Very old debt with Natwest

[SuitableAlias]

I had a defaulted overdraft with Natwest in 1992 which I continued repaying until Feb 2009 at which time I considered it repaid. They are curerntly advising an amount still outstanding via debt collectors and threatening court action (Bryan Carter & Co). I am not in receipt of any of their letters as they have been sent to my son's address in UK and I am not in UK. Last received correspondence between us was January 2002. Payments were made automatically by standing order.

 

I have telephoned Natwest Recovery Department (which seem to operate under a name of Crichtons or something?) and explained I think the debt is paid off and they say the best they can do is ask for statements to be sent covering the last 6 years and that they couldn't provide any details prior to 2002 when RBS tookover Natwest.

 

I daresay they will ask me to provide proof that the debt is paid off but is the legal onus actually on them to prove that it hasn't?

 

I shall ask them for copy of the original agreement and statements for the entire period up to date which I gather they think they will not be able to provide. Are statements going back only 6 years adequate to prove the debt?

 

At the end of 1996 they were having difficulty accounting for the payments they were receiving and crediting them to the correct account and it required some correspondence before they would agree that they were actually receiving payments. Given the potential for uncertainty and their probable inability to prove the accounting over this period, would they have any legal basis for making any further claim?

 

Perhaps a slightly unusual situation, does anyone have any suggestions as to what the legal position might be?

 

Thanks in advance for any comments.

 

J

[postggj]

I See They Have Set There Dog Carter On You

 

Who Is The Dca

[SuitableAlias]

Hi, had to think about Dca for a mo. I guess that would be Fredricksons? I phoned and e-mailed them and then Carter turned up within a couple of days. All pretty unhelpful. I got straight on to Natwest today and will be dealing with them and fax the others to say so and that the debt is in dispute and therefore not acknowledged.

[twofoot]

First thing is to forget the phone, do everthing in writing. You need strict proof of the debt from Natwest. Carter will issue a court claim in no time and can be very intimidating. With the SAR to natwest you need to tell then specifically what you want, i.e . all statements relating to the debt from start in 2002 or whenever up to the present day. Any claim carter puts in will fail if NW cannot produce the statements.

[cerberusalert]

Carter cannot get a CCJ against a non England/Wales resident, if he tried it could easily be set-aside. There are reciprocal agreements between EU countries but it is very rare that they are invoked.

 

Some UK Debt Collection Companies may have Partner Companies in the EU. Any agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit act is only enforceable in a Britsh court.

 

The EU has agreed a procedure known as an EPO -European Payment Order which came into force in January 2009 and can be used to enforce collection of a UK debt without the CCJ. The European Payment Order is only available for cross-border cases. It allows for citizens and businesses to use a simple method to enforce uncontested payments.

 

A reciprocal agreement in the UK means a UK Court can enforce a CCJ using the legal system of the other country. If there is no such agreement in place, a creditor can sell a debt to an agency in the relevant country and debt recovery procedures will commence under the law of that land. A creditor may have their own office in that country, or relations with other credit companies in that area.

 

If a creditor has taken legal action on an account, the debt can be legally recoverable indefinitely. This means that someone could start a new life abroad and work hard for the assets they accumulated, only to find a few years down the line that a creditor has traced them. Everything they have worked for is put at risk and could be taken from them to repay their debt.

 

The European Payment Order is under PART 78 EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT AND EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES - CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

 

Link here:

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part78.htm

Edited December 30, 2009 by cerberusalert

[Bazooka Boo]

Thoroughly agree deal with Sh@twest Direct, please ignore BC, it is my focus this year to get this horrible little itch culled.

 

Freds and BC are hand in hand, so they will be going down with him aswell!

[SuitableAlias]

Well, Natwest have been notified of the dispute and relevant paperwork and proof requested from them and Freds have been notified of the dispute which, I believe, stops them from taking any further action? Freds have also been requested to notify Carter, as the fax number I was given on another thread does not seem to be operational (I suspect they've moved over to 0845 numbers which can't be dialled from abroad).

 

It does concern me that Carter seems likely to take actions without allowing a reasonable period of time for any response and may therefore completely jump the gun?

 

Assuming Natwest are prepared to take a civilised approach to dispute resolution then there shouldn't really be any problems. Unfortunately debt recovery seems always to function in an atmosphere of intimidation and fear which should really not be the case in modern times. Culturally endemic!

 

Do any meaningful guidelines exist as to how debt recovery should be conducted? I suspect not. Does this forum or should this forum have the ability to engage in such a debate?

[SuitableAlias]

Thoroughly agree deal with Sh@twest Direct, please ignore BC, it is my focus this year to get this horrible little itch culled.

 

Freds and BC are hand in hand, so they will be going down with him aswell!

