much more than simple mis selling

ian_1975

I have just been going through my fiances finance ... what I have just discovered quite frankly leaves me dumbfounded ?!
20 odd years ago my partner had recently arrived to the UK from Japan .... she had just split from her english husband and was alone with her new child WITH ONLY A RUDIMENTARY COMMAND OF ENGLISH .. she asked the nat west bank for a small loan of £700 .... in the 2 years immediately following ... she was repeatedly contacted by the same nat west financial advisor under the pretext of offering her support ... what in fact happened he convinced her to refinance that original loan 5 or more time ... each time with ppi .. That original loan went from £700 to £30000 in that 2 year period ... ... on examination , ... the repayments she was bamboozeled into were ABSOLUTELY UNAFFORDABLE /// Her income and daily financial commitments were clearly laid out ...the monthly loan repayment he signed her up to was £375 ... when at that time she had less than 150 disposable income left available after paying for rent , tax, food etc ... .. what i find even more heinous is the fact that the total combined sum of cash she actually recieved in her hand from the 5 loans was less than £7300 ... I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING ANY VIEWS ON THIS MATTER ..

Tom99

So how did the total loan granted of £7,300 result in a loan balance of £30,000 at the end of year 2?

ian_1975

5 refinance loans .... every time she was signed up to a new loan to pay of the previous loan and ppi ... each time with an additional bolt on amount to pay for a new larger ppi and a small cash amount for herself
/ eg £750 went to £1500 >> £ 3500 >>> £ 8000 >> £1700 >> £30000 ...

[Deleted User]

Why did she keep increasing her borrowing?

middleclassbutpoor

If you have a complaint about the way natwest acted, then follow their complaints procedures. You are claiming that the bank took advantage of your partner's vulnerability in simple terms.

If there was PPI, you can also put a complaint in for that also as a separate complaint

Not sure what anyone else can offer at this stage as no doubt it will come down to whether the bank felt that they followed procedures and whether the correct information was given/used etc. Client vulnerability is something of a hot topic at the moment so you may get some empathy but don't get your hopes up.

If you do not feel the response you get from the bank is acceptable then you have the right to go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

[Deleted User]

ian_1975 wrote: »

she was repeatedly contacted by the same nat west financial advisor under the pretext of offering her support ... what in fact happened he convinced her to refinance that original loan 5 or more time

I don't think you'll get very far with a complaint about the Bank being an irresponsible lender. Despite speaking poor English, it was your wife's own choice whether to take the loans. I take it she spent the money? If it just stayed in her bank account, you might have an argument for saying she didn't understand that she was taking out loans. I would also assume the Bank did proper affordability checks on her, though twenty years ago they would have been far more generous than they would be today.

If I were you, I'd forget that angle of complaint completely and concentrate on constructing a robust PPI mis-selling complaint. If you want to argue that the loans themselves were mis-sold, I think you'd need to argue your case in court where you'd very likely lose.

dunstonh

in the 2 years immediately following ... she was repeatedly contacted by the same nat west financial advisor under the pretext of offering her support ...

Financial advisers at natwest didnt get involved in loans. This was left to the bank clerks. Are you sure this was a financial adviser? FAs have a higher regulatory requirement than bank clerks.

That original loan went from £700 to £30000 in that 2 year period .

And what happened to the money? Bank interest rates have not been anywhere near high enough for interest alone to cover that scale of interest.

Vulnerability is an issue but so is what happened with the money. Borrowing money was too easy in the UK for a long time. Whilst her grasp of English may have been poor, was her mental ability restricted in any way?

ian_1975

In order that you can fully understand this complaint, it’s not possible simply sticking to the when and where’s or considering this as just another person to whom PPI was mis~sold.
.
Having said that, it would not be possible or even practical to try and explain the full impact and subsequent consequences to my partner in a few short lines {as a direct result of a Nat West employees actions} .So for now, I shall simply try to stick to the basic facts.

My partner approached her bank branch and asked for a small personal loan to cover some everyday expenses and to buy various things her son required for school, this was in july 1997. The loan was for £715.08 in total .With monthly repayments of £60.34; this repayment sum also included the monthly instalments to cover her PPI premium.

