NatWest - Negligent By It's Actions?

Loobeylou

I have a relative who banks with NatWest, and who is on a limited budget. Some 20 months or so ago when her spending got a little out of control we visited the local branch to discuss the situation. We paid off the money owing, and specifically requested that the overdraft limit be set at £50 so that there was a small buffer in the event that something went out of her account before she managed to put the funds in.

Within one year that amount was automatically increased by the bank to £550 and in January this year it was automatically increased by yet another £500 to £1050. She states that at no time did she request either of these increases. At this second point of increase they did send her a letter stating that they had done this and put the onus on her to tell them if this was not acceptable - she did not respond. However, she states that she does not recall any first letter stating that the overdraft was going up to £550.

At the meeting with the Branch Manager nearly two years ago (who finally became involved in the meeting) we did state that this person could not afford for her expenses to be allowed to get out of control. The Manager offerred to put the overdraft limit up again at this time, but we firmly stated no. This was not acceptable and certainly would not help the situation.

We have recently found out that due to NatWest putting up the overdraft limit twice she has spiralled out of control financially again and was more than £1000 in debt.

Back to the bank, and spoke to a new Bank Manager. He could not comment on the first Manager's actions, as it was "too far back in their records" and that they could only check on the past twelve months. We again requested the overdraft to be set at £50, but he stated that this could not be done until the debt was cleared, which we have now done. However, he could not promise that the overdraft would remain at £50. In view of this we are in the process of transferring her account to another bank.

Our Dilema:

No-one is for one moment stating that the money has not been spent, and we are not stating that the bank should subsidise this spending.

However, we do feel that the bank was negligent in twice putting up the overdraft limit - especially in view of the visit nearly two years ago. They were told very firmly that this could not be allowed to happen again, yet they took the very steps which enabled it to happen again. And although the bank are stating that they have not added "bank charges" they have added a monthly "interest charge" on the overdraft, which of course has made the situation worse.

Other opinions on this would be welcomed.

tom188

Nonsense

People need to take responsibility for their own options. Natwest provided the opportunity to cancel and this was ignored. They are a bank not a nursemaid. And if your relative is borrowing money off them of course they are entitled to interest.

tarajayne

The letters that are sent give notice of an intention to raise the overdraft limit, giving anyone time to contact the bank and say they don't want it.The banks don't do it then let someone know, should have refused it at the time. Dare I suggest that you stop bailing your relative out and perhaps if they have to pay it back themselves it will make them think before they do it again.

Mark7799

Is there any reason why your relative cannot act for themselves?

It seems that the Bank have not made any special dispensation for her and treated her in the same way as they would treat every customer (not saying this is good or bad, merefly trying to establish what has happened).

Why has her borrowing increased (is it through debit card/cheque usage or direct debits)? Can she discipline herself NOT to use these facilities?

The interest charge is only to be expected if she is borrowing money from the Bank (authorised or unauthorised).

Loobeylou

tom188 wrote: »

Nonsense

People need to take responsibility for their own options. Natwest provided the opportunity to cancel and this was ignored. They are a bank not a nursemaid. And if your relative is borrowing money off them of course they are entitled to interest.

This is in no way disputed, as I tried to point out in my original post when I stated that "No-one is for one moment stating that the money has not been spent, and we are not stating that the bank should subsidise this spending". I have tried to give the facts as they are, not to brush over any points which may not be in our favour. How else can I hope to gain impartial advice?

And I do agree that NatWest provided the opportunity to cancel, but only the second time they put up the overdraft. Up until that time the account was more or less in the black, not the red, and therefore it went unnoticed that the overdraft had already been increased once over.

By the way Tarajayne, and for what its worth, we partially bailed her out the first time, but not the second! She has had to do that herself by selling what little investments she had.

However, what we are stating is that the bank were given strict instructions to keep the overdraft at a limit of £50, and they chose not to adhere to the instructions of one of their customers. Which is why we are asking the question - are NatWest negligent in any way?

regularsaver1

Maybe they should have taken the overdraft away in total?

garagemc

And this person.... are they not capable of taking responsibility of their own actions? If there dyslexic etc, then you have a duty to notify the bank. This simply to prevent misselling/misleading.

popsicle_2

Unfortunately baks do not care about people and how much debt they get into.. they're just happy to reap the benefits of the charges. I work with people with mental health difficulties, and regularly have to help bail people out of financial problems, as the banks continue to offer people loans, credit cards etc, who simply cannot afford to pay them back, and have little or no capacity to understand the dangers they are getting into. Banks do nothing to help people in such situations, nor to prevent it from happening in the first place. As for people taking reponsibiltiy for their own spending.. some people just aren't capable of this... the banks should be more understanding.. as should some of the writers in this post!!!!

ManAtHome

Definitely with Popsicle - not surprisingly, banks are money-grabbing ***** and don't really give a toss unless you have some "power of attorney" (or whatever). Even if you move or close the account, presumably nothing to stop your relative opening more accounts and racking up debt. Only possible way to get a result seems to be going to the TV - FSA etc are definitely not on your side.

Banker54

We can go on and on and get up on our high horse about how this person should have had more control over their spending habbits, but that isnt Loobeylou is asking. They are asking if the bank were wrong to twice increase the overdraft.

And i think you have a point, in light of your relatives previous problems i think the bank should never have increased the overdraft as it is just asking for trouble, and i have no doubt that if it was a person looking through your relatives records and deciding what action to take i highly doubt it would have ever been increased. But the reality of it is it most likely is a computer generated thing, the computer see's the overdraft hasnt been exceeded recently and sufficent credits have been recieved to the account to justify a higher overdraft, and being a computer it doesnt think about the person, and how can it?

The sad fact is computers are taking over and make more and more decisions, and people are involved in this sort of thing less and less, so things like this will happen its up to us to keep on top of things. Thats my 2 cents anyway!

Loobeylou

The new Bank Manager did state that on looking at her account, she was considered to be a good customer! And yet they could see her wage going in, and it is not a huge amount.

With regard to the overdraft being taken away in total, we were advised at that first meeting that it would be better to have the £50 buffer.

This person is not mentally subnormal, does not have credit cards or a cheque book, but is just a young woman trying to keep a roof over her and her two children's heads. She finds it terribly difficult to budget, and it is not helped by the fact that the childrens' father pays not one penny towards the upkeep of his young children! So she struggles.

And before anyone mentions the CSA - it's like a totally lost cause. Hours on the telephone on our part and months of inactivity on their part means that fathers are getting away with not contributing anything apart from their sperm in the first place!!

So thank you to those of you who tried to see the position this young woman was in and offered advice instead of damning both her and me out of hand.

Any further comments on the original question of whether the bank was negligent in this case would be welcome.