nat west-Intrum Justia-Fredrickson - Please Help

[moneydragon]

Yes Andy that is good, but can they just enter defaults on my credit record or will I have to take action to prevent them?

 

md

[The GodMother]

Did u send rorys letter to them?

[moneydragon]

Did u send rorys letter to them?

Hi Godmother

 

Yes I did and that was their reply to it.

 

:sad:md

[The GodMother]

right well was it the letter on page 2 reminding them of the money laundering rules?

[moneydragon]

right well was it the letter on page 2 reminding them of the money laundering rules?

Yes it was

[The GodMother]

Un usual companys normally tumble at that point.

 

Anyway maybe u should do as the letter threatens and report them to the relivant authorities as mentioned in the letter

[moneydragon]

Un usual companys normally tumble at that point.

 

Anyway maybe u should do as the letter threatens and report them to the relivant authorities as mentioned in the letter

 

Godmother

 

Thanks for your reply

 

Would that mean that I will need to take them to court?

 

:(md

Edited February 15, 2009 by moneydragon

[moneydragon]

Help - What do i do next?

Edited February 15, 2009 by moneydragon

[moneydragon]

[lexis200]

DEtails of these procedures we contained in the credit agreement/application form you would of signed (the form that they can't find)

I'd like them to use this bit of reasoning in a court and see how the judge takes it. It's no good stating you would have signed something, they need to show you did sign something. It is entirely possible that there was an admin error and your account was authorised without a signature - we've all seen threads where there has been no debtor signature on the form.

 

I had a very similar statement from BOS for OH's account. This was part of my reply.

 

To state ‘there was a properly executed signed agreement’ and ‘I can confirm that the copy of the agreement was not illegible at the time of signing’ is bordering on ridiculous. Unless you provide me with the legible, signed copy of the agreement you allege you hold (sorry, that you allege you held), complete with all prescribed terms, you will be well aware that you have no power to enforce this account.

 

As a matter of interest, are you able to back up your claims by proving that you were indeed working for the Bank of Scotland, in the department where applications were received, in 1996? Are you further able to prove that you were witness to me signing a legible agreement including all prescribed terms? If not, then I have to ask how you can make such sweeping statements.

... As you do not have a valid, signed, legible, enforceable agreement, there is not now, nor can have ever been any contract between your company and myself. Therefore you do not now, nor have ever had the right to process my data in any way, and any markers placed with credit reference agencies have as such been placed unlawfully.

Now to be fair they have still written back saying they have the right to process, which I am asking them to fully explain given the above, but it has upset them in terms of threatening OH. Their letters previously were very much that they had an enforceable agreement and would chase it to the end, now they are just saying that just because it is unenforceable does not mean they can't chase.

 

My point is though, if you pull Interim up on how exactly they know there was a signed agreement, they won't be able to answer. They would need to have someone in the office taking in the signed documents, who was there when your account opened and can swear that they saw yours there. Seeing as the account was not even with them this will not be a question they can answer, and it may just be enough - combined with repeating the money laundering angle which they appear to have ignored - to make them pass it on to someone with two brain cells who will realise the futility of them carrying on.

 

I have no experience of the court process whatsoever, and the thought frightens me immensely, but I think I would be right in saying that if you put the above into a letter, outlining how impossible it is for them to back up their statements in a court, and give them x amount of time to answer before you'll start proceedings, it may put a fire up their respective bums? Of course I guess this would mean you'd have to be willing to go the whole way with it to remove the markers if they still don't budge.

 

I'm sure other far more knowledgeable people will be able to tell you if the above is viable or not:)

 

Lexis:)

[moneydragon]

Thanks for your reply lexus200 - very helpful and gave me more confidence to fight on I was getting to the stage perhaps it was time to admit defeat.

 

As I opened this account in 1979 anyone working there then will either be retired of or even 6 feet under by now.

 

I dont recal signing an agreement only completing an application form.

 

If you dont mind I will use your letter as part of my reply.

