Jump to content

D&M-GIANTKILLERS

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Hello all, ( External Link Remvoed) i posted my problems with RBS on here a year or two ago. The main problem i have had is that the issues are too long winded for people to stay interested in any thing i posted. My case is still ongoing and we have already passed one trial date. The RBS and Cobbetts tried to manipulate the whole case by using all sorts of dirty tactics against me. I survived them all so far though and the trial is set for the 25th Jan 2010. We are claiming damages for RBS's breaches of the data protection act. Breaches which stem from its use of bank charges. They have recently made another offer of £18k plus our legal costs, which are around £50k. Their costs are also about £50k at the moment. The offer is turned down as i have just amended my particulars of claim to include the actions of RBS and Cobbetts DURING these proceedings. Actions which had the sole intention of disrupting my case, or making it difficult for us to continue with our case. They have done a lot of things to us and some can be read if you check out my older threads. i will quickly describe for you the one particular set of actions that i have added into my claim. RBS and Cobbetts told to the courts in July 2007 when they told them that our case was one of the many bank charge reclaim cases and should be put on hold, like all the bank charge cases, under the FSA waiver. They had full knowledge of our case being about their DPA breaches and the damage it had caused us. As soon as my case was stayed by the courts, we should have heard nothing more until the end of the OFT case. but RBS immediatey started actions to recover two sums of money that we owed them, and they knew they included over a thousand pounds of bank charges. They had earlier admitted in writing that these charges were applied as a result of their errors, along with the negative credit references to the various agencies. We owed RBs two sums of money totalling about £6,000. I had launched a claim in court in Feb 07. My solicitor was dealing with Cobbetts. Suddenly by december 07 my solicitor was dealing with FOUR firms of solicitors for the bank. Cobbetts, Greene and Co, Shoosmiths and Irwin Mitchells. (Editied) Any counterclaims should have come though Cobbetts when i launched my claim but they set about this plan as a way of drastically increasing my costs, which it did. As we only owed two sums of money, my solicitor told them all that things were being duplicated. Greene and Co along with Shoosmiths said no more on the matter. Irwin Mitchells launched their claim directly with the court. The first i ever heard of this firm was when the claim form landed on our door, about 5 days before xmas. My solicitor was in contact with them by telephone and letter. They agreed not to file for judgement because something was obviously not right. However, the next thing we know a County Court Judgement lands on our door, for over £8,000. Mitchells told my solicitor that it was done "in error" and would be cancelled. We recieved notice that it had been cancelled a while after. Then,(EDITED) Irwin Mitchells sent their case file to me, instead of sending it to Cobbetts. In it are records of telephone conversations. These records show that Irwin Mitchells asked Cobbetts what they wanted them to do after my solicitor had expressed his anger upon the judgement being passed. Cobbetts told Mitchells to tell my solicitor that the judgement would be cancelled, but they also told them to not file the documents with the courts just yet, the documents to cancel the judgement. Cobbetts wanted the delay in telling the courts so that the normal process used by the court for registering CCJ's on people files would have time to go ahead, which it did, unbeknown to us. A few days later, Cobbetts obtained our credit files,unbeknown to us. They said nothing about the files and we did not know about the ccj being on our files. We thought our files are bad because of the original damage and its effects placed on by RBS. Over a year later i asked Cobbetts to send me any credit files they had on me and my wife, as part of the disclosure in the case. They sent these files which we had never seen before, and they stated that my ex solicitor had given the files to them ages before. I knew this was a untrue. After extensive investigation i finally find out that Cobbetts did in fact obtaine these files. The Mitchell telephone case notes also show that Cobbetts were directing them and that they manipulated the legal process in order to "engineer" the application of the CCJ to our files and then obtain those files form a third party company, so their name does not appear on our files. Then pretend that they did not obtain those files and try to use them against me, because they are quite damaging with the £8k ccj on there. Since Cobbetts found out that i know the truth, they have admitted that they did obtain the reports after all and given another (EDITED)story as an excuse. The CCJ was removed 15 months after being put on. All during the course of these proceedings of my case. The two rbs counterclaims are now in my case as they should have been in the first place. One of their claims has the same number as the CCJ that appeared on thes files. These (Edited) have no chance of getting away with it and i intend to pursue individuals within Cobbetts and RBS for criminal charges once i have won this case. I am stating the first 7 principles of the DPA have been breached. One of those is the giving of false information in order to obtain credit files. Cobbetts stated that they were checking a credit application. We would not be making a credit application to a firm two years into litigation with them and this as false information. Cobbetts then kept the info to themselves, which is a further