Big Claim aginst RBOS

[car2403]

I don't think CAG will help you in that way - the forum is setup to allow people to help themselves, rather than asking them to put in funds to help push a test case through.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure CAG would consider backing you all the way, if your case was strong enough and there was sufficient interest in the "consumer issues" that it brings about to effect their membership.

 

I have been privy to some of that in the past, where a case was considered for being "pushed through" as a test case, but it all fell through in the end as the merits of that particular case just weren't strong enough.

 

All "test cases" have to start out somewhere - and I'm sure Mrs Wilson was probably in a similar situation as you are now, at the beginning.

 

If you want someone from CAG to contact you, you can use the "report post" option (on the left hand side of each post) to bring the thread to the attention of the site team, who can get some attention from CAG for you. Be aware that they probably won't come and discuss this on the thread, though, so you'll probably need to talk to Bankfodder, or the likes, by phone, etc.

 

Watching this one with interest in either case...

[Sparkie1723]

I don't think CAG will help you in that way - the forum is setup to allow people to help themselves, rather than asking them to put in funds to help push a test case through.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure CAG would consider backing you all the way, if your case was strong enough and there was sufficient interest in the "consumer issues" that it brings about to effect their membership.

 

I have been privy to some of that in the past, where a case was considered for being "pushed through" as a test case, but it all fell through in the end as the merits of that particular case just weren't strong enough.

 

All "test cases" have to start out somewhere - and I'm sure Mrs Wilson was probably in a similar situation as you are now, at the beginning.

 

If you want someone from CAG to contact you, you can use the "report post" option (on the left hand side of each post) to bring the thread to the attention of the site team, who can get some attention from CAG for you. Be aware that they probably won't come and discuss this on the thread, though, so you'll probably need to talk to Bankfodder, or the likes, by phone, etc.

 

Watching this one with interest in either case...

 

 

Please note I have not requested monetary help of ANYONE thank you very much, and I will never do so my fight is my fight and no-one elses

 

 

sparkie

[car2403]

Please note I have not requested monetary help of ANYONE thank you very much, and I will never do so my fight is my fight and no-one elses

 

 

sparkie

 

My post was in response to fergal's suggestion, sparkie - I'm aware you weren't asking for financial support, but I wanted to "close the loop" on the implications of the suggestion.

[Sparkie1723]

My post was in response to fergal's suggestion, sparkie - I'm aware you weren't asking for financial support, but I wanted to "close the loop" on the implications of the suggestion.

 

 

My apologies car2403 , I thought you were of the belief I had asked for monetary help, sorry for that mistake:cool:

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Have now begun my next claim against RBS, I am determined to get their "antics" out in court,

 

Here is what Ive proposed so far I will be working on this POC very carefully this time!!!

sparkie

 

I, sparkie (the Claimant) do hereby submit his claim against the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (the Defendant) under the Data Protection Act 1998 (Data Protection Act), namely for breaches of the First, Second and Sixth Principles of the aforesaid Act as follows.

 

Breach of the First Principle;

 

1 In June 2001 the Defendant registered a default on the credit file of the Claimant with the Credit Reference Agencies ( CRA’s) Experian and Equifax for the sum of £ 195.00, the Defendant then continued to update this default data each month adding various charges and fees until finally reaching the entered sum of £645.00.

 

 

2 In February 2004 after continued disputing of this entry by the Claimant the Defendant removed the said default entry from the data bank files of the CRA Experian, and informed the Claimant that it had removed the entry from both Agencies files but for reason only known to the Defendant, failed to remove it from the Claimants credit file held by the CRA Equifax.

 

 

3 The Defendant admitted in March 2007 that it was wrong to have entered the afore said default in the first instance, and that it was in breach of the Fourth Principle of the aforesaid Act.

