Natwest Loan

lkman

I have actually asked the FOS this and they state that no agreement means no loan.

I have simply asked natwest to produce an agreement or a reconstituted one, thats all. If theh can't then i'll stop paying.

sourcrates

lkman wrote: »

I have actually asked the FOS this and they state that no agreement means no loan.

I have simply asked natwest to produce an agreement or a reconstituted one, thats all. If theh can't then i'll stop paying.

Precisely !!! No agreement = no loan, simple as that !!

andyfromotley

Business is governed by law not by morals.
The CCA is there to provide protection to the borrower AND the lender.

One could just as easily argue that the lender has a moral duty to use its millions (or billions) at its disposal to ensure that it complies with the law. As it has failed to do so should they morally be collecting a debt that they cant enforce?
Did they, knowing that they had conned billions of pounds out of people by selling them useless PPI, decide morally that they should repay them? No, they were dragged kicking and screaming into court, using every legal tactic they could to avoid liability until they were FORCED to pay. Its a bit rich when dealing with such amoral companires to have a go at the OP for using the law to his advantage.

They cant prove the debt, dont pay em. No final settlement, just refuse to pay because they have not and cannot comply with the law.

Puddylove

Well, Andy, to quote my mum 'two wrongs don't make a right'. The banks may be the most evil institutions on earth, but if you owe them money you have a moral obligation to repay them.
Yes, I understand that the Natwest's failure to keep records means it is not legally enforceable, but that doesn't mean the OP doesn't still owe it.

I was brought up to keep my word, pay my debts, and not take (steal?) anything that isn't mine. I even give back the money when supermarkets give me too much change, and return money I find if I can.

I'm sure that makes me a laughable idiot to all you 'money savvy' people, but I'm too old to change my ways.
P X

andyfromotley

Puddylove wrote: »

Well, Andy, to quote my mum 'two wrongs don't make a right'. The banks may be the most evil institutions on earth, but if you owe them money you have a moral obligation to repay them.
Yes, I understand that the Natwest's failure to keep records means it is not legally enforceable, but that doesn't mean the OP doesn't still owe it.

I was brought up to keep my word, pay my debts, and not take (steal?) anything that isn't mine. I even give back the money when supermarkets give me too much change, and return money I find if I can.

I'm sure that makes me a laughable idiot to all you 'money savvy' people, but I'm too old to change my ways.
P X

Hi puddy,

thanks for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely dont think we disagree as much as it appears. I think your equating this with stealing is confusing the issue. This is not stealing by any definition. I too agree that stealing is wrong, and would give back overpayments and the like. I spent my working life as a cop and tried to live to those standards myself.

However i just do not agree that this is a moral isssue, to me its a legal one. The lender has failed in its responsibilities, the borrower doesnt have to pay, and i advise that he shouldn't. Inever advise people to lie, cheat, hide or deceive in order to avoid their debts, the OP has done none of these.

But it is nice to know that some people on these boards can disagree in the nicest of ways, and no it did not make you a 'laughable idiot'' to me.

Andy,

sourcrates

Puddylove wrote: »

Well, Andy, to quote my mum 'two wrongs don't make a right'. The banks may be the most evil institutions on earth, but if you owe them money you have a moral obligation to repay them.
Yes, I understand that the Natwest's failure to keep records means it is not legally enforceable, but that doesn't mean the OP doesn't still owe it.

I was brought up to keep my word, pay my debts, and not take (steal?) anything that isn't mine. I even give back the money when supermarkets give me too much change, and return money I find if I can.

I'm sure that makes me a laughable idiot to all you 'money savvy' people, but I'm too old to change my ways.
P X

I'm not berating you at all puddy, I don't agree with your views on this particular matter, but then life would be dull if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it.


I don't know your background, but a lot of the folk on here have hit rock bottom, and are trying to bounce back again, I get lots of private messages from posters on this forum, who have asked me for help, as they are at there witts end, and simply don't have a clue how to get themselves out of debt, or what to do next.


If you cant repay money you owe, for whatever reason, as long as its a legitimate reason, I will always take the side of the debtor, over the lender, people are literally worrying themselves sick over, sometimes, quite substantial debts, and you look at there income, and it says, for example, £14000 per annum, yet they have 40k of debt, how on earth did they acquire such a Hugh debt, on such a meagre salary ?


The answer is quite simple, banks and lending institutions have been lending to people without doing affordability checks, in other words, lending irresponsibly, for years and years, its only recently they have been brought to book.


Now I can see you are not going to change your mind because of anything I say to you, but when people are in situations such as I describe, I would help and encourage them to do anything, that will make life easier for them, if that includes having debts declared unenforceable, then so be it, I have no reservations whatsoever about using such methods, methods laid down by statute remember, and contained within the consumer credit act 1978.


I suspect you have good intentions, but you need to use every weapon in your armoury these days to look out for yourself, as no one else will in many cases.

Puddylove

I understand that people's circumstances can change (unemployment, illness, etc) but for every 'irresponsible lender', there's an 'irresponsible borrower' with their hand held out to grab the cash.

The OP clearly can pay the money back - as he has been doing, but chooses not to. In my book that's very different from the people who just can't (for whom I think there should be more help).

ETA Thanks for a polite discussion, Andy/Sourcrates (I'd have trounced you both if it reached fisticuffs though! ).

P X

lkman

I have written to natwest and they have pointed me back to aic anyway. they cant provide me the agreement. do you advise me just removing that £67 from the debt management plan? am i then likely to start receiving letters etc etc?

sourcrates

lkman wrote: »

I have written to natwest and they have pointed me back to aic anyway. they cant provide me the agreement. do you advise me just removing that £67 from the debt management plan? am i then likely to start receiving letters etc etc?

Hi,
Original advice still stands.

No agreement means the account cannot be enforced in court, stop paying it, and remove it from your DMP.

If anyone says anything in regard to that account in the future, you simply respond with the following letter :


Dear sir/madam,

Account number xxxx xxxx xxxx

I write in responce to your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx.

On (date) I made a section 78 request to the original creditor, for a copy of my original agreement.
I was advised by the creditor that they do not hold my original agreement, so cannot comply with my request.

As you are no doubt aware, under sec78, consumer credit act 1980, the inability to supply a copy of the executed agreement renders the account unenforcable in court, until such time as my request is complied with.
As no agreement exists, this situation is unlikely to change, and I have ceased all payments to this account, as is my right under the above sections of the act.

Yours sincerely

Ikman

lkman

Thank you for your help.