Nat West letter saying accounts are to be closed??

JuicyJesus

If anyone here works for RBS Group, I believe this bit:

he will not let it rest there and is capable of anything as an act of revenge. I just hope that the bank and the satff realise what they have started.

It is very rare that I see my brother in this mood. He would willingly sacrifice anything including his liberty to exact upon the bank what he feels they deserve.

Is the bit where you escalate this to your security department.

No joke.

Sommer43

helentay wrote: »

But he did repay what was asked of him. Always. He and his wife were under the impression that there was and always had been a £500 borrowing limit.

The only unauthorised borrowing was that that exceeded £500.

He is not saying that he doesn't owe them any money - he knows he owes them £498 - well £497 to be precise.
He has told them that he will settle the debt - that is not in dispute, what they are saying is that they want it settled in the next 27 days. End of! Something that he will not agree to as no one has told him the reason for the action taken. As I have said before if the bank were to put in writing what he was told verbally that they were at fault in the first place in that they failed to communicate with him the intention to withdraw his facility and secondly that they 'messed up' by still allowing him to have an overdaft since April 2012 he would settle the debt immediately. As it is they won't even do that.

Oh Helen, has he ever read the terms and conditions regarding his overdraft? The bank can demand repayment of an overdraft facility at any time. It's their money. They haven't failed in their duty, they have simply informed him they want to close his account and demanded full repayment of their outstanding monies. He got this letter.

I know you're not disputing the debt, you're disputing the bank's behaviour and he is, but they have done nothing wrong. They are acting within their terms and conditions. Which are regulated. Banks may well seem to be able to do what they want, but that's not the case here. He repeatedly borrowed money without arranging an extension on his overdraft prior and no matter he went in and paid the funds to correct the balance the next day, it is still unauthorised borrowing.

You're not doing yourself any favours here. Paying his debt off at a £1 a week is foolish if he can afford to pay it off. He's a number to the bank and you might not like this, but this is the way it is. NATWEST will survive without him as a customer. He's not really making a stance by doing this, he's just making himself look a bit of a fool. I can see them all now when he comes in and hands over his £1 very proudly. I suspect (the girls in our branch are great) the girls will be guffawing with laughter on his approach... I'd just think what a tit he was making of himself.

It was only 3 days ago that he heard for the first time that he had not been entitled to go even a 1p overdrawn without permission for the past 10 months.

I think, had he read his five letters previously, there would have been something in there regarding borrowing behaviour and his overdraft would have been withdrawn, he just hasn't read it.

I feel that the bank have not considered the impact of all of this. All it needed was sometime during the past 10 months was for the bank to write to him or telephone him telling him exactly what the position was and could he bring the account into credit asap.
He would then have gone down to the bank and discussed the matter calmly and would have handed them the full amount in cash to clear things up.

But they did, they wrote to him, five times...

There was never the option to repay the debt over a given timeframe. It was £597 by the 22nd March or else face court and/or insolvency proceedings.

Who actually started the threatening behaviour, my brother or the bank!

Your brother.

To me the bank have been heavy handed and inconsiderate.

To decide that he is not fit to be one of their customers goes a little too far in my opinion.

:eek: is all I can say here.

Hence the reason why he is now determined that as the bank have determined that he is not a fit person to have any bank account for reasons that they have not fully explained, he will not let it rest there and is capable of anything as an act of revenge. I just hope that the bank and the satff realise what they have started.

Am beginning to think this is a wind-up. Are you insane?

It is very rare that I see my brother in this mood. He would willingly sacrifice anything including his liberty to exact upon the bank what he feels they deserve.

Oh dear, NATWEST? There may be trouble ahead...

Helen, what's he going to do? Apart from pay his £1 a week back? I almost can't wait to hear your response.

innovate

helentay wrote: »

He has told them that he will settle the debt - that is not in dispute, what they are saying is that they want it settled in the next 27 days. End of! Something that he will not agree to as no one has told him the reason for the action taken.

Firstly, for someone making £100K a year it is just too petty to even blink about paying back a £497 debt within 27 (or originally 30) days.

Secondly, if your brother and you could be bothered to read the T&Cs that your brother agreed to when he opened his account, he/you will notice that Natwest (or any bank, for that matter) can call in an overdraft in full at any time, without giving any reason.

chambta

JuicyJesus wrote: »

If anyone here works for RBS Group, I believe this bit:



Is the bit where you escalate this to your security department.

No joke.

What makes me laugh is how people think they can 'beat' the bank or get 'revenge'. It's pretty simple - you can't.

What sort of individual would deem it acceptable behaviour to even propose this?

meer53

Natwest won't be worried one little bit about the OP's brother, he's no longer their customer. If they don't get their money, he will be dealing with a debt collector. Goody, someone else he can threaten ! Don't think they'll be quite as restrained as Natwest.

I find the OP's posts hilarious, who in their right mind would post stuff like this ?

Southernman

Poor Helen, the brother hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Times like this i feel sorry for the branch staff having to deal with idiots who take no responsibility for their actions.

I love the idea of him taking on the bank, where's the popcorn?

chambta

Southernman wrote: »

Poor Helen, the brother hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Times like this i feel sorry for the branch staff having to deal with idiots who take no responsibility for their actions.

I love the idea of him taking on the bank, where's the popcorn?

It'd likely end with his arrest either at the branch or somewhere else shortly afterwards if he threatened, or worse, a member of staff.

Sommer43

It's not looking good for Helen's brother. I don't think NATWEST will be losing much sleep about him tonight, but I bet he's got his fist clenched and white knuckling and thinking "How dare they?"

It's like an episode from Faulty Towers this one.

meer53

Southernman wrote: »

Poor Helen, the brother hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Times like this i feel sorry for the branch staff having to deal with idiots who take no responsibility for their actions.

I love the idea of him taking on the bank, where's the popcorn?

I'm sure his doting sister will let us know how he handles it

I hope she does. She will be very proud.

gb12345

chambta wrote: »

It'd likely end with his arrest

That's not a problem for him as "He would willingly sacrifice anything including his liberty to exact upon the bank what he feels they deserve."