@natwest_help Expert believes customer's signature was forged!!!

[Rhia]

Looks like they've appointed lightweights as they have no intention of meeting you in court. They have been instructed to negotiate a settlement (which it says). No way do they wnat this one going on public record.

[Mike_hawk]

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:53

Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

Please find attached correspondence.

 

I do not believe it would serve any useful purpose for you to present me with a further copy of an instrument acknowledged by all parties as false.

 

However, it would seem prudent for you to present a true copy of the agreement xxxxxxxxxxxx your client refers to within the attached.

 

I look forward to receipting all 3 named documents, in the alternative, you may wish to discuss the matter further with your client.

 

Thank you again for your time.

 

Regards

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From:

To:

Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 9:00

Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

 

Dear xxxxxxxxx

 

xxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

Claim No: 1CTxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for taking the time for speaking with us on Friday.

As discussed, we are keen to reach a resolution in this matter but it is imperative that both parties understand each other’s position.

 

As we understand, it is your case that the Bank has xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

 

1. Copy agreement number xxxxxxxx dated 17 September 2007 which you say you did not sign. We understand that this was provided to you on 29 November 2010. However, we will provide you with a further copy if you so wish.

2. Direct debit mandate in relation to the above numbered loan account.

3. Direct debit mandate which relates to loan account numbered xxxxxxxxx.

 

We will make enquiries with the Bank in relation to 2 and 3 above.

 

You have indicated to us that the Bank is seeking to pursue you for sums payable under the loan agreement which you say you did not sign and in those circumstances, we should be grateful if you would provide us with copies of that correspondence.

 

As discussed, we are committed to resolving this matter and ensuring that all documents have been provided to you. It will be difficult for us to do so, however, in the absence of your co-operation.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Solicitor

Banking & Finance

Litigation

 

 

For Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

 

 

 

 

 

 

[paulwlton]

Is it time to hit them with that ace you have up your sleeve?

[Mike_hawk]

Which one

[Mike_hawk]

2 week stay to allow the named defendant to file aq......

 

MH

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Paul,

That's an amazing letter!!

Is the person it refers to likely to go public, as in inform the press??

It would do so much good for so many people on here!

 

Thanks for sharing it,

 

Elsa x

 

Natwest have been invited to comment and...... the helpful bank have declined the opportunity to free broadsheet press

 

Oh and, I look like an axe murderer in print [allegedly]

[citizenB]

Oh, is this being reported in the press, Mike.. Where, when, link please

 

I am sure you dont look like an axe murderer at all

[paulwlton]

Oh, is this being reported in the press, Mike.. Where, when, link please

 

I am sure you dont look like an axe murderer at all

 

I'm sure Mike will let CAGgers know on the eve of the expose.:wink:

 

Looks like RBS has a bit of previous on this.

 

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/3945948/Virgin-We-will-be-your-Rock.html

[Mike_hawk]

I'm sure Mike will let CAGgers know on the eve of the expose.:wink:

 

He most certainly will PW

 

Citizenb, PM sent

[citizenB]

Many thanks..

[Mike_hawk]

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@kent.pnn.police.uk

Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@oft.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: SI CY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please print and file in the above S.I

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Fw: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

I await copy correspondence [below], I trust you are not attempting to mislead the claimant or relying on further cost encumbrance to same in its provision.

 

 

 

Legal privilege and part 36 are not an 'open door' to abuse of process, dialogue to date has shown no proposal to settle and as such will be presented to the court when costs are assessed.

 

 

 

Our previous dialogue confirmed that you were aware of all facts in this case, I can only advise that it would be extremely unwise to further mislead the claimant in 'explanation' of documents previously presented.

 

 

 

Your conduct will of course be brought to the attention of the court.

 

 

 

I trust I make my position clear and look forward to sight of your clients proposal.

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 xxxxxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

On the basis that any agreement to further extension was effective 'post' service of your clients proposal, I can only trust that you have not advised the court to the contrary.

 

 

 

Perhaps, you would care to forward me a copy of your correspondence to the court to which you refer below.

 

 

 

I do of course continue to look forward to receipt of your clients proposals.

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without Prejudice

Save as to costs

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

Claim No:xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I write to confirm that I have written to the Court asking that the stay be extended until 2 January 2012.

 

I know that you have not yet heard from us with proposals and these are currently in draft form and with the Bank for their approval. I should be in a position to come back to you at the end of the week with some proposals and a full explanation of the documents which have arisen from you subject access request.

 

Should you wish to give me a call in the meantime, please do not hesitate to do so.

 

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Solicitor

Banking & Finance

Litigation

 

 

 

 

T: +44 (0)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxF: +44 (0)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

85 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1AE

21 Station Road, Watford WD17 1HT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered Number: OC343595) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA Number: 508037. A list of members (and any non-members who are designated as partners) of Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP is open to inspection at the LLP's registered office: 21 Station Road, Watford, WD17 1HT, United Kingdom. We use the word 'partner' to refer to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualification.

[paulwlton]

Mike,

 

How did the photo shoot go....lol.

[Mike_hawk]

Mike,

 

How did the photo shoot go....lol.

 

Change of plan........ delayed it until Tuesday, didnt have time to get my hair done, lol

[Mike_hawk]

Sorry........... been nowhere near a pooter all evening, link below........ also in money supplement of Guardian this morning

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

 

 

Phil

[martin g]

The link doesn't work

[Undercover-Elsa]

Just change the Capital N in natwest to small case...

[Mike_hawk]

Just change the Capital N in natwest to small case...

 

Morning Elsa

 

How odd........ pasted link again below, lets see if this one saves on here without changing case

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery

 

Phil

[Undercover-Elsa]

That one works fine...

I'm disappointed though..thought you were going to have a perm and blue rinse for the photo!

[Mike_hawk]

That one works fine...

I'm disappointed though..thought you were going to have a perm and blue rinse for the photo!

 

Lol, I'll see what I can do for the next set of pics

[paulwlton]

Note the boys in blue claim 'civil' when a complaint is made against a bank.

Edited December 10, 2011 by paulwlton

[Streetwise]

Note, the boys in blue claim 'civil' when a complaint is made against a bank.

Good point Paul,if it was us forging documents our feet would't touch the ground all ways one rule for them another for the general public,just one more point this bank is owned by the tax payer and they are employing lawyers to defend there criminal actions with tax payers money,your money fighting you, how can that be right,regards Streetwise.

[Bazooka Boo]

Incredible story, Just came across it when a friend emailed it me, absolutely appalling behaviour by this bank, well, I must admit, I have been very sceptical when other CAGgers have mentioned the reason for not signing documents is because of the alleged fraudulent use by the banks, but now I shall eat humble pie, this is proof of just what money and power does to people, unbloodybelievable! Maybe

this bank is owned by the tax payer and they are employing lawyers to defend there criminal actions with tax payers money,your money fighting you, how can that be right

that needs to be mentioned to the press?

If I banked with these lot, then not only would I close my account immediately I would also be writing to the CEO of said bank along with my MP and demanding to know why yet again the public is paying for the bank to defend itself? It's not as if they don't have enough profit?

[Streetwise]

Good point Paul,if it was us forging documents our feet would't touch the ground all ways one rule for them another for the general public,just one more point this bank is owned by the tax payer and they are employing lawyers to defend there criminal actions with tax payers money,your money fighting you, how can that be right,regards Streetwise.

You have a problem here my second post was removed why.

[caro]

You have a problem here my second post was removed why.

 

I've PM'd you streetwise.

[Streetwise]

I've PM'd you streetwise.

Thanks and I now understand.