NAT WEST will not return my PPI

[alanalana]

Hello Maggie,

 

Just wanted to post to say sorry about your grandson and other problems. I hope he recovers soon and fully. Take care of yourself too people are more important than banks:)

 

aa

[Maggiebroom]

HI alanalana

 

Thank your for your good wishes. The poor little chap is recovered now, but looks as though he has a good suntan. It was a worrying time.

 

Now, down to business.

 

I am not sure if this thread should now be transferred to a DCA forum, although technically it is still a claim for NatWest PPI.

 

Westcots started phoning me about two months ago, with daily calls. I answered the first. Told them I wanted a properly executed CCA. Of course they ignored that, and I haven't spoken to them since. Lots of messages on my answerphone though:) Now I am over my hospital visit I feel better able to tackle these idiots.

 

I even got a letter two weeks ago saying they could not contact me as my phone was ex-directory. What the fish is that all about?:idea: They are already phoning me. I think its a case of right and left hand ignorant of the other, and lets try and confuse the customer as well.

 

However, I have now received a letter stating that I must pay up by 27th November or go to court. I am not worried about going to court. That doesn't worry me at all, but I want a template letter that tells them that as far as I am concerned the claim is in dispute with NatWest, and that according to the rules, a dispute should not be passed to a DCA. I also want to know if they have bought the claim from NatWest or are just acting as agents. (in which case can I ask to see the deed of assignment?)

 

I have searched this humungeous site but cannot find one. The templates do not cover this situation (or don't seem to), and I know I have read one on another thread somewhere, but I don't have years to find it.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

 

Thanks in advance

 

maggiebroom

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

Alanalana asked me to pop in to see if I could help with a Template Letter to see off Westcots.

 

I regret I have only skimmed this Thread, but my main impression is that you need to take charge of NatWest. They have acted in a wholly disgraceful way, and they are still sitting in the background smiling.

 

The good news is that I think they are probably stuffed, and know they are stuffed, otherwise you'd have had a County Court Claim long ago.

 

Instead, they have unleashed a sorry crowd of DCAs, from Triton, to Interim Justitia, to Debt Investigations Ltd, to Regal Credit Ltd and now those cheeky chappies at Wescot. At no stage have you been advised when each DCA was instructed, either by NatWest or by the DCA.

 

Some have Threatened Court, and have Threatened nasty things that can only happen after they go to Court and after you default on the Court's Judgement. The fact that every one of the DCAs could not take you to Court anyway, as the Debt was still with NatWest, didn't seem to stop them making these Threats. They'd need an Absolute Assignment to take you to Court in their own name...so all just Threats and in Breach of OFT Debt Collection Guidelines (that you are aware of) and probably also The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

But, all along, the Debt appears to be sitting with NatWest. It never left the building as far as I can see.

 

OK. This may well peeter out, as everyone in this stinky food-chain seems to know they do not have an Enforceable Agreement, so are relying on Threats and intimidation instead.

 

Two main ways to play this I think:

 

 

(A) Ignore it, log all Calls anyway, file all Letters anyway (for your Harassment Claim/Counter-Claim), and wait until you get to 6 Years from the last Payment, and then its Statute Barred.

 

(B) Send a final stiff Letter to NatWest, then wait until you get to 6 Years from the last Payment, and then its Statute Barred!

 

 

If (B), then from now on, send anything and everything to The Company Secretary, NatWest Registered Office (I can't check that as Companes House is off-line at the moment, but go to Companies House Tomorrow and find out the NatWest HQ Address from there).

 

Send the above a strong Letter to say they have completely failed to respond to your s78(1) Request, so thereafter they were constrained by virtue of s78(6) from doing anything else until such times as they did.

 

Seems they went ahead to send you a Default Notice, and then Terminated the alleged Account.

 

So, they have shot themselves in the foot I think. Especially so if that Default Notice was invalid. Do you have a Copy of that by any chance?

 

But the fact remains they should not have even issued you with a Default Notice, as s78(6) makes clear. If it's also invalid, then excellent.

 

The issues below are lifted from one of my own Threads (BRW v A Particularly Nasty Bank). You may like to have a read of that, as it could well explain many of the issues that are applicable here:

 

(1) Do they have an Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement?

