Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 3 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
eubo

RBS defence in court (17/10/06)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4552 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I have never posted before now. I am owed aprox. £2100 from the Royal bank of Scotland in unfair charges. As I live in Scotland I decided to split this into 3 small claims.

My first small claims went to court this morning (17/11/06). I must admit i wasnt as prepared as i should have been. I had heard of the banks not turning up or settling at court so I was not too worried.

Prior to the court date I did recieve an offer over the phone from Jonny Nisbet (jonny.nisbet@rbs.co.uk) who i believe is a trainee solicitor for RBS offering me £310 goodwill gesture to drop the case (the full amount i was claiming for in this case came to over £1000 with interest and court fee).

I rejected this offer.

 

In Court this morning RBS solicitors?? said to the judge the offer still stood and that if it was not accepted they would give their defence. Again I turned down the offer.

 

They then entered this defence taken word for word:

 

'The charges have been applied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the banking contract between the Bank and Mr XXXXX. The charges are both transparent and fair and reasonable and represent a genuine estimate of the cost to the Bank in administering the said defaults. In addition, Mr XXXXX's claim for charges in the period 7/7/2000 - 15/8/2001, being charges levied more than 5 years prior to the date of service of the summons on the bank, has prescribed. Being more than 5 years these are now time-barred'

 

I was then asked by the judge if I wanted to go to a date for proof. I said yes and was asked to supply documents for this. I am unsure what they mean by this. The date has been set for 19/01/07. It seems a long time away. The first date i was given took only 3-4 weeks.

 

Has anyone been this far with the RBS? What do I need to do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone please help. Has anyone else had to go to court with RBS or recieve a date for a second hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi eubo,

im confussed by this in scotland we are limited to being able to go back five years on claims six years is for england. i realise this can be challenged and perhaps this is what you will have to do? could you explain further why you are claiming these dates and your reasoning?


bos~ Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1766.82

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

bos Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1217.86

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

court date issued of the 17th november

27th oct full offer totalling everything including 8% interest court costs and £10 dpa sar..... one down next to go.

 

rbs~ Data Protection Act sent off 21/09/2006:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it was me being naive about the Prescription and limitation act (Scotland) 1973. I did not realise there was a 5-year limit.

 

However, after further research I have found that if the pursuer was unaware a breach took place that the 5-year limit would start from when I discovered the breach had taken place. This can be up to 20 years after the breach.

 

In hind site I would have only claimed for 5 years but I still think I have a good argument and will give it a go.

 

My only worry is giving the Bank too much ammo and having the case thrown out.

I was very surprised that the bank turned up to the first hearing and a bit unprepared but want to make sure im ready for the next hearing in Jan if they dont settle before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am surprised as well ill do my best to get a mod or sh to look at this for you later.


bos~ Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1766.82

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

bos Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1217.86

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

court date issued of the 17th november

27th oct full offer totalling everything including 8% interest court costs and £10 dpa sar..... one down next to go.

 

rbs~ Data Protection Act sent off 21/09/2006:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eubo,

 

There are two limits, 5 years and 20. The starting date for the five year limit can be postponed in certain circumstances such as where the claimant was not aware and could not with reasonable diligence have become aware of their right to enforce an obligation on another. The twenty year limit applies irrespective of knowledge, i.e. it cannot be postponed. In most cases the five year limit will apply, and in those cases where the puruser could have pled the postponement of the five year period, their claim will prescribe in twenty years regardless of whether they knew or could have known etc.

 

It is confusing, I know, but five years does apply in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is confusing, I know, but five years does apply in these cases.

 

Not "does", "might".

 

Eubo, have a read of this:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-332152.html

 

Then decide for yourself how you want to proceed.

 

Robertxc is our Scottish moderator and very knowledgeable. I'l ask him to have a look at your thread, see if he has any advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advocate believes that you cannot go beyond five years because a 'reasonably' diligent person could have known that penalty charges were unlawfull all along, so you cannot say that you just found out about it. I would beg to differ.

 

While it is true that (however unlikeyl) you could have known that penaly charges are unlawful, you could not possibly have known that the banks charges were penalties. his is because:

 

A. The banks, to this day, keep the breakdown of thier costs strictly confidential.

 

B. If you were to ask them for a breakdown, they would tell you to get lost.

 

...and C. They swear blind that their charges are not penalties.

 

For me, they key event was the OFT's statement earlier this year to the effect that they consider the banks charges to be excessive.

 

I suggest you read the thread mentioned above, and make up your own mind. For your information, I've claimed beyond five years and still had settlement from the bank.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies. My other worry is that they stated in court:

 

'The charges are both transparent and fair and reasonable and represent a genuine estimate of the cost to the Bank in administering the said defaults'

But how can they say this without giving a breakdown. Should i be requesting the judge ask for this because my attempts to get it directly from the RBS has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the simple answer to this is they can say whatever they like however you should ask them to prove this in court. the judge can order them to disclose their costs and this is imo what you would be looking for.


bos~ Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1766.82

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

bos Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1217.86

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

court date issued of the 17th november

27th oct full offer totalling everything including 8% interest court costs and £10 dpa sar..... one down next to go.

