Nat West letter saying accounts are to be closed??

pmduk

helentay wrote: »

I have seen him seriously argue and become intimidating with a shopkeeper over shortage of change (22p)!

This is probably what has caused it. He may have felt aggrieved at being asked to repay the money he borrowed without benefit of an overdraft and felt entitled to vent his spleen.

Bank staff are not there to take this sort of hassle. Your brother may win the battle, but the banks have the big guns to win the war.

bengal-stripe

helentay wrote: »

I have seen him seriously argue and become intimidating with a shopkeeper over shortage of change (22p)!

So, your brother doesn't shy away from bullying.......

helentay wrote: »

.....he has had motoring charges - speeding, careless driving etc just disappear with the help of his friends in the Met.

he doesn't shy away from a bit of illegality.....but...

helentay wrote: »

It is a genuine and honest business that they both run successfully.

Now we know it!

JuicyJesus

There is so much dodginess here I can't believe it.

A profitable (obscenely profitable, in fact, to the point where I'd be concerned it wasn't a legitimate organisation - he has profit margins of over 100%) business with £188,000 turnover should not be run so sloppily that it leads to unauthorised overdrafts. End of story. No further discussion on this point is needed.

People who dig their heels in and decide to say "screw the bank" think they will get away with it. They won't. In virtually all circumstances it is better to try to come to an amicable and reasonable arrangement in an amicable and reasonable manner. OP's brother is being neither amicable (the letter they sent to his wife makes it clear they do not wish to deal with him personally any more) nor reasonable (I wonder what sort of face the FOS would pull at his ludicrous offer of £1 a month.)

From the sounds of things, and to be quite frank, he sounds like an aggressive, self-entitled, self-important bully who expects to be able to get his own way all the time. Such people tend to need an involuntary attitude readjustment of the type getting lots of CCJs should give you, but then refuse to take it on board because they still firmly believe it's everyone else's fault. Which may very well echo what I said above about finding it hard to believe the business is "genuine and honest".

innovate

helentay wrote: »

Yes I will accept that he should have been more proactive with the bank, but then the bank should have been as proactive themselves. It is a two way thing. It would be fully understandable if he ignored the bank but he never. I think his way of thinking was 'what is £40 for a day or so in the grand scheme of things'

You are joking, are you.

You area absolutely right, it is a two-way thing. According to you, the bank wrote to him several times about the overdrawn situation.

You said before he didn't respond to these letters, but now you say 'he never ignored the bank'.

It may only have been £40 (though your other posts suggest he was sometimes overdrawn by more) - but where exactly would you draw the line for needing to respond? £50? £100? £10,000? To avoid any misunderstandings, the banks have got a very simple rule everyone should find easy to understand - - - if you go negative on your balance (incl any agreed overdraft), you are using unarranged overdraft money. If you habitually do this sort of thing, and on top of that ignore any letters you get sent about it, you shouldn't be surprised if the bank pulls the plug eventually. Surprising they didn't do it much sooner.

pmduk

I just wonder how the OP's brother would react had someone "borrowed" £578 from him without agreement on a frequent basis.

DevCoder

Its almost a wonder how a CIFAS marker hasn't been applied already given the ingoing/outgoing and profit margins

innovate

helentay wrote: »

"Dear Mrs *****
Unfortunately due to a breakdown in communication with the other party to the above accounts we have to withdraw banking facilities forthwith.You may withdraw funds from these accounts but unfortunately any attempt to make deposits will be refused. Alternatively you may wish to remove the other party from these accounts. If you wish to explore this option, please contact your local branch.

Please be aware that at the expiry of 30 days from today's date, any credit balances still held in these accounts will be siezed and used under the right of set off".

This sort of letter would have been approved by Natwest's lawyers. They rarely make mistakes on those matters, but your brother obviously could afford his own lawyers to contest the Natwest position in Court.

helentay wrote: »

he wasn't best pleased!

Well, he's the one who is solely responsible for the situation.

helentay wrote: »

If he feels that he has been 'turned over' his words, nothing will stop him doing what he feels is appropriate and necessary to resolve the matter to his satisfaction no matter what the consequences are.

From what you say, your brother wouldn't stop short from taking the law into his own hands, even if it lands him, and perhaps members of his family, in jail, and ruins him and them financially and reputationally for the rest of their lives.

And all that for being unable to stay within his overdraft facility (or arrange for one) when he earns £100k+ a year.

As they would say in Only Fools And Horses: What a plonker!

(and forgive me, but you are just as big a plonker for defending him for more than a nanosecond)

helentay_2

meer53 wrote: »

Your brother deserves everything Natwest throw at him. I can't understand why you are defending him.

I hope you realise that Natwest staff read these boards ?

Does he? We will see how he gets on.

Simply because I am his sister! No matter what I may think about him and what he does, he is still my little brother (well not so little other than by age) and I will defend him to the end, no matter what - that is what families do for each other isn't it?

As for Nat West reading these boards, do I care? Does he care? By this time next week half the town will know!

meer53

helentay wrote: »

Does he? We will see how he gets on.

Simply because I am his sister! No matter what I may think about him and what he does, he is still my little brother (well not so little other than by age) and I will defend him to the end, no matter what - that is what families do for each other isn't it?

As for Nat West reading these boards, do I care? Does he care? By this time next week half the town will know!

No, it's not what families do. I have 2 brothers, if either of them acted like yours has, i would be telling them to grow up and stop thinking the world revolves around them. If you can't see that what he does is wrong then maybe you are just like him ?

You and your brother should care about what you post on a forum, especially when making comments about avoiding being charged for offences with the help of people in the Metropolitan Police Force.

It's quite easy to obtain personal details from information on here, now you have put this in the public domain it could quite easily come back to bite him (and you) on the backside. Not a good idea really. In fact it was pretty stupid.

dalesrider

helentay wrote: »

I have seen for my own eyes how in the past he has had motoring charges - speeding, careless driving etc just disappear with the help of his friends in the Met. I would be more than surprised if he didn't take the matter into his own hands with the bank. The bank may win eventually, but as my brother would say - it will be on his terms.

I'll quote that for posterity...... That way deleting or editing the post makes no diffrence :beer:

We're a journalistic website

And given the flack the Met are getting at the moment. I hope that above comment was just a joke....

Is it a Ltd co or sole trader?

For the hell of it NW could take it all the way.

Families is about supporting each other when in need, and when they act like a spolit child. Telling them to grow up and behave....

NOT blindly supporting them even when they are so out of line.