Suing Nat West over improper default and mismanagement of a loan

[PVperson]

NatWest Loan £20k – I took this out in April 2003 and signed up in Branch in New Malden.  

 

From April 2003 I claimed several times on the Payment Protection Insurance.  

They paid this out for 7 years but it did not pay off the loan and there is £9,500 left owing.   
 
I have made several formal complaints about this, one was upheld and the other not upheld.  

I did not initially take the complaints to the ombudsman.  

 

The last complaint letter was received July 2019 from NatWest.  

They refer to the decision of the last complaint which was not in your favour.  

This resolution was in 23rd May 2017.  

 

They say I can take this decision to the Financial Ombudsman Service.  

They give me a deadline of 6 months of this letter. 

I'm preparing a new complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

I wish to build a strong case against NW for defaulting a loan for £32k while a PLP (PPI) claim was ongoing.

I can show that they doing this has preventing getting 4 mortgages, and buying three most houses, which has cost me hundreds of thousands of £. 

 

I'm looking for some legal help in building a solid case against them.

They have treated me very badly,

as I'm disabled and won't even accept F&FS offers.

[dx100uk]

where does it say they can't default someone if you claim against the PPI?

 

show us you 1st 2 complaint letters and their replies please

one multipage PDF only

read upload carefully

 

dx

 

[PVperson]

All docs 

 

Nat West Loan diary (5).pdf shoosmith_letters_.pdf

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

I've hidden your last post. You say that all docs are in strict confidence but they're viewable by any member of the forum and they have names and addresses on them.

 

To keep this confidential, you need to redact out people's personal information and repost the attachments please.

 

HB

[honeybee13]

The loan diary may not have your son's information but it has other people's. They may not be happy with having their names on view and they aren't relevant to your problem.

 

HB

[PVperson]

They are employee's of Shoosmiths, not personal

[honeybee13]

I know this, but we don't normally leave employees' names in documents. I don't suppose you'd like your name on the internet just because of your job.

 

HB

[PVperson]

Hi, I was looking to build a case against NWB on this matter, I will search for the relevant documents, I had a second complaint rejected by Personal & Business Banking Complaints in June 2017 

Does anyone have experience of building a sucessful civil case against NWB?

[PVperson]

to: dx100uk 

I lost my job,

shortly after taking out the loan,

my PLP (PPI) covered me for this instance,

but when I told them,

they didn't refer me to the loan insurance dept in Bristol (as they should have done)

they defaulted the whole loan and my authorised overdraft!!!

 

I understandable, want to take them to the cleaners.

 

I can post the diary of events later, when I've detacted it.

[unclebulgaria67]

Do you have copies of the NatWest internal process/guidance manuals they used to process your loan ?

 

I am guessing you have, as you state that NatWest should have referred you to their loan Insurance department.

 

If this is just a presumption of process and you don't have the NatWest process information, ask to be provided with copies. FOS would normally ask a Bank for their process documents to check they have followed their own processes and these meet with all regulatory requirements.

[dx100uk]

i'll say again....

just because you used the PPI, there is no reason why they cannot default you.

[PVperson]

Dear uncle Bulgaria,

I will ask them (loan insurance team) if they can provide a copy for 2003, but I think it's long shot! Ironically, I may still have the original loan paperwork in my filing cabinet (along with the upheld complaint, I hope!) so, will plow into the filing tomorrow, and let you know later this week!

 

Thanks, Nigel.

[Peterbard]

Is this policy under-written by someone else, UK insurance perhaps?

 

If loan repayments were made by the PPI company, there would be  no default, nor should one be registered.

 

The creditor-debtor relationship has not broken down.

Nor is it the fault of the debtor.

The PPI would not be payable if a "breakdown in the relationship" was the reason for none payment.

 

Sorry I should explain,

the definition of "default" is :

When the relationship of the parties to the agreement have broken down.

 

Whilst the condition necessary for an insurance pay out, would be an accident or a mishap of some description.

 

Sorry BW, been delving into my old GCSE text book again.

[PVperson]

thanks Peter,

that's helpful,

I just hope it's the legal definition of default,

because the relationship really hadn't broken down I have been paying £337 a month until that phone call and my payment wasn't even overdue,

I was offering to pay them £200 a month because I had lost my job and I didn't even know what PPI was!

 

I later found out that it covered me in just that situation and I could have just called loan insurance and made a claim there and then but NatWest had already defaulted it to the tune of £32k!

 

16 years later,

I've been paying them £6 a month and they still think I owe them £11,000.

 

I had add about 7 years of successful PPI claims with them,

but it still didn't clear off the default,

because they had added on 7 years interest upfront.

 

Maybe now, you start to understand why I want to sue their asses!  

 

I also agree with you on the fact that the ppi underwrote the loan payments,

 

can you please find a legal precedent to this so I can use against them?

[dx100uk]

think you are using the wrong term 'default'.above

you mean its in arrears,

 

any default on your credit file would have disappeared moons ago so should the whole account, on the defaults 6th birthday.

 

when you failed to pay the agreed £PCM, they are within their rights to issue a default notice, giving +14days to rectify the issue, should you fail, and then within 3-6mts, for that period of regulation under ico rules of that time, they could default you on your file, but that was obv more than 6yrs ago so should not now be showing.

 

the fact you owe them money still, is not a 'default'

neither is the fact they front loaded interest, that's std along with the lumpsum payment to the PPI underwriters.

 

i'm not aware of the use of PPI by the debtor preventing a default being registered on a credit file.

nor the fact that they didn't alert you to 'hey you have PPI, go ring these people..'