Between taking out the original loan in july 1997 and may 1999, my partner visited her branch & arranged another small loan so she and her son could go away on their first family holiday Unfortunately we’ve not been able to locate the details and paperwork for said loan.

In April 2000, whilst at work, my partner received a phone call out of the blue from a Nat West ‘Financial Advisor’.
At his suggestion an appointment was made to come in to the bank with a view to helping and advising her on how best to manage her finances.
She attended that meeting at the main branch in Victoria (not her branch) .This was the first time she met with her new Nat West financial advisor.
As I’ve already said, the central point and reason proposed by the advisor for having the meeting was supposedly so he could look at and then suggest any possible ways for her to better manage her money and bank account, thus improving her financial situation . In actuality, the main emphasis of the meeting was spent focusing on the various loan options that he could provide for her.
The meeting eventually concluding with her returning to work, no more well informed about managing her finances than when she arrived. In fact , very much contrary to the financial advisors original stated reason for having the meeting,... she found herself in a considerably less improved overall financial situation than when she went in, having somehow been signed up to a brand new loan. This time totaling £7200.80.
That loan breaks down as , part to refinance her existing loan , part some money for herself , and part to pay for PPI cover , which was paid for in a lump sum as a one off payment , rather than in instalments as before.

In order for you to fully grasp and understand exactly how all this happened .I feel it’s important to highlight one or two important facts .
It’s clear that once armed with these same facts, the financial advisor decided and set out to manipulate the situation & her for his own ends.

At the time my partner had only the very basic command of spoken English→. her ability to read and write English was even more limited, Japanese being her first language .This fact was more than apparent and was quite obvious.
At this first meeting and at all the subsequent meetings ,she repeatedly told the advisor “she did not understand” various aspects of what was being discussed ,and each and every time the same advisor would simply brush over those aspects or even dismiss her questions with " don't worry about it ...it's not important" and then quickly moved on to something else.
During that first meeting she openly discussed a wide variety of subjects with the advisor.
In addition to all her financial circumstances many of the details and facts of said discussion were deeply personal and private, the type of thing one does not openly discuss with someone they had only just met , unless one was secure in the knowledge that the individual could be trusted with those details ,such things as; how she had not long become single with the sole responsibility of bringing up a toddler (essentially in a foreign country) , that she had no relatives in England and no one close to her to get advice from or go to in a crisis ,.
It was during this same meeting, {after convincing her to take out another loan}... he suggested to pay the PPI in a lump sum, the rational being it would work out cheaper.
The overall cost of insurance may well have been cheaper if paid as a lump sum, to suggest it was favorable because it was “THE “cheapest option open to her , is not only completely misleading, to my mind such a suggestion is an out and out falsehood.


Had she paid in instalments for the insurance; “a”. She wouldn’t have had to take out an additional amount on the loan to pay for the insurance policy in a lump sum ,and thus,“b” the actual amount of the insurance required wouldn’t have increased to cover that addition .
Alternately, the actual cheapest option was in reality to have no insurance, an option and choice she was neither offered nor made aware of.

. This whole scenario in my mind and those I have taken advice from amounts to dishonest deception or at the very least a clear case of misrepresenting the facts, which I’m sure you’ll agree is a fundamental abuse of banking codes of fair practice and absolutely contrary to Nat West’s customer charter .
It seems clear that after meeting her and having been made aware of her circumstances and frankly, just how naive and trusting she is, and the fact that she was easily led, an aspect partly due to her Japanese nature and upbringing, he set out to take advantage and manipulate the situation, exploiting his position as well as the personal and private information he was privy to as a trusted member of the Nat West bank.

