Friends NatWest loan - have MISFILED the Consumer Credit Agreement

[citizenB]

I think they have kind of stuffed themselves, they quite clearly state they CANNOT recreate the document with any degree of certainty. Therefore they should be pulling Fredericksons off your friend.

[robcag]

 

.... Therefore they should be pulling Fredericksons off your friend.

 

IME Fredericksons were the worst as far as number of phonecalls goes although they may have changed their approach these days; I don't know how they behave now as I have no record of call attempts from them since March 2011, but at the height of their barrage on me I was receiving up to 15 calls a day from around 10 or 11 different numbers, although I only ever accidently answered a couple or so to which they got told to '**** off".

 

I hope your friend isn't being unduly pressurised by that sort of harrassment from the scumbags.

 

Rob

Edited October 21, 2012 by robcag

[Let Them Knock]

I hope your friend isn't being unduly pressurised by that sort of harrassment from the scumbags.

 

Rob

 

Hi Rob and thanks for your concerns - it's not just the good advice that makes these forums so useful but also the feeling that other people really do care.

 

Fredrickson have just become involved in the last couple of months - as a result, I suspect, of Moorcroft making a bit of a pig's ear of two of the three alleged debts.

 

Fortunately I have now determined that two debts are statute barred (thank you, Moorcroft) and this third one has a 'misfiled CCA'.

 

With a bit of luck, my friend's dealings with Fredrickson will be fairly short-lived and quite possibly her dealings with NatWest too.

 

I must admit, I am beginning to enjoy this and hope I am learning enough to be of use to other forumites with similar 'challenges'.

 

I will, of course, keep you informed.

Suitable donations to the forum can also be expected - and quite rightly so.

[Let Them Knock]

Right, time to ask for advice on moving this forward toward a F&F settlement.

 

Briefly;

Account balance - £13,500

Current monthly payment under DMP - £10

CCA has been misfiled

Default notice issued in April 2008

 

I hope to negotiate a low F&F settlement. I made an offer of £2,100 about 3 months ago and it was refused (before I knew the CCA was misfiled).

 

What order should things now be done in?

 

Do I (on behalf of my friend):

1. Immediately put the account into dispute?

2. Stop the monthly payments?

3. Continue with the monthly payments?

4. Just make another F&F without any of the above?

5. Something else?

 

Advice/opinions/guidance sought, please.

[Bandit127]

You are advising a friend, so I think you need to tread reasonably carefully. Therefore I wouldn't do anything that might provoke a spiteful reaction (they could still bring a claim - despite the rules). Account in dispute and stopping paying are (I think) not options for this reason.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the DCA. They are running a business and that business is about collecting money vs risk. The risk is that they will not get paid and waste money trying.

 

So they will have originally had your friends account with very little information - probably just name. address, account number and balance. Back when you made the previous offer, the risk of not being paid looked low on the info they had, therefore £2,100 looked like bad value.

 

Now you have neatly brought them to the understanding that this is not enforceable, £2,100 will look like better value to them. It still may not be enough - we have no way of knowing.

 

Personally, I might write them a nice letter saying that I have reviewed my I&E and can now only afford £1 a month.

 

Give that a month to sink in and repeat your offer of £2,100 (15%). You should AT LEAST get a counter offer this time around.

[Let Them Knock]

You are advising a friend, so I think you need to tread reasonably carefully. Therefore I wouldn't do anything that might provoke a spiteful reaction (they could still bring a claim - despite the rules). Account in dispute and stopping paying are (I think) not options for this reason.

This news to me - what type of claim could they bring and on what grounds?

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the DCA. They are running a business and that business is about collecting money vs risk. The risk is that they will not get paid and waste money trying.

 

So they will have originally had your friends account with very little information - probably just name. address, account number and balance. Back when you made the previous offer, the risk of not being paid looked low on the info they had, therefore £2,100 looked like bad value.

 

Now you have neatly brought them to the understanding that this is not enforceable, £2,100 will look like better value to them. It still may not be enough - we have no way of knowing.

 

Personally, I might write them a nice letter saying that I have reviewed my I&E and can now only afford £1 a month.

 

Give that a month to sink in and repeat your offer of £2,100 (15%). You should AT LEAST get a counter offer this time around.

 

On checking my records it seems that the original offer of £2,100 (21st May) was NOT actually refused. I made this offer directly to NatWest at Telford. I was simply referred to Moorcroft.

Before I could discuss the matter with Moorcroft, NatWest appointed Fredrickson. I have only just now got Fredrickson to deal directly with me.

 

In view of this, perhaps I should just refer Fredrickson to my previous F&F offer whilst pointing out to them that the debt is not now enforcible and my friend is even less in a position to maintain payments than she was in May.

 

Opinions sought, please.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Does NatWest still own this debt?

[Let Them Knock]

Does NatWest still own this debt?

 

Yes, along with 2 (probably) statute barred debts and a credit card (also in default).

[citizenB]

Perhaps a carefully worded letter to Nat West Head office, pointing out the merits of accepting a reduced sum in Full and Final settlement.