 

 

I suspect having any impact on Carters activities or behaviour will be very difficult, unless there is evidence of law breaking, which he is probably careful to avoid? Pushing the boundaries of decent behaviour is probably not enough to bring him any actual retribution. One would need to able to review sufficient case studies to see whether he had actually broken any rules.

 

If I'm right and there are no actual formal guidelines defining what is acceptable behaviour and what is not then debt collectors pretty much have carte blanche if they stay within the letter of the law. Perhaps the first step is to define what acceptable behaviour is and then see what prospect there is of getting any regulatory bodies to define acceptable behaviour in guidelines?

 

Debt collecting, even now, relies on this atmosphere of intimidation and fear and, in most cases, simply heaps hardship on top of hardship. This really does not offer any opportunity for resolving such issues in an adult businesslike manner, especially for people who do not have a background in business or finance.

 

This forum does seem like an excellent resource and include many people who are committed to supporting their fellow man in times of trouble in an objective way. As regards `scratching an itch` it is probably the combined weight of all the people who have felt this itch which may serve to bring about change. How many people can you encounter who have had dealings with this firm?

[SuitableAlias]

Natwest Reply

 

We advise that you have acknowledged the outstanding balance as have made repayment agreements and will have received all previous notices. We have ordered statements for the last 6 years to show your liability.

 

In the meantime this matter is now in the hands of Fredrickson International Limited, a firm of collection agents acting on the bank´s behalf

 

Instructions have been sent for them to contact you. ........

 

 

 

My fax to them stated;

I do not acknowledge the mentioned debt and dispute that there is any, all amounts due having been paid off. Consequently, please suspend any further collection actions pending resolution of this dispute and instruct any agencies you may use accordingly.

 

If you disagree with this situation please would you send me a true copy of the original agreement and statements to cover the whole period together with any other pertinent correspondence detailing the debt and conduct of the account which, I believe, you are obliged to do within 14 days?

 

Please note that under the data protection act you are not authorised to pass any of my personal details to any other person, Company, agency or organisation without my prior permission.

 

 

They have ignored the question of dispute

 

 

They have passed my details to an external agency against my wishes.

 

 

They are unable to provide documentation before 2004.

 

 

In addition, they have never sent regular statements of the outstanding balance since 1992. Throughout the period 1996 - 2001 they made continual errors in tracking the payments they were receiving and had to be corrected on numerous occasions. In May 2001 they wrote to confirm that 'The account was transferred ..... to Telford in September 1999 with very little detail as to how the account has progressed oer the last few years' and were unable to provide statement information prior to that date (since 1992).

 

 

Whilst I would not be able to provide precise transaction details since 1992 they certainly do not have sufficient information to prove their case. If I say the debt is repaid is the onus entirely on them to prove that is not the case or am I liable to prove that it is?

 

 

Have they contravened the data protection act by passing my address to another Company?

 

 

Is it possible to gain an injuction to prevent them from taking further action and would a solicitor do this on the basis of being able to claim costs from them? (bearing in mind I am not in UK).

 

 

What does the team think?

 

 

J

[Bazooka Boo]

You will have already given your agreement for them to pass your details onto a third party including debt recovery agents when you opened your account with them, it will always say in the small print that by signing this blah blah blah, you agree that we can pass your details onto X Y & Z including debt recovery agents or words to that effect.

[SuitableAlias]

You will have already given your agreement for them to pass your details onto a third party including debt recovery agents when you opened your account with them, it will always say in the small print that by signing this blah blah blah, you agree that we can pass your details onto X Y & Z including debt recovery agents or words to that effect.

 

 

And if they're unable to produce evidence of that agreement? It seems unreasonable that they should make assumptions that they can't then prove?

[shakespeare62]

And if they're unable to produce evidence of that agreement? It seems unreasonable that they should make assumptions that they can't then prove?

 

There may be a useful thread here for u to look at regarding alleged overdrafts. In particular section 11 of the Defence is interesting.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/231206-urgent-help-please-hearing.html#post2562720

[shakespeare62]

Also termination of an overdraft would have required Default Notices to have been served under s76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974. Check out the post below :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/182664-help-i-have-just-25.html#post2693343

 

 

 

 

[Bazooka Boo]

And if they're unable to produce evidence of that agreement? It seems unreasonable that they should make assumptions that they can't then prove?

 

But you started the thread saying that you defaulted on a NW Overdraft, unless they have completely fabricated an account I promise you in the small print, in which you would have signed to open the account it does say that they will pass your details onto third parties including DCA's.

 

I think that the focus needs to be on the overdraft, and it's legalities, enforceability etc and not that they have been passing your details on to third parties.

 

I agree that these outfits all too often make really bad assumptions to suit them, and listening to the PMQ's and Chief Execs of the banking industry try and justify their ridiculous bonuses and wages has really got my goat!