Found 10 years of vintage bank statements from NAT WEST

[Justabout done]

Hello,

I've found that I had kept every bank statement from mid 1980's to 1998 with Nat West.

I had a couple of mortgages, several loans and what appear to be excessive bank charges,

I will send an SAR, but it is likely that I have more information than they hold, unless they're very good at archiving.

During the course of reading each one I found various bodies who had received money regularly from me,

but I don't have a clue who they were/are, some seem to be directly connected to the bank account.

 

I would appreciate any help with identifying the following, I have tried googling but haven't had much success.:-

 

MSD Premium Funder.

Forward Trust.

Lombard Tricity.

Fredrickson IN Ltd.

Bishop Court IBA.

Bradford Insurance.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Justabout done

[dx100uk]

Well not alot you can do now anyway

[dx100uk]

MSD Premium Funder....loan co.

Forward Trust...loan co

Lombard Tricity...loan co

Fredrickson IN Ltd...DCA

Bishop Court IBA.??

Bradford Insurance. Insurance co

[Justabout done]

Thank you for giving me this information.

 

Bishops Court IBA took money from my account from 1992 until 1998, it appears to be related to amount of money owed in my " Credit zone".

 

As far as I know I was never involved with any debt collection agency.

 

I have never taken out any Insurance with Bradford Insurance who took varying amounts of money from my account by SO from 1993 until 1998, which was when any outstanding money owed to NAT WEST were all paid up from redundancy payment.

 

Thank you for your help but -

I don't understand, do you mean that I can't claim anything although I have evidence?

[dx100uk]

Outside of 6yrs

[Justabout done]

Thank you.

Is not the "outwith 6 years." legally from the time one realised or found out that X was so? I'm sure that I read that somewhere.

[dx100uk]

Wrongful payment or mistake. P'haps but not with SO's as you must have authorised them

[Justabout done]

I must have authorised them, but was I capable of making an informed decision at that time due to learning difficulties?

 

I am more concerned about the Mortgages & loans with PPI I had.

 

As to SO's being authorised, I have recently been diagnosed as Autistic, hence I am and always have been a vulnerable adult, to whom the bank was throwing money.

When I went over my overdraft I was offered the "Credit Zone"-- more money to spend-- yippee.

 

I think I must have got off on the wrong foot with my original post.

 

I took two mortgages and several loans with NAT WEST between early 1980's until 1998.

 

The following firms took money from my account by DD the sums vary and appear to be related to the amount of various monies the bank had loaned:-

MSD Premium Funder.

Forward Trust.

Lombard Tricity.

Fredrickson IN Ltd.

Bishop Court IBA.

Bradford Insurance.

 

Whether by ordinary loan or their * CREDIT ZONE *. I was almost always overdrawn within my overdraft limit, then they offered several thousands of overdraft facilities with this credit zone.

 

I was a lot younger, naive and believed everything I was told by anyone with authority!

 

Are you saying that I can't claim back any PPI sold or excessive bank charges because I've only just realised this had happened?

[dx100uk]

I would suspect there is PPI there yes and you've confirmed to have 'products' that would have had it now. [ what I thought - you've ppi that what those companies provided]

 

I doubt you'll get penalty charges back unless it was caused by any mis sold PPI.

 

so the only way to know is to sar natwest and hope you get all your mortgage/loans stuff in return which comfirms PPI on them

[Justabout done]

Thank you.

[BazzaS]

Thank you.

Is not the "outwith 6 years." legally from the time one realised or found out that X was so? I'm sure that I read that somewhere.

 

 

It is from "actual" or "constructive" knowledge, whichever is sooner.

So, if you didn't actually know, it is 6 years (the 'limitation period' for contract law, as here) (but 3 years for personal injury!) from the point at which you should have known, or would have known once you made inquiries

The thorny issue with constructive knowledge is "should you have made inquiries".

 

For insurance law : apparently not.

https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/professional-and-financial-risks/who-knows/

The prevailing view seems to be that the company will have constructive knowledge of facts that should have been revealed by an internal enquiry that was actually undertaken. However, there is no duty to undertake a reasonable enquiry – thus the company is not deemed to know facts that would have been discovered had a reasonable enquiry been undertaken. Yet, if a fact would have been discovered but for the wilful turning of a 'blind eye', the company will be deemed to know.

