bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

Postby sindakit » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:06 pm

Hey all need a quick bit of advice regarding a response to my latest Natwest CC letter.
Story so far:
I had sent my notice to them asking for validation of debt, signed contract and for a true hand signed bill. In response they said they were unable to process this request due to my notice not being signed and sent me a letter with a box within which "I" or at least 'the cardholder' should sign and date. I have spoken to a few about this and this was my response to that letter below


Dear Tanya Sweetman,

I hope you are well and might be so rude as to say I think you have a beautiful Name.
However, I must stop personally complimenting you and acknowledging you as the wonderful Human Being that you are, as we have to get back to the nature of this ruthless and enslaving world of banking.

I have received a letter from you, dated 4th February, acknowledging receipt of my ‘letter’. I must advise you that what you have received from myself is not a ‘letter’ it is a notice.
Apologies for the delays as I have been moving house, I can still collect mail at the address you have listed for me, but if you wish for me to receive any correspondence immediately please use the address listed above. I will be updating my address with NatWest later this week.
The letter you sent requested I send a copy of my signature before the requests of my notice can be processed. Can you please clarify in writing why this is the case as I am unsure why you would need this signature?

If it is for security or Data Protection purposes then I can happily supply you with documentation to substantiate my identity to you.

However please note that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address. I have to ask, if you are concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person, why has it taken so long to raise this.

As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of data protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998:

7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

If you do not understand this letter, you should seek qualified legal advice.

I look forward to receiving the documentation requested in my initial notice. Also due to my delays in replying to mail I will now allow a further 14 days from today, 28/3/10, to receive those documents.

Just for good measure I will sign all future correspondence to you and NatWest when dealing with this matter.

Have a good day

Sincerely,



K: C: Authorised Representative
All Rights Reserved


Now they have responded saying they are unable to process my request due their security procedures. They then go on to say they can provide a credit agreement for £1 and default notices are triggered automatically. The part I have a problem with is when they state

"debt validation, or debt verification, refers to a consumer's right to challenge a debt and/or recieve written verification of a debt from a debt collector. however this does not cover standard collection actions employed by original creditors, such as, credit card companies. It only governs the actions of debt collector.
As your account is being managed by us and not a debt collection agency we are under no obligation to provide you with the requested information.
We have carried out our obligations under the Consumer Credit Act and require repayment of the debt you owe us . If you dispute our legal right to have the money you borrowed repaid, you are free to bring the matter to the attention of the courts."

I think this is a case of creditor/debtor but I'm unsure what I should say to put them back under my notice and get (or not get as will be the case) the debt verified etc

Thanks
sindakit
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:51 am

Re: bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

Postby AzziDePazzi » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:49 pm

Hi sindakit,

From my experience of s.77/78 CCA requests (statutory request), the reason that they want your signature is so that they can hold you to the document you allegedly signed when you may (or may not) have made a credit application. I would always do those CCA requests unsigned as it's a public-side approach, so if you're playing their game, you have to account for their rules.

However, we don't have the same debt-validation laws that they have in the US, so it's a lot harder to ask for confirmation of debt without doing something like a CCA request.

I've seen internal bank docs that say a CCA request must be asked stating the correct section and year - anything else, and they are under no obligation to 'see' it.

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone had much luck in the UK with a non-CCA debt validation?

ADP
AzziDePazzi
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:43 am

Re: bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

Postby the_cat » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:09 pm

My own experiences were pretty similar with this bank who'd been unlawfully ripping me off for years. They wouldn't accept stuff without a signature and I capitulated on this eventually, but just be careful to make it plain at the bottom of your notice that your signature in no way implies that you are making a contract. They'll keep slinging the CCA 1974 back at you and insisting on the £1. My argument was that the basic rules of contract should apply, and since I have never seen a copy of the contract "sod off am I paying you a £1" for the principle. When they refused to comply with my good-faith demand I told them that failing to do so constituted putting themselves in estoppel. They then sent the "debt" to third-party collectors who I am in the process of dealing with. Oh, I should mention, that I have total proof that Natwest have broken the CCA on numerous occasions in my dealings with them, and even when this was pointed out to them they just side-stepped the issue and offered no apology whatsoever.

I'm not sure if this will be of much help, but I think just stand tall and stick to your guns.

Best,
the_cat
the_cat
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:47 am

Re: bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

Postby Veronica » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:19 pm

"Standing tall" is good advice.

Fundamentally ... at the end of the day ... there not a whole lot they can do to you without actually taking you to Court.

In Court you put the Judge back on his Oath ... and he's fucked.

(This, by the way, in in progress, in a similar case. A Judge was repeatedly asked if he was on his Oath - this was against my advice, which was to ACTIVELY PUT him on hs Oath ... however the result was they he could not put his name to the order he made. He's now been told to sort out the mess he's made)

And ... even if it gets as far as Bailiffs ... you can side-wipe them.

It all just means "Standing tall".

Quite frankly they are not worth arguing with. They'll get the message ... eventually.

They ALL will.

What's happening is that they don't know what to do, so they just click the mouse as normal.

But this won't help them, because the game's up.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: bank swerving - Creditor/debtor issue

Postby AzziDePazzi » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:15 pm

A debt validation from the private doesn't really hold much weight unless you have the knowledge to close it off in court when they don't play ball. We're talking delivering documents and stuff in-line with Hague Confrence on Private Law AND acting in the capacity of a private man.

With the CCA request, it's something they have to adhere to as it implies THEIR rules that they have to follow.

Both methods will work to a certain extent, but can be combined - eg, you show how they acted wrong in the public, then take action in the private - commercial redemption style. Once you have shown that they have acted outside of their capacity as an organisation, you can then seek remedy from the man or woman (John Doe, DBA Chief of Corp).

With regards to the s.77/78 CCA request - I have read docs from a bank that state that they are only legally obliged to follow up request providing the legislation you are enacting on them is quoted PRECISELY. That means, if it's not exactly 's.77/78 Consumer Credit Act 1974' then they don't fall under any penalties (this is as far as 'The Group' is concerned).

One thing worth noting is that if you DO provide the correctly worded request, and the DON'T comply - then they are in-line for a £40,000 fine from the FSA. We are normally advised to complain to the OFT and Ombudsman when they don't comply but all they will tell you is that they cannot take singular cases and that you should contact a credit counsilling service or similar.

Me, I'm just dealing with the DCA's at the moment, and have a few of those useless complaints filed but when I go back to the original banks, I'll be hitting them with a deal to not report their shonkiness to the FSA. BTW - if anyone reading this knows exactly which FSA regulation they are contravening cos I would like to read into this a bit more.

AzziDePazzi
AzziDePazzi
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:43 am


Return to Credit cards

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest