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

[paulwlton]

It would be extraordinary for Natwest to pursue the customer's outstanding balance (if any) in light of this admission.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2011 by paulwlton

[CatchtheMonkey]

This does not look too good for the Nat Wests latest costly TV Advert:roll:

[CatchtheMonkey]

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.

Edited August 15, 2011 by CatchtheMonkey
Added information

[paulwlton]

This does not look too good for the Nat Wests latest costly TV Advert:roll:

 

No it doesn't.

Edited August 15, 2011 by paulwlton

[basa48]

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.

 

Guess which is the genuine DN and which is the 'copy' (or should that be a forgery) ???!!!

 

 

Edited August 16, 2011 by basa48

[CatchtheMonkey]

Hi basa48.

I think it falls into this category, because the copy is not a copy its a reconstructed one, which they are claiming is a copy of the genuine one......also decption IMO, but I'm not a lawyer or a copper.

 

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.

Hullo basa48,

[May Fly]

This does not look too good for the Nat Wests latest costly TV Advert:roll:

 

More to the point, if presented in court, it can also be cited later as proof that it isn't safe for a bank to say that the customer MUST have signed the loan/card agreement otherwise they would not have been allowed the facility. It highlights the fact that at some point, a member of staff , not a computer, decides to provide the credit facility, and that that person can make a mistake, or deliberately break the banks procedures and provide the facility without a signature. And all this can be done without concrete proof of where the signature came from. This case only goes back 4 years but they don't have records of what happened. How could they - someone is not going to break the procedure like this and send an email to the boss admitting it are they?

 

Do you notice the bank is still saying that the money is owed because the customer benefited from the money? What is that quote from a judge about a bank advancing money in ways that it cannot expect to have it recovered and have made a gift of it. If Natwest want the money, they should prosecute the member of staff who falsified the document and sue him for the loss. Doubt that they will because it would attract too much publicity.

[basa48]

What is that quote from a judge about a bank advancing money in ways that it cannot expect to have it recovered and have made a gift of it.

 

Yes a very relevant and now oft overlooked judgement handed down by The Vice Chancellor, LJ Rix & LJ Chadwick in the Supreme Court [Wilson v FCT (2) EWCA Civ 633]

 

In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid.

[paulwlton]

What is that quote from a judge about a bank advancing money in ways that it cannot expect to have it recovered and have made a gift of it.

 

Wilson v First County - Court of Appeal.

Edited August 17, 2011 by paulwlton

[May Fly]

thanks guys, that's the baby. As I said, the bank gifted this money to the customer, be means of a crooked or incompetent member of staff. No signature = no agreement to repay and no agreement to report his data to a CRA.

 

It also is first class evidence that the banks are not infallible and they can say that the customer MUST have signed an agreement otherwise he wouldn't have got the money, all they like. It doesn't make it true, and this forgery proves it. I hope that letter is produced in court.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Paul,

That's an amazing letter!!

Is the person it refers to likely to go public, as in inform the press??

It would do so much good for so many people on here!

 

Thanks for sharing it,

 

Elsa x

[paulwlton]

Hi Paul,

That's an amazing letter!!

Is the person it refers to likely to go public, as in inform the press??

It would do so much good for so many people on here!

 

Thanks for sharing it,

 

Elsa x

 

I understand the person has spoken with a media source and is now considering his/her position.

Edited August 18, 2011 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

thanks guys, that's the baby. As I said, the bank gifted this money to the customer, be means of a crooked or incompetent member of staff. No signature = no agreement to repay and no agreement to report his data to a CRA.

 

It also is first class evidence that the banks are not infallible and they can say that the customer MUST have signed an agreement otherwise he wouldn't have got the money, all they like. It doesn't make it true, and this forgery proves it. I hope that letter is produced in court.

 

i'm sure the person who forged the signature would be found out if Natwest asked the police to intervene.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Excellent.

I would have thought the victim of the forgery could inform the police and press charges - otherwise the bank will just deal with it internally as they've indicated....????

[paulwlton]

Excellent.

 

I would have thought the victim of the forgery could inform the police and press charges - otherwise the bank will just deal with it internally as they've indicated....????

 

 

 

[paulwlton]

the person may have reported the matter to the police.

[caro]

Incredible. I wonder how isolated - or otherwise - this incident is.

[May Fly]

Incredible. I wonder how isolated - or otherwise - this incident is.

 

Thats why it needs to be brought into the public domain, so the bank's 'infallibility' is exposed for what it is

[spartathisis]

My son lost his driving licence a couple of years ago, an account at Lloyds was opened, with overdraft and credit card, he was on holiday at the time and I opened his introduction letter. I contacted the branch and it seems the account had a different address to his driving licence and the letter had come to our home address by mistake, luckily.

 

The guy who had opened the account couldnt remember who had opened the account (less than 5 days previously) and stated that the cards could not be stopped! I was suspicious so went to a different branch, they cancelled the cards, account and said they would contact their fraud dept. I went a week later with my son and the member of staff who opened the the account no longer worked there.

 

like everything they attract crooks, but wont admit it.

[paulwlton]

My son lost his driving licence a couple of years ago, an account at Lloyds was opened, with overdraft and credit card, he was on holiday at the time and I opened his introduction letter. I contacted the branch and it seems the account had a different address to his driving licence and the letter had come to our home address by mistake, luckily.

 

The guy who had opened the account couldnt remember who had opened the account (less than 5 days previously) and stated that the cards could not be stopped! I was suspicious so went to a different branch, they cancelled the cards, account and said they would contact their fraud dept. I went a week later with my son and the member of staff who opened the the account no longer worked there.

 

like everything they attract crooks, but wont admit it.

 

The main crooks are higher up the food chain. Their mischief/avarice is more difficult to detect/work out.....but they have been caught out.

[Rhia]

Mind blowing Paul. I showed MOH and he really couldn't take in what was being admitted to. I also wonder how widespread all this is.

[CatchtheMonkey]

I have heard a rumour that a major National media company has now begun investigating this issue, which will be a major blow for the owners of Nat West .....the infamous RBS as well as the Nat West

[paulwlton]

I have heard a rumour that a major National media company has now begun investigating this issue, which will be a major blow for the owners of Nat West .....the infamous RBS as well as the Nat West

 

I've heard that same rumour too.

[caro]

My my - the rumour mill is busy!

[Rhia]

They really are an extremely unsavoury company aren't they? BTW did any of your case involve securitisation? Surely it must have done. They'd dice and slice the cleaning lady if they could raise more money in the process.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rbs-helped-bankroll-europes-last-dictator-2345509.html