 

 

Within personal injury cases the Court of Appeal has decided that each case stands on its own merits, ..... confirming "Dyson LJ’s test in Whiston"

http://insurance.dwf.co.uk/news-updates/2014/10/constructive-knowledge-and-limitation-revisited-and-restated/

 

the issue of constructive knowledge should be determined by reference to the knowledge which a person might reasonably be expected to acquire, which must depend on all the circumstances of the case.

 

 

which doesn't actually set out a single yardstick....

[dx100uk]

for ppi it works like this :

PPI CCL 3yrs letters final fg12-17.pdf

[Justabout done]

"(if later), more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint.

 

5. Whether and when a customer becomes aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint for the purpose of our time limit rules is a matter of fact that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. A customer’s previous experience of the PPI policy and dealings with the firm about it may impact on the extent to which the customer may be aware (or ought reasonably to have been aware) that they had cause for complaint."

 

I am elderly, Autistic and have a degenerative disease, all of which impact upon what I do and how I think. I think the above quote would cover my situation.

 

I have read but not seen that The Ombudsman have been running a campaign about PPI, but I don't watch television, so have not seen any of this.

 

I was aware of PPI, but didn't believe that it applied to me until last year when I found a lot of vintage credit card statements, I asked for help from the forum on how to pursue this and was given very good advice which I much appreciate.

 

This year I have found the NATWEST bank statements, I don't know if I paid PPI, but the statements suggest that I did, I believe that it's worth pursuing, I only have the time to loose, not anything else.

 

Separately, I am unable to manage a mobile phone, I need a desktop PC, so am only able to see posts others have made if I come into the room to look.

 

I have tried to edit my signature to reflect this, but am unable to do so, can anyone help with this?

 

I know that phone users often expect a quick response which I am unable to give.

[dx100uk]

no you respond when you can no rush

[dx100uk]

test

 

[Justabout done]

Thank you.

 

[Justabout done]

I have details taken from bank statements, of one bank loan taken out in 1983.

 

£500. 00 loan repaid over 24 months, the repayments and interest were deducted separately from my bank account. I added up the 24 repayments the total of which was £543, excluding setting up charges, please can anyone advise if this £43 is likely to be PPI, or could it be some other charge that was commonly applied to loans in the 80's?

 

Since that loan, it seems that I took out many similar loans over nearly 20 years, so if it is likely to be PPI, I need to  get to work scanning another 800 pages, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing.

[dx100uk]

you would need to look at the agreement you signed to see if PPI is stated [life ins etc etc medicare]

[Justabout done]

Thank you Dx100uk,

I only have the bank statements, no other paperwork.

[dx100uk]

you would need atleast the loans account number to even put in a speculative claim using their website ppi link I think?

 

[Justabout done]

All I have is Personal loan No.1 (1st payment)..£xxxx

                     Personal loan interest...                    £xxxx.

 

No account or any other numbers.

 

How would they justify the extra £43.00 paid overall?

 

One of the loans is for £2000.00 which I haven't yet added up, but I think that would be quite a bit more than £40.+

Edited May 31, 2019 by Justabout done

[dx100uk]

you have to PROVE PPI was levied not GUESS.

 

[Justabout done]

Ok, that's that then.

 

Thank you very much for your help dx100uk.

[dx100uk]

no harm in trying.

simply put what banking facilities you had with them

 

https://personal.natwest.com/personal/support-centre/how-to-complain/ppi-complaints.html

[Justabout done]

Thank you dx100uk,

I have found other information via Google.

 

"back in the late '80s early '90s, Natwest didn't generally disclose the loan account numbers to customers, because the loans were supposedly linked to your current account and as far as I'm aware you couldn't get a loan without having a current account. You didn't get any statements for your loan accounts. The only time you potentially got to see sight of the loan account number is if you made an overpayment and if they happened to give you a receipt or something with the loan account number written on it.

The other little wrinkle is that the PPI Premium was paid behind the scenes and only the base amount you were borrowing got paid into your current account. Sometime between 1991 and 1993, this changed, and they started depositing the total amount borrowed into your current account and then the PPI Premium was taken from your current account on more or less the same day."