Natwest foul-up

astrogeezer

This a strange one, but it could cost Natwest dearly. My wife and I invested £15000 each in the NS&I index linked 5 year bond. We sent 2 cheques dated 2 September with our application forms and went abroad on holiday 5 September in the mistaken belief that all would proceed without any problem. But that was before our bank (the Natwest) took exception to the 2 cheques and dishonoured them 'Not signed in accordance with mandate'. When we returned home 15 September and opened our mail, we were horrified to learn that the NS&I had cancelled the certificates because the Natwest had bounced the cheques. When I telephoned the Natwest to demand to know why they dishonoured the cheques, I was told that both our signatures differed from those held on file. When I protested vehemently and argued with the section leader responsible, followed by e-mails etc, the person responsible for the dishonouring of the cheques plus her team leader admitted their mistake and profusely apologised and said they would make reparation. The problem is that the NS&I closed the index linked bond on 6 September and although the Natwest have written and spoken to the NS&I to explain their foul-up and presumably begged the NS&I to reinstate both certificates to save the Natwest from having to pay us equal restitution to match the current NS&I rate of 5.15% approx (which is also tax free). Over the term of 5 years, depending on the prevailing RPI, this could amount to thousands of pounds. We have now involved at this early stage the Financial Ombudsman. I have also insisted on a full written apology and copy specimens of our signatures. What further procedures or advice can forum members offer. It could take many weeks of wrangling between the Natwest and NS&I. But surely the Natwest must carry the can and bear ultimate responsibility for their terrible mishandling. And as a side issue, the bank initially tried to blame us for being on holiday at the time, as they said they couldn't contact us.:rotfl:

pqrdef

It would probably help if NS&I had a proper system of customer accounts. As things are, it may be relatively easy for somebody to buy a product with a false identity and a non-matching stolen cheque, then grab the cash and disappear. And they obviously can't cope with banks querying every payment. Leaves the banks in something of a no-win situation.

dunstonh

'Not signed in accordance with mandate

I have seen a few of these in recent years. They are on the increase and not one of them was a valid reason for rejection. A couple were blatant marketing attempts to get the person in so they could stop the investment and use the bank's own investments instead.

This subject came up on an IFA newsblog earlier in the year and lots of advisers were getting the same.

I was told that both our signatures differed from those held on file.

If that was the case the cheque should not have been returned for the reason "not drawn in accordance of mandate". They should have used "signature differs" as the reason.

Not drawn in accordance with mandate is used when one signs when there should be two or on business accounts where it needs a combination of two signatories but the right combo has not been done.

We have now involved at this early stage the Financial Ombudsman. I have also insisted on a full written apology and copy specimens of our signatures.

I would persist as much as you can. As I said, they have returned the cheques using the wrong reason and I suspect they are using the signature difference as an excuse rather than it being the real reason. If you see the signatures are the same as your cheque, then you should win your complaint.

dunstonh

Talked that one up. Just had another cheque come back for that reason. This one was Natwest and its on a sole account. The chap has been asked to call into the branch. They seemed happy to set up adirect debit and pay other cheques but this one has been bounced for that reason. It is to an investment company.

opinions4u

It's times like this that the regulator should get involved and start dishing out fines.

Nat West are clearly extracting the urine here for their own commercial benefit.

In the mean time, work out what you think it will cost you over 5 years and ask them to pay it back as a lump sum now. Start with the current RPI as a 5 year measure (but be prepared to see a reasonable response of "we think RPI will fall").

alanq

opinions4u wrote: »

In the mean time, work out what you think it will cost you over 5 years and ask them to pay it back as a lump sum now. Start with the current RPI as a 5 year measure (but be prepared to see a reasonable response of "we think RPI will fall").

I would argue that compensation may be due for more than 5 years. Money once invested in ILSC can be rolled over into new Saving Certificates for a life time. An opportunity for a tax free, super-safe index linked savings product has been missed for ever. (assuming that you have sufficient funds to make maximum deposits as each issue comes out). I have no idea how to quantify the potential loss but at least this is a counter-argument to any suggestion that RPI is expected to fall.

brewerdave

dunstonh wrote: »

Talked that one up. Just had another cheque come back for that reason. This one was Natwest and its on a sole account. The chap has been asked to call into the branch. They seemed happy to set up adirect debit and pay other cheques but this one has been bounced for that reason. It is to an investment company.

Had a similar occurrence with NatWest recently involving attempted Debit card transaction to a building society. Failed twice,and was referred to an 0845 number ,which turned out to be Natwest Fraud dept. Even after it had been "cleared" ,transaction failed again so I sent money by BACS in 3 tranches instead.
But the interesting thing was that I got a phone call just after the original attempts to use the debit card ,encouraging me to visit my branch to discuss my large current account balance.Coincidence? I think not!!

alanq

NatWest's anti-fraud measures seem excessive. On a couple of occasions having logged in using passwords and set up a new payee using card-reader and PIN I have received phone calls from its anti-fraud department before it would allow the first payment to be sent. This has never been followed with any sales pitch.