 

(2) Did they comply with your s78(1) Request?

 

(3) Did they have a Right to issue a Default Notice, or were they constrained from doing so by virtue of s78(6)?

 

(4) Did they issue a valid Default Notice?

 

(5) Did they Terminate the alleged Account Lawfully?

 

Fail on any one of the above, and their Donkey is Filleted at PT2537 would say.

 

I think they don't even get past Step One above, which explains the arrogant Letters and string of hopeless f-wit DCAs they have sent to bother you.

 

Next question...is it worth going after the PPI? If so, then I'd consider it. All you have to prove is you Paid it, so if you have Statements showing this, then with Alanalana's help, I'm sure we can create a nice Give Me Back My PPI Letter!

 

But I'd first try and find that Default Notice if you can, because if that is invalid, then they really have blown things. Without that [assuming they can argue (1) and (2) and (3) above are OK] then when they Terminated, they scrapped any chance of asking you for the Balance, because they would need a valid Default Notice to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

IOW, up until Termination, you only needed to Pay what was due at that time, you didn't need to Pay anything that was not yet due at that time. IOW, the Arrears were due, whereas the remaining Balance was not due, as it was only due in the future.

 

To seek early Payment of something due in the future (the Balance), they would need to have a Default Notice and Lawful Termination...i.e. the very benefits they would enjoy by virtue of s87 if they followed the steps outlined. If they didn't, they don't!

 

The Default Notice is therefore a key Document, and could be the one that kills it stone dead for them, even if they find the Original Agreement, and find it had the Prescribed Terms on the back.

 

So, I don't have a Template Letter, but I can see you understand the OFT issues and the fact that no Assignment Letters have ever been sent despite a crowd of DCAs being fired at you.

 

I think when you read the above, and also maybe check my Thread, you will agree that you do now have all that you need to nail this. Either stand back and wait until it is Statute Barred, or slap NatWest around a bit with a final hard hitting Letter, and maybe then go for PPI if you can find/see an Invalid Default Notice.

 

The main danger of going for the PPI without looking for the Default Notice, is that it may propel them into searching for the Agreement, and they may find it. That's why I say try to locate find/see if there's an Invalid Default Notice, because that will remove the danger of going for the PPI. Even if they Counter-Claim against you for the Balance, they won't get very far if you can show any of the steps above (1)-(5) are flawed.

 

In summary, deal only with NatWest, and send everything to The Company Secretary at their Registered Office. That way they cannot pretend they never received anything. Send them a No Visitors and No Harassment Letter, and remind them about their abject failure to comply with s78(1). Make it clear that any DCA Harassment or Trespass is down to NatWest, and it'll be their CEO who'll be hauled into Court on a Criminal Harassment Charge if they carry on with any more of this Harassment nonsense. You'll be inviting the Press and your MP to come and watch.

 

Then, if any DCAs should pop up on Maggiebroom's Scope, just send them a Copy of the above Letter to NatWest, and c.c. that to NatWest again, always to The Company Secretary.

 

I think all that has gone wrong here is you've been dragged around by a series of pondlife DCAs, when from hindsight it would probably have been better to hit The Company Secretary straight on the bugle from day one, and hit them again, and again, and again, every time a new DCA appeared.

 

I'd better get on, as have a lot to do myself, but hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Josie8]

I wouldn't draw their attention to the invalid default notice in case they try to cure it by serving a valid one with a later start date for the default

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Josie!

 

I wouldn't draw their attention to the invalid default notice in case they try to cure it by serving a valid one with a later start date for the default

 

Agreed, but best to find the one they have sent, or send them a SAR to see if Maggiebroom can see Copy of it that way.

 

The key is to get a Copy of it ASAP, but they may just send a re-generated one, which may not be what is needed.

 

The things to look out for are Date issues, and use or lack of Prescribed Wording. If the PPI is mis-sold, then it's also likely that the Arrears stated on the Default Notice cannot be accurate, as they'll be based on an Account Balance that was far too high.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Josie8]

Hello Josie!

 

 

 

Agreed, but best to find the one they have sent, or send them a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to see if Maggiebroom can see Copy of it that way.

