Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
GOOD LUCK, you might want to PM a mod or bankfodder to make sure you've got everything in order so you don't end up paying their cost, and i'd be sh****g myself to LOL
OK I GIVE IN
Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400
NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06 Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06 Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06 Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO Cr*p one charges=£976 con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.
Unfortunately it is not likely to matter much. The Courts are very probably going to allow this, you should proceed as if they had filed on time.
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
Sparkie, the Courts appear to be pretty lenient with many aspects of Court
procedure where documents, defences, submissions etc are delivered late.
This may be because of the interest of fairness, or to comply with the Human Rights Act, but does seem pretty widespread. It may also reflect the fact that our post is notoriously wayward in terms of delivery times.
There is a facility in the Civil Procedures Act that allows for a defence to be delivered up to 28 days late with the agreement of the claimant. Whether
you can say that you do not agree to this late submission and so their
exchange of disclosures is inadmissible will no doubt be answered on Monday when you check with the Court.
May I too wish you good luck with the case.
I may be wrong Sparkie but I think that banks do not have to produce bank
statements when an SAR is involved, though they do have to provide details
of all charges applied to the account. They can, for a price, supply you with
statements, if you ask.
One of the examples the ICO give in their guidelines relating to the DPA, is
that data controllers have to keep records beyond 6 years "to defend legal
claims". In the light of your SAR in 2005, and the involvement of the ICO,
one would have thought it encumbent upon the bank not to destroy your
records until the possibility of legal action had passed.
The other thig you should check is if they keep records of when data is
deleted and what the data was. This is to find out if data was destroyed
AFTER you submitted an sar, but BEFORE they had responded to it. Not
surprisingly, the ICO take a dim view of this practice.and so would the Court.
The Act does not state that data should be destroyed after six years, rather
that it is kept for no longer than is necessary for that purpose which is not
the same thing.
If you think of how many customers the RBOS have, the idea that the bank
goes through and destroys cheques daily, or even weekly whenever the
six year limit is reached is frankly laughable.
Afraid I don't understand your last line "destroyed in Feb 2004".
Means exactly what it said From the period feb 1998 to feb 2004 was the six year period that the bank stated to me that in 2004 all relevant info regarding me was erased /deleted /destroyed, that is what they said when in 2005 I requested information under my SDAR, according to th RBOS that is why they sent my cheque back without any information,
ytou do not seem to see what i'm getting at in my view the information should have been kept until 2010 6 yrs FROM 2004 because I 've got the RBOS so tied up they are trying to use every trick in the book to bluff me.
Sp[arkie1723
Sparkie: I tend to agree with you there.I work in litigation and beleive you me I know what im talking about.When a case is closed the data cannot be destroyed until after 6 years after the case is closed so you are absoultly correct in that regard.Without going to the law books I beleive this is covered by the Limitation Act(1980) and the DPA(1998).So yes the records are covered under law until 2010.I closed a file on Friday so that file cannot be destoryed until 2013.It amazes me that the banks and finiancial instututions are flouting the law when they know darn well that they have no chance when it gets to the court room.Wilson vs First County Trust(COA 2001) is a prime example.
Means exactly what it said From the period feb 1998 to feb 2004 was the six year period that the bank stated to me that in 2004 all relevant info regarding me was erased /deleted /destroyed, that is what they said when in 2005 I requested information under my SDAR, according to th RBOS that is why they sent my cheque back without any information,
ytou do not seem to see what i'm getting at in my view the information should have been kept until 2010 6 yrs FROM 2004 because I 've got the RBOS so tied up they are trying to use every trick in the book to bluff me.
Sp[arkie1723
I will be surprised if you have the details of the first 5 lines of that in writing from them since it is so patently wrong. The six year rule works backward from today, not forward from when the account was opened. Even today,
your bank should still have all of your data up to and including January 8th
2001, so to say that they have destroyed your info in 2004 already beggars
belief. What did the ICO say about that?
To shred data three years ahead of time is a serious breach of the DPA, so
it makes you wonder what they wanted to cover up that would have been
even more serious were it exposed. I would be amazed if they have deleted
anything that recent-much more likely that they are lying. And in their
disclosure statement they say that they have no correspondence before
August 2000, not some time in 2004
And to be honest, even if they had reopened your business account to post
the charges on [ and I am unaware that banks do close accounts and
leave a debit balance on it] there is nothing so serious in that action that should lead them to destroy your data up to 2004.
lookingforinfo,
By the way you try and get a copy of a cheque off the RBOS that is 6yrs 2 months old U wont get it I tried and got the answer ALL ORIGINAL CHEQUES ON YOUR ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN LINE WITH OUR CODE OF PRACTICE STATEMENT
ITS not as LAUGHABLE as you appear to believe Sparkie 1723
Two months later is a bit different to a daily or weekly shredding.
Work it out-they have at least 2400 branches and it would probably be uneconomic for each branch to have less than 300 customers. Even assuming
each customer only had one account with a cheque book, that is still
720,000 different customers all with cheques dating back six years. I am
just about prepared to believe that they might go through them all once a
month to root out all cheques over six year old, but it is a monumental task
both timewise and costwise. It might be instrumental in your case to find
out how often it is done [since it obviously cannot be completed daily] and
whether they shred them themselves or contract out the work. And if it is
done by them how long it takes, and are all the old cheques [ie anything
older than two years] held in one place or at each branch.
Perhaps if Natweststaffmember is reading this thread, a little light could be shed on how its done.
The Consumer Forums
Big Claim aginst RBOS
Originally Posted by Sparkie1723
