Facts and Case History
|Brief Facts & History
Umang Malhotra v. National Westminster Bank Relationship
(1980-2000) and Subsequent Court Hearings
|Why I decided to put this case on
It is an old English saying "Justice delayed is Justice denied."
For more than six years, I tried my best to have my
complaints against Natwest Bank heard and then corrected.
At times, I felt helpless and gave up. I wrote several
recorded delivery letters and sent faxes to Lord Alexander and Mr. Derek
Wanless of Natwest Bank complaining about
the mistakes made by the Bank and its officials but
without any positive response. I was only confronted with
massive bureaucracy of the bank where
over 20 people were involved (each repeating to me in a
robotic fashion). It was the discovery of deceitful
charge which amounted to fraud on my property by
Natwest Bank in Sept./Oct.96 that led me to fully investigate
the activities of the Bank(especially as these are valid to my case).
I am very aware how thousands of ordinary citizens have been overcharged. People have been victims of the banks' mistakes and themselves feel helpless to redress their justifiable complaints. Some of the articles about the banks in National newspapers are a few examples. The bank ruined lives of so many small business people through its foolish mistakes and arrogance of its bureaucratic officials.
My findings from experience of dealing with my own case that runs into hundreds (if not over a thousand) pages of letters/faxes/e-mails and telephone conversations reveal:
Betrayal of trust, mismanagement of my stocks, overcharging deliberately, lies, incompetence, negligence, poor service, and maladministration, broken promises, conniving and collaboration, deceit amounting to fraud, old boy networks, white judges only in High Court, prejudice and discrimination against minorities. In addition, solicitors/barristers abused the legal aid system to get money for themselves from the British state funds instead of looking after their clients interests.
Principally I have enough evidence about the Natwest Bank of all my underlined charges in the above paragraph. Lord Alexander and Mr. Wanless should take full responsibility as to how they ran Natwest Bank. Other institutions/firms/persons are also responsible for one or more of my allegations.
It is my hope and wish that Natwest Bank (formerly known as Action Bank and now known as RBOS) will start listening to customer complaints rather than stone-walling through its massive bureaucracy and wasting enormous human resources. I shall be glad to assist the bank with positive and helpful suggestions.
An institution that is not service minded to its clients will eventually pay a heavy price.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
|Sir George Mathewson|
Sir David Rowland
Mr. Graham Tallyn, Manager, Natwest Bank was the main perpetrator of deceitful acts amounting to fraud against me in 1992. There had been some correspondence between Natwest bank and myself since late 1993 about my complaints against the bank. This included letters/faxes and direct replies from Lord Alexander's personal assistant. He assured me that the Chairman has been kept informed about my case, however there was no positive response from the bank.
I sent a recorded delivery letter to Lord Alexander on 11 September 1995 clearly stating my position. The bank acknowledged receipt of my letter to Lord Alexander and then I received three similar and useless letters from the bank dated 2 and 16 October and 16 November 1995 stating that the bank would give me a substantive reply soon. The reply from the bank never materialized. I gave up until I discovered fraud in Sept/Oct 1996 by the Bank.
In 1997/98, I sent several faxes/recorded delivery letters to Lord Alexander and Mr. Wanless reporting the conduct of Mr. Tallyn and four officials of the bank. i.e., Mr. J I Hartley, Mr. Gore, Mr. Lee-Ranson and Mr. John Shaw (All of them from Customer Relations office at head office of Natwest Bank). This was done according to Natwest bank's procedures. I did not receive reply from the offices of Lord Alexander or Mr. Wanless.
I took my case to the Banking Ombudsman who spent about 14 months (normal time 6 months). Firstly, the bank officials repeatedly lied in sending information about the Ombudsman scheme. Secondly, the bank had to be chased by the Banking Ombudsman for issuing a letter of 'deadlock', a deliberate ploy to delay by the bank. Finally I filed the case against Natwest Bank and its collaborators in 1998 as 'statue of limitation' was soon expiring which is 6 years in England. I did conduct the case in High Court of England myself. I was informed by 'Law Society of England' that most of the law firms are indirectly involved with the banks and there would be conflict of interest therefore it would not be easy for me to find a law firm to take on my case. Unlike the US, there is hardly a law firm which works on the principle of 'No win, no fees' in England.
Most of replies to my letters/faxes to the bank were 'Waffled replies' and the officials of the bank could not give straight answers in plain English. I recorded telephone conversations with or without the knowledge of some of these officials of the bank. The strategy of Natwest bank was to put as many hindrances in delaying matters instead of correcting incompetent and negligent acts of Bank officials. In this process some of Natwest officials piled up many lies as I dug into the case.
B. Roles, L. Beale, KPH Bishop, and an army of Junior official of Natwest Bank were involved in covering up deceit amounting to fraud, misinformation, and making repeatedly robotic statements.
Only Ms Sara Wilde , a junior bank official, was politely direct in my several telephone conversations with her. She was amongst the two women I dealt with among over 20 white male officials of the bank - 'stiff upper lips' with so much pretense and masks. These male executives of Natwest bank were simply used as pawns by Mr. Wanless and Lord Alexander who hid behind power of their seats.
Are these the ethical business practices of NatWest Bank? Sir David Rowland & its predecessors of NatWest are hypocrites that were more concerned with projecting images of the bank to the public rather than practicing business ethics themselves?
|NatWest Bank||Law Firms||Banking Ombudsman||Royal Courts|