Martin Keatings v Clydesdale Bank PLC (2011) - Dunfermline Sheriff Court - Advice Welcome

[martinkeatings1]

For Three Years I have been fighting with Clydesdale bank regarding an account with an alleged debt of £310.

 

Each time I ask them for statements and information partaining to the account I get ignored but they continued to send debt collection letters. After massive arguments with the branch over the fact that they were not providing the information requested under the DPA 1998, I decided to go the formal route.

 

Last Year (2010) I sent clydesdale three formal letters. The first was a subject access request advising that they were to provide the information within 40 days. The next was a letter saying they had failed to provide the information within the 40 day time limit as defined by the DPA and that they had 14 days to provide it. The final letter was advising them that they had failed to comply and that a complaint was being raised with the Information Commissioner.

 

I then raised the complaint with the ICO. It took a good few weeks but I recieved a letter advising me that it was the ICO's view that clydedale had failed to comply and that they had contacted them advising them to get back into compliance.

 

Clydesdale advised them that it had been a mistake and that the person concerned had been "retrained" and that the info had infact been sent out.

 

I recieved a letter with two blank sheets of paper.

 

So, I contacted the ICO again and they advised me that they would contact them again. They then came back to me and advised that clydesdale had said that they didnt have anything on file. The ICO then advised that therefore the matter was now closed.

 

I emailed the ICO again and they advised that they had done as much as they could and that I should seek other means of enforcement. So, enough is enough!

 

I lodged a formal summons at dunfermline sheriff court in July of this year. They we're served on the 27th and the court date was set for the 30th of September. Clydesdale neither replied to the summons neither did they turn up and subsequently a minute for decree was entered and the decree awarded in default because they were not present.

 

Fast forward to 26th of October and I recieve the signed extract of decree telling clydesdale that they were to pay me £1200 plus 8% interest from 12th march 2010 (date that they went into default with the DPA 1998 40 day time limit). So I decided to pay a visit to the branch and speak to the person who had been ognoring me for three years, the manager, Diane Grieve at Dunfermline branch.

 

I advised her that I would graciously give them 48 hours to pay out or I was requesting a charge for payment to be brought to them by the sheriff officer/ messenger at arms (Baliff for the lay man).

 

On the wednesday, I find out that they have infact put in a request to recall the decree (decree to be set aside if you are in england) on the grounds that the legal team at clydesdale did not recieve the summons from the branch due to an administration error and clydesdale was therefore not represented in court.

 

I am trying to find a defence to a recall of decree on these grounds. Anyone help?

[rebel11]

Thread moved to the correct forum.

[ploddertom]

Are they admitting that the papers were received by the Branch initially? Are they also saying that the Judgment was also received by the Branch? Are they then saying they knew nothing about anything until such time you visited your Branch? And all this despite knowing they had not complied earlier. Could be they may be skating on thin ice.

 

In England you can argue you did not receive the original docs and apply for Set Aside but in your case it appears they are admitting they had them but how can it be your problem if they were not passed on.

 

PT

[Crazy Diamond]

~Unfortunately, odds are that the recall will be granted, as the over-riding objective means that each side should get a chance to actively present their case. You can try to fight it and hope you get an anti-bank sheriff who will not give in, but I wouldn't waste too much time defending the recall and would concentrate on the case that will come afterwards if it's recalled.

[martinkeatings1]

The are attempting to say that it was an administration error? That it was not sent from the branch to the legal team and therefore they were not represented. The thing is, I spoke to the manager on 26th october and she admitted that it had been sent on to legal. They are actually lying to the court. That to me is offensive.

 

We know for a fact that they received the summons because it was served on them by the actual court by first class recorded delivery to the branch. As for the decree, I served it on them myself (otherwise they would not have put in an minute for recall of decree). They are require under the sheriff court rules to serve me the recall of decree papers no less than 7 days before the date of the hearing, until then I wont know that they are requesting a recall of decree and the date and time of the hearing. Woops! good job I checked with the clerk eh!. If they dont serve me then the action is delinquent and the judge will have to continue the minute for recall and re-order service of it.

[martinkeatings1]

~Unfortunately, odds are that the recall will be granted, as the over-riding objective means that each side should get a chance to actively present their case. You can try to fight it and hope you get an anti-bank sheriff who will not give in, but I wouldn't waste too much time defending the recall and would concentrate on the case that will come afterwards if it's recalled.

 

 

Yes, thats what I think is going to happen. Pray that it all goes well.

[martinkeatings1]

Affidavit's Wanted Please

 

Preparing for the case ahead, clydesdale I know will use the "it was only a one of administration error" line alongside their proposed defence.

 

I want to show the court that infact failure to provide documentation under section 7 of the DPA 1998 is rife across the industry but in particular within this bank. I am trying to collect as many affidavits from people who have banked with clydesdale and had problems of this nature to use as evidence that this is not a 1 time occurance. 3 Years and still no data from them. Anyone willing to help?

[martinkeatings1]

It is the evening before I go back to court against clydesdale and they have indeed put in an application for recall of decree with the sheriff as I knew they would. They have said that it was an "administration error" as I knew it would be. They have said that this is due to their legal team not recieving the appropriate summons and therefore they were unable to lodge a defence.

