.

 

The RBS inform the customer that because the accounts have been moved from the branch to the recovery department, they have new account numbers. They conceal the true facts. The customer is oblivious to any changes.

 

The RBS withhold statements for these accounts so the customer is unaware about how interest is being applied.

 

Consumer law does not allow post judgment interest to be applied to current accounts.

No law exists which permits a lender to alter a customers account without there knowledge or consent.

The RBS has since the 1990's been converting customers debt ledger accounts so they can make themselve appear more proftable than they actually are.

 

Everything I have stated is factual and can be backed up with documented proof.

 

Debbie

[paulwlton]

The police are not precluded from investigating allegations just because there's ongoing civil proceedings. Have you made the police (economic crime unit) aware of this fact?

 

The link below highlights a recent signature fraud.

 

 

 

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/dealer_regrets_signature_fraud_1_2313154

Edited September 6, 2011 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

Would not the admittance that the agreement document was the result of an act of forgery by admittance? it would be difficult for the Nat West to produce the document as evidence in support of any claim or defence. It would be deemed an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeit Act of 1981, would it not?

 

Just my personal view and question, perhaps a more learned person would give an opinion.

Offences E+W+N.I.

 

1 The offence of forgery.E+W+N.I.

 

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

2 The offence of copying a false instrument.E+W+N.I.

 

It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

3 The offence of using a false instrument.E+W+N.I.

 

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

4 The offence of using a copy of a false instrument.E+W+N.I.

 

It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

 

Using a False Instrument with intent it be accepted as genuine, is contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

[Mike_hawk]

No defence from NW [yet].............. they do however have until 16.00hrs tomorrow. I remain hopeful they'll lodge at the 11th hour

 

If they do not the claim will be heard in their absence for damage assessment and all 3126 pages of data will be released to public forum, to include Bank, ICO, fos, FSA, OFT, MP and Kent police correspondence. All named individuals will be offered the opportunity to injunct disclosure.

[paulwlton]

No defence from NW [yet].............. they do however have until 16.00hrs tomorrow. I remain hopeful they'll lodge at the 11th hour

 

If they do not the claim will be heard in their absence for damage assessment and all 3126 pages of data will be released to public forum, to include Bank, ICO, fos, FSA, OFT, MP and Kent police correspondence. All named individuals will be offered the opportunity to injunct disclosure.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the FSA and OFT have to say.

[pumpytums]

Good lord, this is unbelievable.

 

 

Pumpytums

[Rhia]

Hang on! Just twigged that Mike Hawke has a case with the same organisation. I thought he was referring to PW's case. May the force be with you and preferably the police force.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Rhia

 

They are 'one and the same'

 

NW/RBS responded at 10.20hrs yesterday morning [a few hours to spare].

[Mr Grey]

1st para of page 2 of NW letter dated 28 March 2011 is misleading

When the loan agreement is put in place, the Consumer Credit Agreement is printed of and is auto populated with an auto signature representing the Bank.

This didn't always happen. I have evidence of a Consumer Credit Agreement from around that time, which they did not auto sign or sign at all before sending to the customer for signature.

 

The point is their procedures were not as consistent as they say.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Mr Grey

[May Fly]

1st para of page 2 of NW letter dated 28 March 2011 is misleading

This didn't always happen. I have evidence of a Consumer Credit Agreement from around that time, which they did not auto sign or sign at all before sending to the customer for signature.

 

The point is their procedures were not as consistent as they say.

 

The OP would need evidence of such things to include in his case. The fact that you know such things happened is no use to him, he needs to put it before the court himself.

 

All such knowledge helps breakdown the perception that banks have rigid, watertight policies and procedures that are always followed - but only when put in front of a court.

[Mike_hawk]

The OP would need evidence of such things to include in his case. The fact that you know such things happened is no use to him, he needs to put it before the court himself.

 

All such knowledge helps breakdown the perception that banks have rigid, watertight policies and procedures that are always followed - but only when put in front of a court.

 

The claimant has ample evidence.

[May Fly]

The claimant has ample evidence.

wasn't saying he didn't.

[Mike_hawk]

The claimant has shown himself to be 'exceedingly generous' ........ yes, the helpful bank may recognise the quote as one of their own and agreed a further extension to Monday 26th September 2011

 

It's a slow process but posts will appear as and when anything of interest is sighted

 

MH

[Mike_hawk]

Defence filed [and served] 15.00hrs Monday 26th September

 

Defence denies claimant's relief but claims relief in respect of same....... interesting but misguided position

 

MH

[citizenB]

So are you just waiting on a hearing date now?

[Mike_hawk]

Evening CB

 

That's about the size of it, AQ to be filed by end of next week. Canterbury is currently up to 6 months post AQ to hearing so it may be a long way off yet. Can't imagine NW want it to progress past the court steps but I'm game if they are

 

MH

[Mike_hawk]

Not sure why the bank chose to appoint lightweights..... must be cheap,......... will be posting a few bits next week dependant upon 'negotiation'

 

 

Dear ....................

 

 

We acknowledge safe receipt of your Allocation Questionnaire today. We enclose by way of service upon you the Bank’s Allocation Questionnaire, a copy of which is attached and a hard copy of which has been sent in the post to you today.

 

 

We consider it would be useful for us to agree to a short stay of proceedings in order to take stock of the claim and discuss a potential resolution to the same. In those circumstances, we should be grateful if you would contact the writer, on her direct dial below, to discuss this.

 

 

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

 

Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..

 

E-mail: ....................

 

MH

Edited October 15, 2011 by the_shadow

[citizenB]

Hmm, worried or what??

 

Look forward to updates