july 2000. A mere 4 months after her last meeting with the financial advisor ,she received another call at work from the same advisor ,once again inviting her to come in to the Victoria branch , the topic for discussion.?....surprise surprise ..... Managing her finances !!!?.
This time ... exactly as their previous meeting ... instead of leaving better informed about managing her finances ,she left having been signed up for yet another refinance loan, only this time for approx... £16000.
Again… part to pay off the existing loan, part to pay for a new PPI policy, (again, made with a one off payment in full) and part, some cash for her
In 2002 this scenario was repeated a further 2 times. Each and every time the same financial advisor convinced her to take out another loan, and each and every time made her pay for payment protection with a single payment thus increasing the amount that had to be borrowed each time...
The final loan was for £30000.
During that final meeting she expressed her very real concern and apprehension with regards her ability to afford and meet the proposed repayment schedule.
If one considers this ,after paying all her monthly financial commitments ,i.e. rent , council tax , food , travel , utilities credit card bills etc. , even if she paid the absolute minimum required on her credit cards , and before any allowance is made for any social things or any kind of emergency contingency fund ,the amount that she would be required to pay back each month for this new loan represented pretty much the remainder of her total monthly income.
On this occasion the financial advisors response to this concern… “Don’t worry”...... His suggestion “, make the first few payments, use your credit card if necessary”, he even went so far as to suggest she apply for other credit cards if necessary. Yet another thing I find quite incredible .Then after a few months make an appointment to come and see him and they would be able to amend the repayment amount and schedule.
Not only does it seem unbelievable that Nat West would extend £30000 of debt as a loan to an individual person firstly unsecured, secondly ,knowing that person already had credit card debt ,and an overdraft with Nat West, thirdly on several occasions she had received letters from the bank for not having sufficient funds in her account to meet her obligations , but finally and quite frankly more preposterously after that individual had personally expressed a very real concern that they would not be able to afford it. Absolutely astonishing.

As anticipated , she struggled to keep up with the repayments and after making the first few, decided that she needed to talk to the advisor as she was finding it increasingly difficult to manage.
She decided the best option was to come into the branch personally rather than just phone.
I should point out that on each and every prior occasion she had met with the advisor he had made a point of stressing , she should "ask for him personally if any problems should arise" ‘. Even to the point of saying, “if he was not available there and then, she should leave a message for him to contact her rather than speak to someone else." .
As I said ..she decided to come into the branch without making any prior arrangement
She requested at the Customer Service Desk to speak to the financial advisor at which point she was asked to take a seat and wait. Some considerable time later a female member of staff came and introduced herself, regrettably she no longer recalls her name or position within Nat West. All she can say for sure is that she was not a junior member of staff.
This lady then proceeded to fire a series of questions at her, there and then in the public area of the bank.
In essence she wanted to know why my partner wanted to speak to that advisor ‘in particular ‘and what her relationship to him was etc. . . . . Etc.
She describes the whole incident as very unpleasant and one that made her feel very uncomfortable; she was made to feel as if she had done something wrong.
She was then told quite categorically that he was no longer available, now or at any time.
After explaining why exactly she needed to speak to the advisor i.e. about having problems affording the repayments as they stood and how said advisor had told her it would be possible to change the amount after a while.
The women said not only was it not possible but that she was quite wrong thinking it so and must have just misunderstood.
What I find even more incredible, at no point was she offered the services of another financial advisor, or even given the chance to discuss the matter more fully and in private.
Her motivation and purpose for coming into the bank was to seek help .not to be effectively castigated for the situation that she then found herself in. A situation created and directly attributed to the actions of a supposedly trustworthy member of the National Westminster bank.
Blatantly this individual abused his position, He and therefore the National Westminster Bank failed to give anything in the way of sound financial advice.
It’s bad enough to have been exposed to the actions of this individual. What I find even more reprehensible is the course of action taken by the bank or those within the bank, clearly after being well aware of what had transpired. Not only was nothing done but even worse, she has been pursued and hounded by Nat West and its various collection agencies
That pursuit has been relentless, even after an independent debt councilor got involved. So relentless in fact, that her health has suffered greatly, which ultimately has led to her losing her job... (amongst other things ).Those are the basic facts

societys_child

Borrowed £715.08 for everyday expenses and school things for her son, surely she must have known this had to be repaid.
Returned to the bank to borrow more, to go on holiday . . .

Sorry, but I gave up after that.

dunstonh

He and therefore the National Westminster Bank failed to give anything in the way of sound financial advice.

Financial advisers are required to give written reports of their advice. These contain the risk warnings and the potential negatives. As you keep saying it was a financial adviser, what do these reports say?

[Deleted User]

ian_1975 wrote: »

Those are the basic facts

Not "basic" enough for me to read it all I'm afraid.

Sorry.

Why don't you just send these allegations to the Bank?