breach. They kept it for a relatively long period of time, which is a further breach. They then tried to use the documents as evidence agaisnt me. They presented them to me, lied about their source, and hoped i would be disheartened as they showed a CCJ for over £8k which was pretty hard to trace. Cobbetts and RBS's names did not appear on the CCj or the credit reports for the searches, they used methods to cover their tracks. Either way, ia mgoing to rip these dogs apart in the trial. I have some awesome cross-examination questions which can only be answered one way or another. (Edited). Link Removed You can check my older posts if you want some details of the whole case. Thanks very much. ps. for the trial, a bundle of documents has to be agreed between the parties. Cobbetts were supposed to send me their list of docs 6 weeks before the trial. They sent it two weeks before. A massive list of documents. They demanded my response to it within days. I told them i did not agree with it (Edited). They printed up four copies of the documents, put them all in nice folders and sent them to me and the courts. The trial was originally planned for the 18th and 19th August 2009. Four of them turned up on that day hoping to direct the whole trial but they went away with their tails between their legs. The judge told them they were having a laugh for saying it would be a 2 day trial. He told them it is now going to be 1 days reading time before, then 5 days for the trial, then a further 2 days thinking time after the trial. And it is now going to be held in sunny Blackpool on the 25th Jan 2010. It will be a good holiday for them if nothing else. (EDITED) (Edited)
  2. Paul wlton, I think i used an extract of your thread as part of my evidence in the complaint against the barrister i have, so thx for that mate. I used extracts from three different threads that all showed reference to Kings Chambers and there association with NatWest and RBS. Cheers D&M
  3. Nice one mischer. If i were you i would report them to the Information Commissioner as well. If the CCJ should never have been issued they would be in breach of the Data Protection Act i think. If its been on there a while, you may have had bad effects without realising it. Perhaps you have applied for a loan since this was palced on your file. The loan firm could have seen this on your file and offered you a loan of a certain rate, which may have been lower if the information had not been on your file. What i mean is, one CCJ may not have stopped you getting a loan, or other credit product, but you me getting charged more in interest for any credit product you may taken out. D
  4. Does it just say the words "outstanding debt"? If so, is it possible these are a heading, does it say anything after these two words? if there are any details witht this outstanding debt bit then you'd have to contact the company concerned if the details are not accurate or up to date. If there are no details with this outstanding debt bit then it may mean there is no outstanding debt, possibly. Just a thought. Hope you get it sorted out mate.
  5. Hello there Sparkie mate. I have just sent you an email. Took me an hour to write it so sorry its a longish read. Thanks everyone for all your words, thats what we really need. Sorry for my rant at the top of the thread. In my other thread Sparkie told me that Kings Chambers barristers in Manchester represent RBS and NatWest. My solicitor had taken me there for a so called conference in which we thought the barrister was going to tell us how well our case would do in court, but instead he spent an hour and a half trying to frighten my wife and i with some ridiculous talk that this "powerful bank could beat anybody in court" To cut a long story short, I suspected my solicitor was a traitor, and the barrsiter was a set up. It failed as i continue the case as a L.I.P. in court. I reported the solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and the barrister to the Bar Standards Board (BSB). The BSB have questioned both the barrister and solicitor. The BSB Complaints Commissioner assesses the complaint. If she thinks there is anything in it she sends the complaint to the barrister and the solicitor for their comments, which she did with mine. Then she sends the solicitor and barrister's comments to me for my comments on them. I obvioulsly pointed out that they were lying in several places and also, their two stories did not match in one part, a big part concerning the value of it. The BSB complaints commissioner then assesses it and she either throws it out or, (and this is stated on their website in a document which is intended as advice for barristers that have had complaints made against them,) OR, if she thinks there IS evidence of professional misconduct she will progress the complaint to stage two of the BSB complaints process, which is an assessment by the Complaints Committee. Guys, we recieved a letter from the BSB just before xmas stating that our complaint is about to be put before the Complaints Committee (end Jan) :-D:-D:-D:-D This does not necessarily mean he is guilty though, but, the advice they give to barristers is that it is only progressed if the commissioner thinks there is evidence of misconduct. The commitee can either throw out the complaint or call the barrister for a tribunal. We are obviously keeping our fingers crossed for the latter. As for the court part of our claim at the moment, we have just submitted our defence to their counterclaim. In our case RBS admitted in writing that it was wrong and caused all the problems in the first place. A sentence from that letter by RBS to us stated, "Had we carried out your request in a timely and professional manner, i am confident you would not have encountered charges or unpaid items on your account". Now is that an admittal or what guys. RBS in