Suing Nat West over improper default and mismanagement of a loan

[dx100uk]

43 minutes ago, PVperson said:

'll let you know if and when I find my original upheld complaint against NWB.

 

by whom?
and have you got the original 2004 DN copy for the account which you say still shows on your credit file today, and has caused this imence 'loss'?

 

dx

 

[BankFodder]

On 05/05/2020 at 13:13, PVperson said:

 

 

I have another meeting with the debt advisor at 4pm I'll let you know the outcome.

 

 

So, can we have an update on this please.

[Andyorch]

On 05/05/2020 at 13:11, Peterbard said:

 

 

On a loan or tacit overdraft, there is no agreement, nor any need to comply with part V of the act.

Which means there is no need for a default notice.

 

 

 

  Well obviously there is an agreement for a loan and a default notice/Demand Notice is also required for both loan and overdraft.

  See sections 87 (1) and 76 (1) and 98 (1) of the CCA1974

[Peterbard]

Section 76 and 98 are not default notices.

 

Tacit overdrafts of that period were of course not required to issue a section 87 notice. Would you like me to show you?

[PVperson]

Hi Peter, 

 

You're answering a post that was not by me, (arguing amongst yourselves)

 

What I need to prove is that the default was not made legally under the '74 CCA.

Then I can take NWB to the cleaners, which is something I'm sure you'll all be interested in!!!

 

Update: Didn't discuss NWB much, because I'm paying them £6/m, they're not adding interest, or chasing it up (at all)

 

More concerned about 2005 £12k5 charge against my house by IG Index, which would be £43k5 today (8%) & which may be the subject of a new thread!!! 

[dx100uk]

On 04/05/2020 at 13:42, dx100uk said:

pie in the sky mate..won't ever happen.

 

interest is always front loaded on all loans..not sure why you cant understand that.

 

as for the current default

that should not be showing after it's 6th birthday from registration.

do you have the relevant default notice?

 

please? to PDF

[Peterbard]

On 07/05/2020 at 13:39, PVperson said:

On 07/05/2020 at 13:39, PVperson said:

Hi Peter, 

 

You're answering a post that was not by me, (arguing amongst yourselves)

 

What I need to prove is that the default was not made legally under the '74 CCA.

Then I can take NWB to the cleaners, which is something I'm sure you'll all be interested in!!!

 

Update: Didn't discuss NWB much, because I'm paying them £6/m, they're not adding interest, or chasing it up (at all)

 

More concerned about 2005 £12k5 charge against my house by IG Index, which would be £43k5 today (8%) & which may be the subject of a new thread!!! 

Hi Peter, 

 

You're answering a post that was not by me, (arguing amongst yourselves)

 

What I need to prove is that the default was not made legally under the '74 CCA.

Then I can take NWB to the cleaners, which is something I'm sure you'll all be interested in!!!

 

Update: Didn't discuss NWB much, because I'm paying them £6/m, they're not adding interest, or chasing it up (at all)

 

BW pointedoutit is not a definition of a default, it is as I stated before, 

yes I think my reply was posted here, instead of anther thread.

 

 Yes indeed, on an overdraft there is no requirement regarding the form of the agreement, hence no DN.However udder FCA rules a notice of the state of the account should be sent, in the case of excessive drawings. Before the FCA no notice at all  required for the reasons above. ou mention section 74 of the CCA, and you are right in stating that a default notice cannot be issued on an overdraft, unles it is subject to its own sepperate agreement. The section 189 CCA definition applies to when a contract may be said to be "broken down" beyond recovery.  So I am afraid it is you that is  in error. As BW said earlier, it is just a guide to interpretation of a legal term.

 

Andy the two sections you quote are none default termination clauses, one for fixed sum agreements and one for running credit.

 

 

 

 

 

n indication of a breakdown of the contract.

I would put them up but they seem to anger people on here.

 

[Andyorch]

On 07/05/2020 at 13:35, Peterbard said:

Section 76 and 98 are not default notices.

 

Tacit overdrafts of that period were of course not required to issue a section 87 notice. Would you like me to show you?

 

I never stated they were...Demand Notices

[Peterbard]

•   Well obviously there is an agreement for a loan and a default notice/Demand Notice is also required fo both

You said the above.

 

Firstly there is no default notice required to terminate a tacit overdraft, these are the ones you agree over the phone usually, or sometimes they come with the account. Section V does not apply to these agreements so there Is no written agreement, so no DN.(section 74)

 

You then indicated that sections 76 and 98 act as default notices and can replace section 87.

This is completely wrong

 

These are not a repudiatory default termination notices and are generally applied when a creditor wants to sell the agreement, or if there has been a minor contractual breach which triggers a term prescribing an action.

 

This is my response

 

 Yes indeed, on an overdraft there is no requirement regarding the form of the agreement, hence no DN. However under FCA rules a notice of the state of the account should be sent, in the case of excessive drawings..

 

Before the FCA no notice at all  required for the reasons above. ou mention section 74 of the CCA, and you are right in stating that a default notice cannot be issued on an overdraft, unless it is subject to its own separate agreement. However as 

I would put them up but they seem to anger people on here.

 

It seems Andy, you have had a problem accepting, or understanding this for some time

 

 

Dear Mr ....

 

Your Account with HSBC Bank plc

Outstanding Balance £573.07

 

We have been asked by HSBC Bank plc to reply to your letter dated 14th January 2008.

 

With regards to the deed of assignment, as we are in-house debt recovery for the HSBC Group this is not required. Please find enclosed a copy of your Default Notice issued to you on 30th January 2007.

 

However in respect of your requesting a copy of your agreement we can confirm that as this is a current account it is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the "Act") does not apply to current accounts. The current account is not a regulated agreement because it provides no credit. The overdraft agreement provides the credit and this sits separately from the current account agreement.

 

Credit agreements normally have to comply with the Part V of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Part V covers the form and content of agreements, signing of agreements and duty to supply copies of unexecuted and executed agreements. However, current account overdrafts are given specific exemption from all the Part V formality requirements by section 74(1)(b) of the Act.

 

This exemption applies only when the OFT grant a Determination under section 74(3) and this was given for overdrafts on 21 December 1989.

 

The consequence of this is that there is no executed agreement for a current account overdraft and so section 78 (right to demand copy of executed agreement) does not apply.

 

We trust this clarifies matters.

 

 

Oh and "of course" overdrafts are not reduced to wring, so there is no agreement either.

[PVperson]

Please note the date of default it was 2004, any  changes in the law/rules since then don't apply to it.

[dx100uk]

ICO guidelines not rules

 

can we see the DN please?

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

Post  one says the op is disputing a default registered in 2003/4 for a LOAN...

 

can we see the default notice please??

[dx100uk]

use pdf

docx has all you pers details in properties info

 

default notice copy please

 

dx