RBS trial - almost there. evidence of criminality now in my case- trial date set

[D&M-GIANTKILLERS]

ay.

 

:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x

Edited September 17, 2008 by D&M-GIANTKILLERS
spelling

[Sparkie1723]

HI again,

 

As I said the whole of KINGS chambers work hand in glove with Cobbetts ...they are the RBS Main Legal firm and I know Lynsey Robinson, and I will very possiblly have her for contempt of court sooner or later for making false statements in a statement of truth made to a Court in an application hearing taken out by me.

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Hi D&M

Have deleted this post as it was taking up too much of your thread, you know what ist was now anyway

 

sparkie

Edited September 15, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Here is some case law for you to use .....I am using these in my next claim against RBS this is part of my draft claim as it is of now

 

sparkie

 

The case of King v British Linen & Co; This dealt with the situation where there had been no specific damage. The only loss sustained was the loss to his credit standing. That was valued by the sheriff at £100 in 1897, a figure which was not interfered with in the Inner House.

 

17 The Claimant claims he has suffered specific loss/damage, this will be shown in his schedule of damages to be submitted in relation to this claim. The Claimant submits that the figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates,according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008,. table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008 supported by ( Para 117 Richard Durkin v DSG and HFC Bank March 2008).

 

18 The case ofWilson v United Counties Bank Limited.

Wherein it is stated

“Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago”.

 

 

19 The Claimant submitsthat in the caseKpohraror v WoolwichBuilding Society 1996 4 All ER 119it is stated that;

“Such damages were available to individuals who were not traders.. Also in that case the plaintiff claimed both special damages and the general damages of £5,500. Lord Justice Evans said at page 124 "The credit rating of individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire purchase as well as banking facilities, as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case in so far as this is a presumption of fact."

 

20 The Claimant submits that the figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4 All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215, again according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008,. table 5/3. ( Para 117 Richard Durkin v DSG and HFC Bank March 2008).

 

21 The Claimant submits that his credit rating was severely injured and impaired from June 2001 to December 2005 by this unlawful default entry entered wrongly by admission of the Defendant. Submissions of how this also caused him loss are shown in the Claimants schedule of Damage and financial loss, and the Defendant is well aware that the Claimant was also a trader in the sense of the word as a self employed Auto Electrical Engieer

Edited September 15, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[D&M-GIANTKILLERS]

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

[Sparkie1723]

One thing I must add ....do not expect very much in your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the FSA ....they obtained a ruling ing a case against them Durant v The FSA so don't hold your breath on that one ....get your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) off to the RBS.

 

If you have alraedy got one off RBS ........and if its more than six months ago you are entitled to apply for more info...

 

 

I can't emphasise more.....you must get your MP involved!!!

 

Anyhelp I can give you just shout, I know the way RBS & Cobbetts work as well as anyone.

 

I have a flyer ready to be printed and handed out ......Its Called

 

WHAT A " RIGHT BUNCH OF SHYSTERS".... R. B. o. S.

 

sparkie

Edited September 12, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[D&M-GIANTKILLERS]

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.

 

Edited September 12, 2008 by D&M-GIANTKILLERS
spelling

[D&M-GIANTKILLERS]

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)

Edited October 25, 2009 by IdaInFife
edited

[mkb]

WOW - is all I can say!!!

 

Please keep this thread updated

[2ltr16valve]

Sadly D&M, using language like that to a moderator will only have action taken I would think.

 

I think as with any forum, posts can be edited at the discretion of the staff if they are unsuitable.

 

Looks an interesting case, just hope we get to hear about it after your outburst.

[RHOOD]

Did u get your SAR ?