 

You should copy the letter to Fredericksons and Moorcroft - this will alert them to the hazards of collecting a debt that does not appear to be backed up by an agreement. They have chosen to say it has been MISFILED.. rather than just simply provide a reconstructed document. Does this mean that they dont have information that would allow them to reconstruct a truthful copy !

 

IMHO, I would not stop paying - continuing to pay the £10.00 gives your friend the moral high ground.

[Bandit127]

Good advice from CB.

 

And a look on the legal forum here will give you plenty of examples of low life DCAs the proceed with a CC claim despite being in non compliant with a CCA request. Unlikely in your friend's case as the debts are still owned by a high street bank (albeit a Nasty one).

[Let Them Knock]

Good advice from CB.

 

And a look on the legal forum here will give you plenty of examples of low life DCAs the proceed with a CC claim despite being in non compliant with a CCA request. Unlikely in your friend's case as the debts are still owned by a high street bank (albeit a Nasty one).

 

Thank you Citizen and Bandit - that is a course of action I would be comfortable with at this stage.

A nasty one, eh? Better than a reasonable one in some ways - I wouldn't want to end up feeling guilty.

[robcag]

I know debt avoidance has been discussed but I don't have such qualms given the circumstances. I started off trying to pay reasonable and affordable pro rata amounts but gradually changed my stance because of the attitude and unreasonable behaviour of most of my creditors and I'm now glad I did. Whilst some of them may appear to act reasonably to start with, IME this doesn't last long.

 

Many CAGgers will have seen this before; Consider this statement in paragraph 26 of Sir Andrew Morrits Judgment in the Court of Appeal in the Wilson & FCT case ; "... 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; ..."

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/633.html&query=title+(+Wilson+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+First+)+and+title+(+County+)+and+title+(+Trust+)&method=boolean

 

Rob

[Bandit127]

I propose a motion to the CAG site team that full and final settlements are not considered debt avoidance and that is reflected in the T&Cs of the site.

 

A full and final settlement will be a balance between the creditors requirements and the debtors. The creditor can always say no if it does not suit their requirements, therefore they have a choice.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I don't believe we have ever considered F&F settlement to be debt avoidance, but have always advised on caution on how such mutual agreements are reached with an emphasis on protecting the debtors interests.

[robcag]

I propose a motion to the CAG site team that full and final settlements are not considered debt avoidance and that is reflected in the T&Cs of the site.

 

A full and final settlement will be a balance between the creditors requirements and the debtors. The creditor can always say no if it does not suit their requirements, therefore they have a choice.

 

I was just trying to help LTK to make a decision regarding what to do if the creditor refuses an offer. I think the creditor ought to think themselves lucky they are being offered anything in the circumstances, and should gratefully accept anything they are offered without complaining.

 

Rob

[Bandit127]

Brig - thank you for the direction.

 

Rob - most creditors would not agree with you As a foot soldier, I see my purpose to be recalibrating the expectations of the creditors. Both my own creditors and those of fellow caggers posting for help.

 

Hopefully then, we all seem to have the same ideals.

[robcag]

 

Rob - most creditors would not agree with you

 

 

Agreed, but when they're not holding any aces in their hand ....

 

Beggars can't be choosers springs to mind!

 

Rob

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I habe to agree with Bandits assessments here, why should a creditor feel gratefull for anything/

[robcag]

I habe to agree with Bandits assessments here, why should a creditor feel gratefull for anything/

 

If I lost my wallet containing £1000 in the street and someone returned it, I'd feel grateful. I know my wallet is my property, but the person who found it could easily have kept it (or it could have even been swept up by a street cleaning machine).

 

I guess I'd even be grateful if it was returned containing only £500.

 

Rob

[Let Them Knock]

Following on from the advice I have received here, I have drafted a F&F letter to NatWest.

 

Please can anyone advise me if this is a suitable letter, given the current circumstances?

 

Comments, suggestions and advice are, as always, more than welcome.

 

[ATTACH]38968[/ATTACH]

[Let Them Knock]

Oops - double post - removed.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Get rid of without prejudice, it means if you need to show an attempt has been made to settle the debt you will NOT be able to use the letter as evidence in court.

[Let Them Knock]

Get rid of without prejudice, it means if you need to show an attempt has been made to settle the debt you will NOT be able to use the letter as evidence in court.

 

Thanks Brig

Just following the advice on National Debtline about the 'without prejudice' bit. At present I see it as an invitation to negotiate. If it is refused I can always follow-up with a shorter (without the Without Prejudice) letter acknowledging their refusal to accept this F&F.

I was also of the opinion that this would be unlikely to see the inside of a court due to the misfiled CCA.

What do you think?

Thanks.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi there is always the possibility that a document can be found or that they attempt to produce a ''reconstituted'' agreement.

 

I dislike the use of WP headed letters, as I have seen it cause too many problems in the past.

 

Imo the ability to negotiate is not improved with WP.

[Let Them Knock]

Hi there is always the possibility that a document can be found or that they attempt to produce a ''reconstituted'' agreement.

 

I dislike the use of WP headed letters, as I have seen it cause too many problems in the past.

 

Imo the ability to negotiate is not improved with WP.

 

Thanks Brig - point taken.

 

Do you have any views on the letter itself or the tone of it, please?