their attempt to put things right did not acknowledge the fact that we were suffering serious credit problems because of them, we were forced to remortgage for christ's sake purely because we could not obtain a loan which was purely due to RBS credit damage and errors. Just because we could not accept their offer they think they are entitled to be paid twice for the money. In my latest court submission i have show an RBS document from August 06 stating we owe £7.5k. Then after the Ombudsman stepped in they said in October 06 that we only owe £6k, the real sum. We turn down their offer but again in Feb 07 they send us another letter stating we owe £6k. then in June 07 we have another RBS letter saying we owe £7.5k again, which was our accounts plus interest and charges. They had offered to refund these when they admitted the whole thing was their fault but just because we turn down their offer, which in turn is because they had caused us more damage than they would admit to, i.e. Credit Damage, they think they are entitled to pursue us as though no dispute had ever existed and as though they had never admitted to being the cause of the problem. Cobbetts reckon i can not rely on that letter. On December 18th RBS and Cobbheads submitted their Defence, citing all the usual crap clauses in their crap contracts. They stated we owe them £12k !! Yesterday RBS themselves sent us a letter stating that we owe them £14K. I pointed out to the courts their lies and backed up everything i said with documents from either RBs themselves, the Information Commissioners Office, the Ombudsman etc, RBS have denied any knowledge of the Information Commissioners Office involvement but the ico sent me a letter last week stating that they definitely did inform RBS at the time, and they sent me a copy of the letter that was sent to them. I also put in some arguments related to their use of these clauses and the fact that they can now be considered under the unfair contract rules. Sorry guys, i have got carried away again. this post has got far too long. if anyone wants to know what i said regarding these unfair contract rules i would be happy to put in another post. Martin, if you have read this far, please do not ask me for restraint on this. RBS are pure swines, criminals, devious F$**%I$ etc I have proof of everything i say but the most obvious piece of evidence is right in our faces every single day mate. This problem started a couple of months after we got married. We have now been married for 3 years and 4 months. They screwed up all the plans we had for our married lives and our babies first years of lives. One is 4 and the other is 2 and a half. The RBS has severely fu**ed us up and after admitting the errors, but having their offer to ammend the situation turned down due to its inadequacy, the Royal fooooookng Bank of PorridgeGobblingLand has attempted to drive us into the ground and cover up its mistake. We are severely damaged due to bank charges, the automatic application of bank charges, stemming from the use of possible unfair contract clauses. If we get a judgement, and then the OFT turns round and says they think they ARE unfair, RBS does not want people to know about something which could start another avalanche of claims against ALL banks. All the people who have already reclaimed, plus all those waiting, would all go off and check their credit ratings. Should i now go to the police over the alleged bribery now that the BSB has progressed the case to its 2nd stage, indicating they think there is evidence of misconduct. Remember, i paid 2k up front for this barrister so its criminal defrauding in my mind, as well as my solicitor must have been bribed in the first place somehow. Sorry again its a long post. D&M Cheers again everyone for the kind words
  6. Wonderful Underdog, very kind of you. That means a great deal to us. You are right about your opinion of RBS. They are not very nice. They hired 4 firms of solicitors at once against my wife and I, despite their knowledge of rules which say joint account holders are to be treated as one in any legal proceedings. They did this purely to increase our legal costs in the hope that we would be unable continue our action against them. That did not work for them as we continued. So then they ahem my solicitor!! Although i know this sounds unbelievable, i have complaints in with the SRA about my solicitor and the Bar Standards Board about the barrister. The BSB have just told me that my complaint is going to the 2nd stage of their complaints process, which means that the BSB complaints Commissioner thinks that there is evidence of serious misconduct. The BSB complaints committee will be looking at the complaint at the end of January. I have told the FSA but all they say is, "We will pass this information on to the team respopnsible for RBS" When i told the FSA that the RBS rule breaking has increased my legal costs and put undue pressure on us, they said the Financial Services and MArketing Act prevents them from disclosing anything. They too are corrupt. This is also utter crap and an example of how the FSAs relationship with the banks are questionable and wants to protect them, and only acts on things if millions of people complain at once, such as the bank charges reclaim case. The FSMA only prevents the FSA from disclosing things about a firm because, if the firm is found to be innocent of the complaint/charges then just being involved can be damaging to the firm. in our case though, the RBS has alredy been shown to have breached the Data Protection Act by the Information Commissioners Office and therefore the FSMA should not apply. Anyway, i could keep going on and on all night but thats would not help me. Thanks again for your kind words Underdog, they are much appreciated. Cheers ps, i can't see ared triangle so i have hit a yellow one instead.
