Natwest CCA response, Help Please

[Docman]

Surely the whole point of S77/78 is that the OC or DCA has to provide INFORMATION about the agreement under dispute, not necessarily a copy of the actual agreemnt. The 1983 Copy Document Regulation much quoted by Nat West, RBS, HSBC and other banks just clarify what information that should be provided. However, whatever is provided must still be a ‘true’ copy, not an ‘actual’ copy.

When it comes to a court case, the OC must provide the actual excuted agreement with all the prescribed terms. If that is the case, the question I ask myself is why do the banks etc use the Copy Document Regs to get round producing an actual document. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to produce a copy of the actual agreement that they will have to produce later? Unless of course, they don’t have an actual executed agreement in the first place. IMO, if anyone gets the ‘Copy Docs regs’ response from an OC or DCA, I would just ask the OC to confirm it is a true copy of the actual executed agreemnt. If they do confirm, then write to say it doesn’t comply with the Act as it doesn’t contain the presribed terms and invite them to take the matter to court.

[Docman]

HAK

I don't have much faith in FOS myself. They pay peanuts for their staff, so you know the kind they get! Great if the 'complaint' can follow an agreed format, such as a template from Which?/Consumer Association but if any real thinking is required, well, that's difficult.

I think FOS have only just started to look after DCAs, so its likely FOS staff don't know much about the Consumer Credit Act and the practices of our 'friends'.

I'd fill in the FOS form - it’s available on their website and if I recall, FOS won't investigate a complaint until they receive a SIGNED hardcopy complaint form.

You should also think about reporting Crapwest to the FSA if they continue to demand payment from a disputed debt. Whilst it’s down to TS to prosecute (unlikely), Crapwest have broken the criminal law and therefore there is some question about the organisation's fitness to be a bank - or something like that.

Alternatively, you could just wait until the sue you and take great delight at getting the case thrown out of Court.

[Docman]

Since you have now had a response from Green & Co which is unsatisfactory, I'd go ahead with a complaint to the Legal Complaints Service.

 

As you will see from the footer, 'Green & Co' are not even a proper firm of solicitors. Ms Green is just a solicitor EMPLOYED by the Royal Bank of Scotland. She is not acting as an independant solicitor advising her client. She is part of the bank trying to enforces it debt unlawfully.

[Docman]

HAK

 

You can make a complaint to the Legal Complaint Service if the solicitor doesn't respond within 28 days or if you are dissatisfied with the response.

 

It seems to me that G & Co have just rejected your complaint out of hand and expect that will do as far as you are concerned.

 

It's up to you if you wish to complain about G & Co, but in case you do, the LGS kindly produce a template complaint on thier web site

http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/documents/resolution-form.pdf

 

Doc

[Docman]

Well, a regulator (??) with even less teeth. If they won't act, I suggest its a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority then. Solicitors Regulation Authority - Home

[Docman]

Hi HAK,

 

No surprises from FOS. They are a complete waste of time and space. The only satisfaction is that they charge the bank £450 a time to conduct their 'investigation'.

 

Onwards & upwards with Miss B and Natwest for a couple of more threatograms from Triton and then the dreaded Green & Co, RBS's in-house 'solicitors'. Horror of horrors!

 

Doc

[Docman]

HAK,

 

They were one of the rudest & thickest DCAs I dealt with but went quiet after 3 months.