 

Tomorrow is the actual hearing for the recall of decree and I am planning not to contest the recall itself as it will only mean that the decree will be classified as "not implemented".

 

I would much prefer to concentrate all my energy into the actual case.that is to follow after the decree has been recalled. Besides the opportunity to pull clydesdale over the coals about what they have done is the reason I started this case in the first place. It is unnacceptable for an organisation that is entrusted with our personal data to blatantly flought the laws which are designed to protect us. That being said, the government and the banking industry seem content to just brush these offenses under the carpet. The ICO has no real power when dealing with these types of situation but I am convinced that their assessment of such cases does give weight to the argument in a court of law. I am hoping that the sheriff will agree.

 

I will report again tomorrow

 

Martin

[Crazy Diamond]

Good luck, fingers crossed for you.

[martinkeatings1]

Just a quick update. Stunned them by not contesting the recall of decree. Instead we go to court. Sheriff has set an evidenciary hearing on 30th of march with the case being called on 14th of April. Here we go.

[martinkeatings1]

Hi crazy diamond. I actively encouraged the judged to recall the decree so we can both argue the case in court. This is not about monetary gain its about the principle that an organisation can not be allowed to blatantly diregard the rule of law. It has to stop and I want my day in court to argue it. One thing is that the decree cannot be recalled more than once so tactically by agreeing to it, if I win in court then they cannot apply for a recall.

[Chipmeister]

Fascinating. please keep us updated.

[caro]

Affidavit's Wanted Please

 

Preparing for the case ahead, clydesdale I know will use the "it was only a one of administration error" line alongside their proposed defence.

 

I want to show the court that infact failure to provide documentation under section 7 of the DPA 1998 is rife across the industry but in particular within this bank. I am trying to collect as many affidavits from people who have banked with clydesdale and had problems of this nature to use as evidence that this is not a 1 time occurance. 3 Years and still no data from them. Anyone willing to help?

 

When this site started in 2006 just about everyone had problems getting info from Clydesdale. I wonder if it might be worth a Freedom of Information enquiry to the ICO to see how many complaints they received about them not fully complying with SARs.

[thewharg]

As one who has been at the blunt end of Clydesdale Bank's shennanigans, lack of communication and off-handedness to the extent that we have withdrawn most of our business from them (leaving only 2 large business loans in place for them to ethort even more interest from) I am extremely curious to hear the outcome of this case. Banks running rough-shod over hard-working, tax paying individuals is contemptible such that they do not deserve our on-going business, yet what choice have we but to continue to be exploited even in these tumultuous economic times?

[thewharg]

Is anyone out there to update??

[thewharg]

Anyone?

[the_shadow]

thewharg,

 

martinkeatings1 was last onsite 20th April, hopefully they'll return to give us an update when they can.

 

S.

[martinkeatings1]

Well its been a very very interesting time with them. Something jogged my memory of the case the other day and I had forgotten about this thread.

 

Long story short. I went to court and the representative of clydesdale was all prepared to fight for it to be set aside but I got there first and just asked the sheriff to do it. Was kinda funny to see the look on the persons face. But while I was at the court the plot thickened, one of the solicitors that approached me did so not realising we had met before.

 

Approximately 6 weeks before I had asked for a legal opinion from someone in a particular firm that will remain nameless on the clydesdale situation. I didn't get much of a helpful response. I then come to find out that - oh yes! you guessed it! The solicitor representing clydesdale is none other than the one I asked for a legal opinion from and was screwed around - conflict of interest or what!

 

Anyway, after allowing the recall of decree a new date was set for the hearing again. I requested a stack of info from the ICO and something else turned up. Apparently the ICO had opened two cases by mistake with two different handlers. One contacted the branch and one contacted their head office, obviously without noticing that they were both working on it. Long story short, they told me it was a single person had cocked up where as they gave a different excuse to each of the 2 case handlers at the ICO. The plot thickens even more. The funny thing is that they effectively trapped themselves in contradictory lies.

 

Suffice to say that this all made me extremely angry so I spent 2 weeks going back and forth between myself and clydesdale in writing. I informed them that I would be modifying the ammount sought to a sum considerably north of the original sum. They accepted the revised figure without argument (which I cant disclose because it was under a settlement agreement) but it was considerably north of £1200 on the agreement that the matter would go no further. I accepted the offer, they paid the settlement and I dismissed the claim on that basis.

[gerson]

Hi Matinkeatings1,

 

Congratulations and thanks for the update

 

G

[the_shadow]

Congrats on the win

 

S.

[caro]

Excellent. Always good to hear when Clydesdale get their comeuppance!

[thewharg]

Well done for pursuing this and for achieving (for you) a satisfactory result. It would have been better had you had your say in court and held Clydesdale Bank fully to account, and I am disappointed not to hear how they squirmed and wriggled in court. It seems you were finally persuaded to accept a larger sum to prevent this from happening. Oh dear. Seems like this wasn't a public stab in the neck to the Clydesdale Bank after all, and there's not really much we can all learn from having read this account, other than Perseverance and Determination to hold to account. Sadly not the Hanging out of Dirty Washing for all to see that would have benefitted the majority. You succumbed to temptation and accepted the pay-off, it seems.