 

dx

 

 

[dx100uk]

docs in post 3 redacted for you

 

dx

 

[PVperson]

Hi DX,

what I mean is 7x12m x £337 monthly PLP (PPI) payments would have been = £28,300 which would have paid off most of the loan, overdraft and interest. 

 

Because they defaulted (5/1/04) for no good reason (no outstanding payments) they added 7 years of interest UP FRONT, so made a £20k loan and £5k o/d into a £32k default.... 

 

Peter looked up the definition in a dictionary, but I think you're more correct,

However, I need a couple of legal precedents before I can build a (successful) court case against them.

 

As I said earlier this week I'll be searching through my filing cab for the upheld complaint, which is gold dust in this case, can you believe they offered me £100 compensation which I refused on principle!! 

 

Also, dear DX100uk, it is registered as a bank default on my credit record (for over 16 years) which is what stopped me buying 3 more 3-4-bed houses in New Malden London, in December 2007, for around £1.1M which would now be worth £2.3-2.5M (plus 12 years rental income at around £1500/m ea.) and you begin to see how this civil case could be £ 7 figures against NWB.

[dx100uk]

pie in the sky mate..won't ever happen.

 

interest is always front loaded on all loans..not sure why you cant understand that.

 

as for the current default

that should not be showing after it's 6th birthday from registration.

do you have the relevant default notice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PVperson]

Thanks for for confidence, dx, but are you a litigation lawyer? I looking to build a good case, not for negativity.

It may be that during the current economic coronavirus paranoia, a lot of default loans are likely to be written off be all kinds of banks...

I just got £6k of CT written off by KuT council.

[dx100uk]

No i'm  a realist..

 

it getting written off doesnt appear to be your goal.....here..

 

trying to batter them for a five or six figure sum over a notion they caused you to lose these life bettering opportunities is not the way to do it..

Just ask durkin

[unclebulgaria67]

Time gap between PLP unem and PLP illness claims needs to be documented.

 

You say Natwest failed to refer this to their Insurance department, but have Natwest ever said it was their process responsibility. 

 

Back in 2003/2004 Natwest were going through major changes following RBS takeover. Their Insurance business was split up, as RBS already had a large Insurance business. Getting Natwest to provide documents back to this period will be made more difficult due to these changes.  So a lot of your case building, is going to rely on the documents that you have kept.

[PVperson]

Well, I just spoke to a professional debt adviser this morning, and the definition of a default given here was wrong, it is defined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

“As a general guide, [a default may be recorded] when you are 3 months in arrears, and normally by the time you are 6 months in arrears.

 

There are exceptions to this which may result in a default being recorded at a later stage, such as secured or long term loans e.g. mortgages, or if the product operates in a more flexible way e.g. current accounts, student loans, home credit."

 

I my case I wasn't even in 1 months' arrears, and so a default should not have been registered. I checked my credit record recently, and it seems to have disappeared, as did a CCJ which was over 6 years old.

 

I have another meeting with the debt advisor at 4pm I'll let you know the outcome.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

3-6mth was correct for the time of your default (2004?) as per ICO rules at the time, these changed in 2014.

 

there is no remit that they must wait 3-6mts to register it on your file though.or for you to be +3mths behind in payment

it can be registered immediately as soon as your account defaults as long as they waited 14 days following the issuance of the DN.

 

had to remove the last 2 lines in your above post

sadly we can't allow adverts for external people nor pleas for external private help.

[PVperson]

So, as far as I see, you're not looking to help people here?

 

Check Consumer Credit Act 1974 for definition of a default.

 

as it happened between 1991 and 2006, the 1991 definition applies. 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VII/crossheading/default-notices/1991-02-01 

 

I'll let you know if and when I find my original upheld complaint against NWB.

[BankFodder]

26 minutes ago, PVperson said:

Well, I just spoke to a professional debt adviser this morning, and the definition of a default given here was wrong, it is defined in the  Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

“As a general guide, [a default may be recorded] when you are 3 months in arrears, and normally by the time you are 6 months in arrears.

 

There are exceptions to this which may result in a default being recorded at a later stage, such as secured or long term loans e.g. mortgages, or if the product operates in a more flexible way e.g. current accounts, student loans, home credit."

 

I my case I wasn't even in 1 months' arrears, and so a default should not have been registered. I checked my credit record recently, and it seems to have disappeared, as did a CCJ which was over 6 years old.

 

I have another meeting with the debt advisor at 4pm I'll let you know the outcome.

 

dx

 

I'm afraid that we have to come in here and say that the statement which you have quoted from the Consumer Credit Act scarcely amounts to a definition. It is merely guidance and there is a huge difference.
The clues are fairly obvious –

Quote

"As a general guide…" "may be recorded" "… and normally…"

"There are exceptions to this…"

All of the above which show any halfway decent "professional debt adviser" that these are not definitions but are simply guidance or a code – a sort of hint at best practice.

In addition to that, you have to understand that you are dealing with an extremely powerful industry – the credit reference agency industry – which seems to be Teflon and are scarcely accountable to anybody. Therefore by and large the guidance is applied at the whim of the company you are dealing with – and by and large the credit reference agency accepts the database entry without question.

If you need any more evidence, then the change in 2014 which was referred to by my site team colleague @dx100uk was the result of a devolution of their authority in this matter by the ICO to the credit reference industry with a brief to the credit reference agency to organise their own rules which would broadly be in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act and which would be subject to a general oversight by the ICO.

The result has been that the matter has been left in the hands of this extremely powerful self-serving industry and the protections for consumers have been watered down and in effect the system is operated in the interests of creditors and not in the interests of customers.

But I expect that all of this was explained to you by your "professional debt adviser" with whom you have a follow-up appointment. I hope you're not paying for that advice