Nat West letter saying accounts are to be closed??

d123

helentay wrote: »

My brother doesn't need any form of credit other than a small overdraft for his business.

They (his property investment company) own more homes than they can live in - free of any charges, they have substantial cash deposits so no need for a loan, he pays everything including his car, house etc insurance in full at renewal.

He, they, simply have no need to be indebted to anyone in their private life. Their cars are leased to his property company with a contra charge being levied against his sole trading business for tax reasons.

One of your statements has to be false, if they have no need to be indebted, why does he need an overdraft?

Makes no sense, if he doesn't need the overdraft, why does he run his business in the overdraft?

TheBanker

helentay wrote: »

They (his property investment company) own more homes than they can live in - free of any charges,

How would your brother react if he had a tennant who was always late paying their rent, and who ignored letters/reminders to pay? Would he allow them to continue to live in the property, or would he ask them to leave? As a business man himself, he should realise that Natwest are entitled to deciede who they do business with (or not).

However, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. If his overdraft was removed in April, he would have received a stream of letters, becoming more severe over time. And he would have received letters about being overdrawn, even when his balance was overdrawn by less than the £500 overdraft that he thought he had. This should have prompted him to contact the bank. Issuing a Default Notice doesn't happen until dozens of other attempts to get the customer to rectify the problem have failed.

However, even if there was a mistake, it sounds like he's been abusive towards staff members which is grounds on its own for closing an account. This is not a course of action the bank will have decided to take without serious consideration.

helentay_2

innovate wrote: »

All the more staggering that he constantly helped himself to NatWest's money over months and months.

business, only. I said private life!

helentay_2

d123 wrote: »

One of your statements has to be false, if they have no need to be indebted, why does he need an overdraft?

Makes no sense, if he doesn't need the overdraft, why does he run his business in the overdraft?

In private life he does not want to be indebted to anyone, in business well that is a different thing.

chambta

What are the chances that the 'brother' is in fact the poster here?

helentay_2

TheBanker wrote: »

How would your brother react if he had a tennant who was always late paying their rent, and who ignored letters/reminders to pay? Would he allow them to continue to live in the property, or would he ask them to leave? As a business man himself, he should realise that Natwest are entitled to deciede who they do business with (or not).

However, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. If his overdraft was removed in April, he would have received a stream of letters, becoming more severe over time. And he would have received letters about being overdrawn, even when his balance was overdrawn by less than the £500 overdraft that he thought he had. This should have prompted him to contact the bank. Issuing a Default Notice doesn't happen until dozens of other attempts to get the customer to rectify the problem have failed.

However, even if there was a mistake, it sounds like he's been abusive towards staff members which is grounds on its own for closing an account. This is not a course of action the bank will have decided to take without serious consideration.

I think you are missing the point of all of this.

My brother believed that he had his £500 business overdraft extended as usual in April 2012. As in the years before he received no letters when it was renewed other than a note to say that £50 would be taken from his account being the annual fee. So when he received these letters a couple of days ago he was shocked to hear that the bank had not renewed it in April 2012.

Now he quite rightly would have expected the bank to have written to him in April 2012 telling him that that was what had been decided. Move forward until a week or so ago, the bank had raised no objection to his continued use of the overdraft facility since April 2012.

Then the bank accept that they should have told him in April 2012, and that they should have noticed that he had continued to use a facility that was no longer there. They have apologised for that.

My brother is annoyed for two reasons, (1) the bank accept that they allowed my brother to go overdrawn for the past 9 months as being their error, but at the same time tell him that he has been borrowing money from the bank without permission and because of that he is no longer trustworthy (2) the bank wrote to his wife cancelling the personal accounts when she has no connection with the business other than she works for my brother.

To me that smacks of double standards. Yes the bank were wrong in failing to tell my brother, they were wrong for not bringing it to his notice over the past 9 months (incidentally they did actually write to him telling him that he was £41 over his limit of £500 just before Christmas 2012)

Yet penalising him for compounding the errors by actually using an overdraft that had not existed for the past 9 months, that he believed still existed.

I do know that if the bank were to put it in writing that they made the mistakes that led to all of this happening then he would settle the debt. Yet the bank is that arrogant that not withstanding they 'cocked - up' big time and have admitted it so verbally, have refused to put it in writing. They blame my brother for using their money when it was their mistake that put him in that situation.

stclair

They would have seen the overdraft amount online.

Did they not check their statement or online banking since April 2012.

Then they would have know the overdraft was not in place.

Did they not have the business alerts set up on the account?

I would not worry about it now just get your "brother" to set up a payment arrangement with NatWest and start using the new Halifax account.

pmduk

helentay wrote: »

The ball is now in Nat West's court as to how far they want to push it for the debit balance on the business account of just under the previously agreed limit of £500..

Despite the fact that he now has no overdraft he's hanging on to the money regardless. Hardly the "canny businessman" you paint him to be, with the cost of unauthorised overdrafts.

innovate

helentay wrote: »

So when he received these letters a couple of days ago he was shocked to hear that the bank had not renewed it in April 2012.

helentay wrote: »

Of course he received their letters advising him of the overlimit situation. I have seen 5 such letters received in a 12 month period advising of between £40 and £100 over.

So he received at least 5 letters regarding his overdraft situation, he appears to have ignored all of them, and then he is "shocked" that the bank essentially tell him enough is enough?

Would love to also hear Natwest's side of this story - from what you said, there is good reason to believe that your brother got abusive with staff, which by itself is enough reason to close all accounts that bear his name (incl joint accounts, of course).

pmduk

I wonder how long the Halifax will tolerate his behaviour.