 

rbs~ Data Protection Act sent off 21/09/2006:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the simple answer to this is they can say whatever they like however you should ask them to prove this in court. the judge can order them to disclose their costs and this is imo what you would be looking for.
Actually, they don't need to prove anything. You're the one bringing the action, so it's up to you to prove your case.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my appologies robert and eubo i stand corrected. many thanks. is it not the case though that we are looking for the banks to disclose cost? please dont think im being cheeky i just have picked something up wrong and would like to get it shraight in my own head


bos~ Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1766.82

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

bos Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1217.86

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

court date issued of the 17th november

27th oct full offer totalling everything including 8% interest court costs and £10 dpa sar..... one down next to go.

 

rbs~ Data Protection Act sent off 21/09/2006:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eubo, you have my every sympathy, facing them in the Court is I am sure everyone's worst nightmare, but there's enough support on here for everyone to be properly prepared, so no excuses there then!

 

BTW, is anyone else here concerned that RBS might be trying to make a test case out of this one???? :o And should we all panic, sorry, monitor very carefully and offer Eubo all the support possible?? ;)


:lol: Sweetrevenge :lol:

Don't get mad - get even!

If I've helped you please hit my scales 'n' bump my rep!

 

RBS (My A/c) S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent /10/06, statements rec'd 20/10; Prelim sent 3/11/06, s*d off letter rec'd 20/11; LBA sent 28/11, Settlement offer rec'd 18/12

WON at LBA with compound contractual interest £607

 

RBS BF Account S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 4/11, part response rec'd 28/11, further info sent 3/12 awaiting statements at 20/12, Sent LBA 19/01/07. Received all statements resulting in 3 claims, £1,278, £4,279 and £7,250(!) all with contractual interest.

 

 

This is now very out of date!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, is anyone else here concerned that RBS might be trying to make a test case out of this one???? :o And should we all panic, sorry, monitor very carefully and offer Eubo all the support possible?? ;)
No. The 'defence' they've stated is nothing new, and is going nowhere. This is just a scare tactic to make you think they're going to go all the way. Obviously, it's always possible that they may come up with a good defence, but this isn't it.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on.

 

DId they put the Defence in writing? If they did then I think has to be lodged with the Sheriff Clerk some period PRIOR to the preliminary hearing (7 or 14 days). I am pretty sure they just can't turn up and hand in their written Defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any event keep on going - your doing good.

 

BTW you might want to put in an Incidental Application for details of their ACTUAL costs. Robert will probably be the best person to help you. They will probably settle before the Incidental Application calls in court, but at least you get paid sooner. Which is good as long as your not worried about interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they have to submit their defence of 14 days before the proof hearing. It always takes longer for the proof hearing than it does for the preliminary hearing.


Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I know they have to submit their defence 14 days before the Proof hearing but do I not have to submit my case by then as well. How should I prepare this and what should I be submitting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I know they have to submit their defence 14 days before the Proof hearing but do I not have to submit my case by then as well. How should I prepare this and what should I be submitting?
You will have submitted your case in your statement of claim. They now have to submit a defence. If they don't, there's not much you can do until the next hearing.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I saw RBS in court today for my preliminary hearing, at the sheriff court in Edinburgh. Essentially they backed down completely and tomorrow hopefully I'll be getting the cash in my account. However, In preparing my case on the assumption they were going to defend, I found some interesting evidence which I was planning on entering if the hearing went to proof, which hopefully will be of some use to you. Have a look at page Ev39 (oral evidence) of this document:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/274.pdf

 

Essential points made by RBSs chief executive sir Fred Goodwin here are:

 

Q415 answer ' The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges'

 

Q417 answer 'Self-evidently, it is the same charge for everyone. They are not individually costed to each individual customer. That simply is not feasible. There are assumptions made blah blah...'

 

In other words, the charges on your account (in part, it is admitted by FG) go to subsidise RBSs global debt recovery losses. They are not allowed to do this. I am fairly sure under the law they are only allowed to charge you the losses that YOUR conduct causes them, which are negligible.

 

I believe since the source is parliamentary this evidence is admissable. Send a copy of the relevant pages to the court and the defender and say you plan to call on the document as evidence in the hearing. Interesting to see what their response would be in court, if it goes that far.

 

Good luck! Although I'm sure you wont need it, I bet they cave at the last moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yakobb

 

You say:

" In other words, the charges on your account (in part, it is admitted by FG) go to subsidise RBSs global debt recovery losses. They are not allowed to do this. I am fairly sure under the law they are only allowed to charge you the losses that YOUR conduct causes them, which are negligible."

 

This is an interesting point, but what makes you sure that they are not allowed to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunlop Pneumatic Tvre Co. v. New Garages and Motor Co.:

It was further noted in Dunlop that “There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage”.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robertxc,

 

Nice to hear from you again, but I am not sure how that answers the question. If the Banks are not allowed to average it out, then there has to be an argument why not. This piece of judicial opinion does not say that. It simply states that there is a rebuttable presumption of fact about lump sum compensation provisions following on from certain events. It says nothing about the way in which an organisation can organise its debt recovery. I am not denying the proposition, merely interested to know how it would be supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank charges are not legally enforceable if they are penalties. Penalty clauses in contracts in English (and Scottish) law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party. The law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses.

 

Such cases include, Wilson v. Love (1896), Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915), Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915), Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962) and Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

 

There have been several other cases over the past century. Any good book on contract law or business law will contain references to "penalty clauses", "penalties" or "liquidated damages" cases and a discussion of the law.

 

The sums charged by banks, credit card companies, loan companies and others are in most cases arbitrary sums and they bear no relation to the actual loss suffered by the company for the contract breach and therefore do not need to be paid.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...