Tweet
Re: Nat west business loan - cant find agreement
Response to D Waterman 9th Jan 2013
Thank you for acknowledging that my account was not in arrears when passed to the collections department. This was previously ignored and formed a large part of my complaint as the bank had always maintained that the account had been passed here for this reason. Surely this is a good enough reason for the account to be reinstated. .
The bank received returned mail in January 2010 when the Royal Mail redirection facility - which had been in place for more than 2 years took effect.
The bank were well aware that the business had ceased trading in 2007 so the returned post did not trigger the bank realising that the business had ceased trading. There had been very little activity on the account since the business closed so I do not believe it took the bank 3 years to realise anything.
I have correspondence from the bank in 2008 where they acknowledge that the business was not trading.
I received all statements and correspondence from the bank until January 2010 due to the redirection of mail.. What I failed to notice was which of my post was redirected and which was addressed directly. The post all came together.
I feel that the bank reacted badly to the return of the post from my previous address – which I had left on 2007 - they made no attempt to contact me on a mobile phone number that I have had for 20 years and also the land line number which would have reached me or even an email, in this day and age there is no excuse not to be able to make contact. Fay Larkin made a decision which was unnecessary and even said that I failed (actually refused) to give the bank a forwarding address. I do not accept that I was at fault for not providing the bank with an address which they had a security on, that is crazy. Of course they knew that I could be reached there.
I visited my local branch and made the change of address form to formalise the situation, I still felt it was expedient.
It was the bank that suggested the £700 payment was made.
I fully expected the bank to debit this monthly amount as they had previously been deducting the £350. When they informed me that the payment had not been made I immediately made the payment, and actually the next months payment as well as I was informed the revised amount needed to be advised by myself ?? This doesn’t seem right either and they are using this as an excuse that I am further in the wrong..
The bank told me that subject to a current valuation of the property a settlement maybe considered,
Under the freedom of information act I believe I am entitled to all correspondence held by the bank that relates to me.
In regard to the M112 form, in the absence of a loan agreement on what basis are the bank saying that the loan was a business account. I still think they should provide this form to the DWP for them to make a judgement . This is surely in the banks interest.
The Bank have not been consistent in their replies to you in this matter, you have reviewed a previous complaint so will be aware of this. Even last month they are promising a copy of my loan agreement will follow. Another example of stock replies that are worthless but they are rarely challenged.
In conclusion whilst I take some comfort from your findings I feel that the bank do not really care or even learn anything from complaints. They offer the odd £25 or £200 here and expect that to make everything alright. This is small change to them and it will only be when they are hit with compensation awards that have an impact on their finances that they will take more care of their customers.
Originally posted by Amethyst
View Post
Thank you for acknowledging that my account was not in arrears when passed to the collections department. This was previously ignored and formed a large part of my complaint as the bank had always maintained that the account had been passed here for this reason. Surely this is a good enough reason for the account to be reinstated. .
The bank received returned mail in January 2010 when the Royal Mail redirection facility - which had been in place for more than 2 years took effect.
The bank were well aware that the business had ceased trading in 2007 so the returned post did not trigger the bank realising that the business had ceased trading. There had been very little activity on the account since the business closed so I do not believe it took the bank 3 years to realise anything.
I have correspondence from the bank in 2008 where they acknowledge that the business was not trading.
I received all statements and correspondence from the bank until January 2010 due to the redirection of mail.. What I failed to notice was which of my post was redirected and which was addressed directly. The post all came together.
I feel that the bank reacted badly to the return of the post from my previous address – which I had left on 2007 - they made no attempt to contact me on a mobile phone number that I have had for 20 years and also the land line number which would have reached me or even an email, in this day and age there is no excuse not to be able to make contact. Fay Larkin made a decision which was unnecessary and even said that I failed (actually refused) to give the bank a forwarding address. I do not accept that I was at fault for not providing the bank with an address which they had a security on, that is crazy. Of course they knew that I could be reached there.
I visited my local branch and made the change of address form to formalise the situation, I still felt it was expedient.
It was the bank that suggested the £700 payment was made.
I fully expected the bank to debit this monthly amount as they had previously been deducting the £350. When they informed me that the payment had not been made I immediately made the payment, and actually the next months payment as well as I was informed the revised amount needed to be advised by myself ?? This doesn’t seem right either and they are using this as an excuse that I am further in the wrong..
The bank told me that subject to a current valuation of the property a settlement maybe considered,
Under the freedom of information act I believe I am entitled to all correspondence held by the bank that relates to me.
In regard to the M112 form, in the absence of a loan agreement on what basis are the bank saying that the loan was a business account. I still think they should provide this form to the DWP for them to make a judgement . This is surely in the banks interest.
The Bank have not been consistent in their replies to you in this matter, you have reviewed a previous complaint so will be aware of this. Even last month they are promising a copy of my loan agreement will follow. Another example of stock replies that are worthless but they are rarely challenged.
In conclusion whilst I take some comfort from your findings I feel that the bank do not really care or even learn anything from complaints. They offer the odd £25 or £200 here and expect that to make everything alright. This is small change to them and it will only be when they are hit with compensation awards that have an impact on their finances that they will take more care of their customers.
Comment