 

The key is to get a Copy of it ASAP, but they may just send a re-generated one, which may not be what is needed.

 

The things to look out for are Date issues, and use or lack of Prescribed Wording. If the PPI is mis-sold, then it's also likely that the Arrears stated on the Default Notice cannot be accurate, as they'll be based on an Account Balance that was far too high.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

Absolutely agree - Natwest/RBS have been known to try and provide valid backdated default notices in court proceedings so always nice to have an invalid original default notice for the court to see.............though strangely Natwest/RBS normally discontinue when they see it on disclosure lol!

[Maggiebroom]

Oh you wonderful people.

 

As you will have read I have been out of the loop for a while, so now have to get to grips with these idiots.

 

Yes, I do have the original default notice, and I also have every letter they have ever sent me.

 

I too am of the opinion that they haven't taken me to court yet, as they don't have a valid CCA. (they sent me two or three copies of that). I have also already sent an SAR request, and received all the relevant statements etc. I wish they would take it court as then they would have to produce the proper CCA.

 

I am not too worried about claiming the PPI as it doesn't amount to much anyway, and eight years ago I claimed off it for medical retirement, on my NatWest loan. So I don't want to be too greedy. The money is mounting up now and they have added an extra 1000 to it in interest and alleged legal expenses.

 

I will be quite happy for a judge to throw it out, because it is an unenforceable CCA.

 

I am going to mull over all your replies tonight and work something out to reply to tommorrow, with a possible letter to NatWest.

 

Once again many thanks. I now have a lot of studying to do.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

PS

 

The supposed properly executed CCA has no prescribed terms whatsoever.

[Josie8]

Kinda assumed that would be the case here .............lol:D

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

Yes, I do have the original default notice, and I also have every letter they have ever sent me.

 

Excellent! The Default Notice could be vital.

 

If you read my Thread, that should help you to decide if what they have sent is valid or not.

 

Remember it is Date of Service that matters. You'll also need to check the period allowed, as the Period was originally 7 Days, but it was extended to 14 Days in 2006.

 

I think the 14 Days came into effect on 19/12/2006, see:

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561), and note the NOTES at the bottom of Section 3 that states...

 

NOTES

Amendment

 

Para 3: in sub-paras ©, (d) words "not less than fourteen days" in square brackets substituted by SI 2006/3094, regs 2, 3.

Date in force: 19 December 2006: see SI 2006/3094, reg 1.

 

I think they Terminated your alleged Account around June 2007, so your Default Notice should have allowed 14 clear Calender Days from Date of Service.

 

Look out for basic errors, like failing to allow for Postage time to get the Notice to you, or just a straight cock-up on the date by which you had to remedy the alleged Default.

 

Good luck with it all, and remember to hit the NatWest Company Secretary right on the Bugle, dead centre will do nicely!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

[alanalana]

Hello Maggiebroom,

 

I knew BRW would come up trumps.

 

This is a template letter ref the harassment issue.

 

Harassment by telephone - response letter

 

The Protection form Harassment Act itself and what it says (Ihave cut from another thread where the same advice was given)

 

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)

 

These are a couple of extracts

 

you will see the law is on your side in this:-)

 

If you get more calls just quote this regulation ask for their full name as you will start legal action against them personally under this Act.

 

England and Wales

 

1 Prohibition of harassment

 

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

© that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. IMO none of this would apply to DCA's phone calls.

2 Offence of harassment

 

(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

(3) In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted—

“(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).”.

3 Civil remedy

 

(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

 

Do not fear these People they are in the wrong to harrass

 

Hope this helps:wink:

 

aa

 

I would make sure they are made aware of this in a letter.

 

aa

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Maggie,

 

So so glad to see you and see one post and everybody comes to help.

 

It is a great ppi forum and a great site:D

 

Welcome back and lets sort out this shower:D

[banker_rhymes_with]

I would make sure they are made aware of this in a letter.

 

Yep, and throw in the No Visitors Paragraph as well, like the one that Hellhasnofury has suggested up above at Post #189. That one will do just fine and dandy, but make it clear it applies to all NatWest bankers and any and all DCA Pondlife Agents they instruct.