 

md:)

[lexis200]

Wow, you only just scrape in on the 1974 Act with that one:D:D

 

You're more than welcome to use it, I hope it helps:)

[moneydragon]

I would appreciate someone looking over this as to as my reply to thread 27

 

I note your comments however, to state that “We consider that our processing of your personal data is fair, lawful and warranted in the circumstances. Details of these procedures we contained in the credit agreement/application form you would of signed when you applied for the card”.

 

Unless you provide me with the legible, signed copy of the agreement you allege you hold (sorry, that you allege you held), complete with all prescribed terms, you will be well aware that you have no power to enforce this account.

 

As a matter of interest, are you able to back up your claims by proving that you were indeed working for the Nat West Bank, in the department where applications were received, in 1979? Are you further able to prove that you were witness to me signing a legible agreement including all prescribed terms? If not, then I have to ask how you can make such sweeping statements.

 

As you do not have a valid, signed, legible, enforceable agreement, there is not now, nor can have ever been any contract between your company and myself. Therefore you do not now, nor have ever had the right to process my data in any way, and any markers placed with credit reference agencies have as such been placed unlawfully.

 

I should not have to remind you that without evidence of me signing or agreeing to any data protection terms and conditions you are unable to retain your data on file nor share it with outside agencies and that any attempt to do so will be in breach of the Data Protection Act

 

By attempting to process my data clearly shows that Nat West has failed in its obligations to comply with the various anti money laundering regulations in not keeping such documents. This, as I’m sure you are aware, is a very serious offence will have no option but to report this matter to The Financial Crime Branch of HM Treasury and any other authorities as I see fit.

 

Thankyou for looking- md

[Pumpkinhead]

Just subscribing to this excellent thread following an early reply from Money dragon. Thanks. I am going through the same process with NW. Have just sent them Rory's letter today. Here's hoping!!!

[rory32]

Thanks for your reply

 

Would that mean that I will need to take them to court?

Reporting them to the OFT etc does not require any court action on your behalf.

[mejules7]

subbing - fantastic thread, going through this with RBS at the moment.

[moneydragon]

Good luck Pumpkinhead and mejules7

 

 

Keep me posted

 

md:)

[barclayhunter]

Subbing and sending Rory's letter to NW.

[moneydragon]

Please help

 

I have received the following from Nat West today and I urgently need help on what to do:

 

It has come to our attention that we advised you incorrectly reagrding the status of your account. We overlooked the fact that your account was opened in 1980 and S78 was brought into force on 19.5.1985. Schedule 3 of the 1974 act states that s.78 applies to an agreement made before 19.5.1985 where the agreement would have been regulated agreement if made on that day.

 

As such under regulation 9 of the copy documents regulations specifies that in the case of an agreement made before 19.5.1985 it is sufficient to supply a copy of the current terms - that acts as a true copy. As we have supplied these documents to you, we have now fully complied with the request which means the agreement is enforceable. You should continue/or now make payments to the account to avoid any further action being taken.

 

This is a new one!!

Edited August 1, 2009 by moneydragon

[The GodMother]

yep i have never heard that b4. Erm maybe PMing 42man might help. REMEMBER to link ur thread.

[moneydragon]

yep i have never heard that b4. Erm maybe PMing 42man might help. REMEMBER to link ur thread.

Thanks Godmother have pm 42man hopefully he will beable to advise:)

 

md

[The GodMother]

yep i hope he will as i would be interested to see what he has to say re the letter.

[42man]

I'm really not sure to be honest, I think i've only ever seen a couple of cases of 'pre 85' agreements.....have they sent any copies of your 'application' ?

[AndyOrch]

The regulations on supplying copy documents ((Consumer Credit (cancellation notices and copies of documents) regulations 1983/1985) state that for an agreemement prior to 1985 the creditor only needs to provide a copy of current terms & conditions if they no longer can provide a true copy of the original.With the above in mind I would summise that they no longer have the original and are therefore digging their heals in rather than admit the fact.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[moneydragon]

I'm really not sure to be honest, I think i've only ever seen a couple of cases of 'pre 85' agreements.....have they sent any copies of your 'application' ?

Thanks for your reply 42man, no they haven't sent me a copy of my application they only say that by supplying me with a copy of the current terms is sufficent and that I should now make payments.

 

md:(