Natwest admits signature forgery

Graham_Devon

How would you feel if you discovered your high street bank had forged your signature on a document? It sounds fanciful, or even in the realms of conspiracy theory, but this is the situation Phil Morley has found himself in – and it's not just him claiming he's been the victim of foul play. NatWest has admitted, in writing, that its own handwriting specialist "has confirmed they believe Mr Morley's signature was forged".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

Theres more than one case in the article, but the article, and myself are by now means suggesting this is wide spread.

However, it makes you wonder, with all the other problems associated with miss sales, all driven by bonsues, surely the bonus culture has to come to an end? Even though the forgery has taken place, the bank still wants the money loaned under the forged signatory conditions.

It's driving greed, unlawful and sometimes completely illegal practices.

Thrugelmir

The point at issue isn't the loan advance, but the terms of the loan.

There's always going to be single cases such as this.

julieq

Stretching a point to compare commission based fraud from a retail bank with bonus culture from investment banks. This is the same practise as, for example, faked signatures on transfer of utilities from doorstep selling of switching services. Commission has always been a part of sales remuneration, and there's always been sharp practice. It doesn't invalidate the practice as a whole, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with commissions on performance for investment bankers, who get a proportion of the profit they generate.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, it makes you wonder, with all the other problems associated with miss sales, all driven by bonsues, surely the bonus culture has to come to an end? Even though the forgery has taken place, the bank still wants the money loaned under the forged signatory conditions.

It's driving greed, unlawful and sometimes completely illegal practices.

What a daft over-reaction.

pqrdef

Seems like the real Phil Morley put his real signature on an agreement that included PPI, having made a verbal arrangement that he didn't want this and it would be fixed. Evidently his signature wasn't quite so sacred then. What if they'd held him to the PPI deal on the grounds that he'd signed for it, instead of tearing it up?

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What a daft over-reaction.

Daft over-reaction? I disagree and you might like to read this link.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/289229/Citizens-Advice-faces-record-surge-over-struggling-Scots-debts

I also disagree with julieq's defense of the corrupt and sleazy world of commission based financial products. Commission has been the catalyst behind the misselling of unsuitable or underperforming pensions, endowments, unit trusts, mortgages, mortgage protection etc. You name a financial product and there is a major misselling scandal to go with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/misselling-scandal-who-can-you-trust-6275145.html

The current methods of awarding commission act against the better interests of consumers since it drives down the quality of financial services (since the worst providers of financial services inevitably pay the highest commissions). It is no surprise that we have opaque fee structures, poorly performing unit trusts, misselling scandals and the worst performing pensions in Europe.