  7. Well, the CAG are a really, really wondeful bunch of people who's invaluable support means more to me and my family than anything. My Case is about the fact that my wife and i are seriously damaged due to RBS bank charges. We have had our credit files completely screwed up by the errors of this bank and its application of charges and credit references. There used to be a Page in the NEWS section of the CAG in which Marc Gander, the founder of CAG, talks about the fact that people are damaged on their credit files by the application of bank charges. We have been seriously damaged in this way and had our lives screwed up. The bank has in the past admitted in writing that they were wrong to apply these charges. THE Information Commissioner has told us that the bank is in breach of the Data Protection Act. We are trying our hardest to get them in court over this but so far we have been going 3 years. Just this week recieved a case allocation questionaire though so things could be moving. a big CHEERS to all CAG
  8. Hello all. This CAG site is so massive i been in the wrong section for ages. My post isin the bank charges reclaiming bit but maybe i should have been in this DPA section :) my problem has been going on for over 3 years now. if any1's interested here is the link to my story but i warn you it is long. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/155111-credit-damage-im-about.html not sure if the link will work, or is allowed. Anyway, I have had the Information Commissioner look at my complaint and we have had his response (Nov07) that RBS have breached the act and we can take them to court under section 13 blah blah, blah. We have done that and its been very messy for us so far and continues to be. The RBS have responded to the courts, and to my claim, that not only have they not breached the Act but they have absolutely no knowledge of the ICO investigation/result!! I have about two weeks to respond to the courts, and of course part of my response will include the ICO letter as evidence. I have also written to the ICO to ask him why, or if they have informed RBS of the situation he informed me of last year. Does anyone know why RBS would deny all knowledge of the ICO's involvement? The other thing is, if any1 reads my other thread you'll know, the credit damage we have suffered has come as a direct result of their application of bank charges so does any1 know if my situation has changed now that the OFT case has finished, forgetting about the appeal as the last ruling stands unles the appeal changes things, i believe. any info would be appreciated, thanks. D&M
  9. Hi gaz you mentioned earlier in your threads about a barrister. Can you tell me which firm this barrister was from? cheers d
  10. Yes mate, i know about the Durant case. Thats one reaon i am doing it, to give them at least the same headache. In my case tho, i am saying that i must have that knowledge from the FSA because it direclty affected my legal case and once the SRA is being dealt with, the judge may order it to be produced because, in an instance where someone loses the case, they are left with a legal bill that is inflated by the banks breaking of FSA rules, surely this is some weight behind the argument.
  11. Thats great Sparkie thx. i sent u a pm. I wanted to add a couple more points on my case. I have told the courts that i feel i am at a serious legal disadvantage for two reasons. 1 - When i went to start legal action, i obviously wanted a solicitor with banking expertise. I went to the town centre to find one. Every single solicitor said they could not take on my case as they had a commercial relationship with the wRBS (u know what the W stands for right) The solicitor i ended up hiring was the 14th i had visited and he had no banking expertise, and no DPA knowledge. Therefore my case was disadvantaged from the start. 2 - When the ICO told them they had broken the Data Protection Act, i believe that they, as Data Controllers, should know all about the possible effects on people of getting DPA things wrong and they should have been coming to me with some kind of "lets ease the effects of the damage we have done to you" type of plan. But no. These twats chose to aggressively pursue me. They were too aggressive because they broke FSA rules on pressurising customers. They have been reported to the FSa for it. The FSA provide no help to me and so i have asked the courts to consider this breaking of rules and the effects it has had. The effects it had were not the intended ones tho. RBS wanted to make me abandon the case. Instead my case is going to break them for a lot of cash. Not in compensation to me, but lots of compo to everyone they have damaged for not paying stupid ilegal bank charges. Bad credit references for not paying an ilegal demand!! The cost to RBS of having to retrain thousands of staff in order for them to start complying with Data Protection laws. The cost to RBS of having to change its policies and procedures will be big. There will be no more freezing of accounts in retaliation for complaining. What a load of wa*^&*ers. So the judge has also heard that the effect of the above is that i am now having to represent myself due to their bringing cost pressures to bear on me. The money i had for legal proceedings was swallowed up very fast for all this extra work my solicitor had to do. By the looks of things tho, i may be getting that cash back if the SRA find he was in collusion with wRBS. :-x
  12. Hello mate. Sorry for butting in with whats probably rubbish. i have no experience of betfair but one thing i would try is this. Ring them and say your computer has crashed and is beyond repair. You have absolutely no intention of getting another one. You do not know of any internet cafes nor have any desire to use them. Demand that they send you any cahs you have in any account or wallet to the address i presume you provided when you registered with them. I also presume you can give them log on info if requested. Otherwise, pay a solicitor £10 or £15 to send them a letter demading the money back or court action if they disagree. Hope you get it sorted out whichever way you go mate. Good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...