 

By the time the NatWest Company Secretary has finished reading that lot, I expect their eyes will be watering a bit and they'll have a sore Bugle, bright red and a bit like Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer's snout.

 

I have to say I have far more belief in Santa Clause than I ever did in banking Fairy Stories...they're no fun at all.

 

On TV I saw that Twenty of the world's Top Banana Politician-bankers met over in the USA to swap banking Fairy Stories at a summit hosted by Dub-ya.

 

But they all looked miserable and sad. I gather Gordon Brooon's Story about Fiscal Policies didn't convince any of them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited November 16, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo!

[hellhasnofury]

Yep, and throw in the No Visitors Paragraph as well, like the one that Hellhasnofury has suggested up above at Post #189. That one will do just fine and dandy, but make it clear it applies to all NatWest bankers and any and all DCA Pondlife Agents they instruct.

 

By the time the NatWest Company Secretary has finished reading that lot, I expect their eyes will be watering a bit and they'll have a sore Bugle, bright red and a bit like Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer's snout.

 

I have to say I have far more belief in Santa Clause than I ever did in banking Fairy Stories...they're no fun at all.

 

On TV I saw that Twenty of the world's Top Banana Politician-bankers met over in the USA to swap banking Fairy Stories at a summit hosted by Dub-ya.

 

But they all looked miserable and sad. I gather Gordon Brooon's Story about Fiscal Policies didn't convince any of them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Hello BRW,

 

You are totally buzzing and a sheer health tonic:D

[alanalana]

Hello BRW,

 

You are totally buzzing and a sheer health tonic:grin:

I could not agree more and even though totally busy still a great helper.

aa

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello HHNF!

 

You are totally buzzing and a sheer health tonic

 

But I remember when you first helped me when I found CAG, and I've not forgotten that. We all just take it in turns to be health tonics, and that balances the load to make CAG!

 

Let's hope this gets Maggiebroom back in charge of NatWest. Those bankers have clearly been trying to run the show for too long...with nothing but monumental arrogance, a rubber band and some toilet paper!

 

Time that little game came to an end.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[hellhasnofury]

Hello HHNF!

 

 

 

But I remember when you first helped me when I found CAG, and I've not forgotten that. We all just take it in turns to be health tonics, and that balances the load to make CAG!

 

Let's hope this gets Maggiebroom back in charge of NatWest. Those bankers have clearly been trying to run the show for too long...with nothing but monumental arrogance, a rubber band and some toilet paper!

 

Time that little game came to an end.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Hello BRW,

 

Many thanks for your kind words:D

 

This site as you know, is a life saver to many people, who find it in a desperate state of affairs and are really, really scared to tackle and defend themselves against these big bullies.

 

These institutes thrive on consumer ignorance, and will by any means fair or foul (mostly foul)make profits at the expense of their customers:-x and by my own experience max you out with irresponsible lending adding mis-sold ppi by the thousands and when you run into problems are they there to assist, NO :-xthey toss you to the wolves, and make matters worse, by applying penalty charges, add extortionate interest, add collections charges, default you, and apply for charging orders on your home, attachment of earnings, or worse. They ruin you and not just financially, they break you

 

Of course then they have the option of instructing, selling the debt to a dca, writing of the debt at the end of their financial year, to balance the books, after doing the above.

 

They will come after you for the full amount, after obtaining the debt for 10% of the original amount and it goes on and on.

 

Even with all this going on, they have not followed and do not follow consumer legislation:-x. They break the law in the first instance and then continue on with the unlawful activity that we see in Maggies thread.. They just continue to walk all over their customers because they think they can.

 

But they can't:D and this they do know really and this is why they continue to try to wear you down.

 

I liken it to them acting like babies who spit their dummies out and start screaming,

You have a choice in this, you can give them the dummy back to stop them screaming, but they will spit it out again.

 

Or you can stand your ground and not give them the dummy, they will scream and scream and scream, but eventually they will learn that the dummy is not coming back and no amount of screaming is going to get it back, so the shut up and learn to do without

 

Jeepers just read that post, I need to put my dummy back in:lol:

[Maggiebroom]

Hi folks

 

My head is buzzing.

 

I will not pretend to understand all the legalities, but I think that like BRW's thread NatWest have not behaved properly.

 

I have decided to put down the chronological order that may help to put this sorry tale into prospective.

 

1) March 2007 Telephone call to NatWest to cancel PPI, because of age (retired) and unemployed therefore thought PPI not valid.

2) 7 March 2007 Letter from NatWest with terms & Conditions dated 2006

3) 11 April 2007 Requested SAR (£10 sent) none received

4) 4 May 2007 Default notice giving 14 days of date of notice (18 May)

Account now over limit because of charges.

5) 14 May 2007 Applied for CCA (£1 sent) Default Notice received after

this application. (They crossed in post I think, but cannot prove)

6) date unknown Cheque returned, stating not necessary.

7) 21 May 2007 Cheque resent with stern letter re: denying of right to

see CCA and reminder that CCA right under CCA1974 applies.

8) 7 June 2007 Account Terminated.

9) 10 June 2007 Reminder of 12 day rule under CCA 1974, refusing any

more payments until CCA received.

10) 19 June 2007 Letter from Natwest stating that because of my

complaint re charges on account as a gesture of goodwill they will

refund 74.20 as difference bewteen charges of £20-£12. Also states

this is banks final response. Not sure why they did this. Ignored it

anyway. Still no CCA received. Small table sent showing charges.

11) 22 June 2007 Response from NatWest stating CCA request not

received till 15 June. Illegible copy of "Application Form" No

prescribed terms.

12) 4 July 2007Letter sent stating that my request was signed for on 15

MAY (Royal Mail Tracked). Various sections from CCA1974 stated

including s61,s65,s85, and again asking for true copy of agreement

and also including a S10 notice.

13) 16 July 2007 Reply quoting 1983 regulations, and refuting S10.

14) 30 July 2007 Anbother letter refuting S10 and stating they can

process data.

15) 6 August 2007 Letter sent stating that CCA has not been complied

with.

16) 14 September 2007 Letter from Triton with first threat

29 September 2007 Letter to Triton telling them of situation with CCA

17) 2 October 2007 Triton demand payment

18) 8 October 2007 In view of letter from me re CCA, Triton have passed

account back to NatWest.

19) 16 October 2007 Letter from Natwest stating that they still consider

they are right and I still owe money.

20) 25 October 2007 Another letter from Triton with threat of home visit

and considering further action (after they have passed it back to

NatWest)

21) 2 November 2007 Letter to Triton stating that account in legal

dispute, and therefore they are illegaly demanding payment.

22) 23 November 2007 Another threatogram from Triton

23) 7 December 2007 Triton threaten legal proceedings, charges against

home and wages deductions.

24) 9 December 2007 2nd Default Notice received from NatWest. (WHY?)

Amount has gone up again. Must pay arrears by 23 dec.

25) 24 December 2007 Letter from Greens solicitors threatening court

proceedings.

26) 6 January 2008 Letter to Greens reveiwing case and asking NatWest

to supply properly executed CCA for court proceedings. (never

received a reply)

27) 24 January 2008 Interim Justitia joined the action with threat of

legal proceedings.

28) 25 January 2008 Letter from NatWest re: my letter to Greens. They

stand by their letter of 16 Oct 2007. ??????

29) 4 February 2008 Long letter to Interims explaing breaches of CCA1974

and harrassment acts.

30) 31 January 2008 (long time in post) Home visit from Imterims

threatened.

31) 7 Feb 2008 Letter to Interims denying right to visit.

32) 21 February 2008 Interims threaten home visit again.

33) 26 February 2008 Copy of 7 Feb letter sent to Interims.

34) 3 March 2008 Debt Investigations join the cast, with threat of delving

into my life and threatening personal home visit.

35) 9 March 2008 Letter to DI Ltd stating account in dispute, and they

should not be involved. (nothing heard from them after this)

36) 8 May 2008 Regal Credit join in the cast as well with threat Notice.

37) 12 May 2008 Account in dispute letter sent to them saying their

pursuite is vexatious and unlawful.

38) 14 May 2008 Regal Credit threaten again.

39) 26 May 2008 Regal Credit threaten again.

40) October 2008 Westcots join in with daily phone calls (ignored) and

now Final Notice.

 

Im sorry if this is boring for everyone but it seems to me that this proves that NatWest know they don't have a case. After reading BRWs thread I am sure that the default Notice is invalid and that they don't have a CCA. I cannot understand why they issued a second default notice at least 6 months after the first. What is the relevance of that? I am certain that one is just completely irrelevant.

 

I haven't managed a letter yet as I have no idea where to start. Because this has been going on for 18 months the beginning of the case has become somewhat muddled.

 

I fully intend to write to the Company Secretary as BRW advised and in very strong terms..

I beleive the whole matter revolves around the CCA. I do not beleive they have one at all.

The "application" is illegible, and has no prescribed terms whatsoever. Just like BRW's. The terms & conditions are also nonrelevant as they are not the same date as the "application".

 

On a lighter note

 

1) I would love them put a charging order on my Council House

2) I would also like them to try and deduct money from my state pension

3) I have a large baseball bat called Thumper (made and bought in USA)

waiting for the lucky agent who dares to make me a home visit.

 

As for my Credit report. I don't want any more Credit. What I can't pay for now I go without.

 

I will get back to all when I have composed some sort of letter.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

PS The blue smilies were not put in by me. SPOOKY.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

PS The blue smilies were not put in by me. SPOOKY.

 

The CAG Forum Software automatically inserts a smiley with Shades or Goggles whenever it finds an 8 with a Close bracket ) after it.

 

If there's a gap between them, you can avoid this happening, i.e.

 

8 )

 

But, move them together, and the Forum Software thinks you really wanted an annoying Smiley with Shades or Goggles on, i.e.:

 

8)

 

The Year 2008 is OK, but add a Bracket next to the 8 and you get the dangerous combination of an 8 and a close bracket ) next to each other, and up pops a Shades Smiley when you least expect it, i.e.:

 

2008)

 

This only appears when you Post the Post, or when you save an Edit...it doesn't appear as you type it.

 

So, had you added a space that would've avoided it, i.e.:

 

2008 )

 

A bit of a PITA, but that is the work around.

 

However, if you get one, you then have to delete the annoying little critter. So, just click edit, find the little Smiley sucker, delete it, then type an 8 and then add a close Bracket ) but don't forget to add a space! Otherwise the little Shades smiley fellow will pop back again!

 

More than you wanted to know I would think!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Maggiebroom]

Hi BRW

 

Many thanks for that explanation. I thought my PC had got an attack of the little blue men.

 

I am at the moment trying to compose a letter to NatWest company Secretary. as I have to decided to go with your suggestion of Plan B.

 

However I have absolutely no idea how to compose this letter. I am like one of those writers who fills the waste basket with loads of screwed up pages. I am wary of putting anything in the letter that may go against me. I am also worried about making the letter too long, but I also want to include all the relevant legal points.

 

Once I get started, I will be OK.

 

Could I impose on you to perhaps give me pointers on how to start the letter and what I should or should not include. I want to get it right without looking like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I have looked at the default notice and concluded that it is invalid, but I have concerns about the second one sent 6 months later. Why did they send another one and have I missed something?

 

Sorry to be a pain. I am no ignoramus when it comes to words, but how to start this has caused some sort of writers block.

 

Many, many thanks in advance.

 

maggiebroom

[WelcomeItAint!]

Hi Maggie

 

I have been reading your thfread with the greatest interest and wuold like to say how much I admire you. I am at the beginning of starting a very long ( and drawn out ) battle with Welcome Finance. Your thread has given me the strength to fight them all the way..

 

Good luck in your fight !

 

WIA XXX:-)

[WelcomeItAint!]

P.S - Must learn how to spell !!! haha

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maggiebroom!

 

Could I impose on you to perhaps give me pointers on how to start the letter and what I should or should not include. I want to get it right without looking like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

 

I'll try and grab one that I've sent, and will see what I can do.

 

Just flat out at the moment, and not getting much over 2-3 hours sleep a night right now!

 

Bear with me, will be back ASAP!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Maggiebroom]

Many thanks BRW