 

 

4 The Claimant submits that the Defendant has been unable to supply any record or document showing that a contract existed of any kind between the Claimant and Defendant at any time, nor can it supply any document or record of the consent given by the Claimant to enable the Defendant to pass on/process any information of any description, the Defendant has failed to have fulfilled any of the conditions required under the First Principle of the Data Protection legislation.

 

 

5 The Claimant submits that the wrongly supplied information to the CRA’s was therefore also, unlawfully supplied in breach of the legislation of the Act, the First Principle which states amongst other things;

 

 

“Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, shall not be processed unless;

 

 

“at least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met”

• The data subject has given his consent to the processing

• The processing is necessary:

(a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party;

(b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contact.

 

6 The Claimant further submits that the default information initially supplied by the Defendant was stated by the Defendant to be concerning three cheques that had been manually altered by the Claimant with the consent of the manager of Defendants branch in Ellesmere Port, and that the subsequent fees and charges applied to these cheques for the referrals and subsequent final return of two of the three cheques unpaid formed the basis of the said default entry. Letter from Defendant to the Information Commissioner’s Office stating this fact, attached as (1)

 

 

7 The Defendant has failed to supply the Claimant with any documents, records or any explanation of the transactions surrounding these cheques since first requesting such evidence and documents in January 2004. Attached to this claim is letter to the Defendant numbered (2). Copies of the two altered cheques referred to in the letter and numbered (3)

 

 

8 The Defendant did not respond to this letter and ignored it and has since made it perfectly clear to the Claimant, that it will not discuss any past transactions on any of his accounts transactions in any way what so ever. Attached is letter stating that fact numbered (4)

 

 

Breach of the Sixth Principle

 

9 In November 2005 the Claimant having discovered that the default registration entered by the Defendant had not been removed from the Equifax data bank system, the Claimant submitted a request for any and all data the Defendant held about him.

 

 

10 In reply to his request the Claimant received a letter from Mrs Joyce E. Tudor the Data Controller of the Defendant stating that no information was held about him or any accounts that he had held with the Defendant, the cheque required as payment for this data was returned. Attached and numbered as (5). On receipt of this letter the Claimant then contacted the Credit Management Service Department of the Defendant in Telford Shropshire, to complain about the still prominent default registration and demand it be removed immediately. A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (Information Commissioners Office).

 

 

11 On the intervention of the Information Commissioners Office, the Defendant supplied three pages of data on the 9th May 2006 accompanied by a cover letter stating that this was the data being held by the Defendant. Attached as document numbered (6).

 

 

12 The Information Commissioners Office reached the decision that the Defendant had been in breach of the Sixth Principle by failing to supply the Claimant with this information within the 40 day timescale laid down in the Data Protection Act and advised the Defendant of that fact, the Defendant accepted that decision. Shown as document numbered (7).

 

 

13 In March 2007 in a Defence bundle the Defendant produced more documents to defend an action brought against the Defendant by the Claimant. These were documents that should have been supplied under the Claimants request for data made in December 2005 and again, with the documents which had been supplied in May 2006 on the insistence and intervention by the Information Commissioners Office.

 

 

14 These documents included all the Claimants personal bank account statements from opening to closure, it also contained a copy of the Claimants credit file that had been copied from the computer system of the CRA Equifax under a National Westminster Bank signature, subsequently passed to the Defendant.

The proof of signature sign in shown as Document numbered (8).

The Claimants copied credit file is shown and numbered (8). ......Can't get rid of this smiley for some reason...anyone any ideas how to....tried 5 times..should read nine

 

 

15 The Defendant has since stated via its solicitors that this file was never copied, letter from Solicitors stating this, is attached and numbered (10), the Claimant submits this is a known deliberately made false misleading statement and an attempt to cover up the fact it was indeed copied, realising that an offence had been committed, unlawfully obtaining information about the Claimant and others.

 

 

16 The Claimant submits that the with holding of these documents were in further continuing breach of the Sixth Principle of the Data Protection Act and that the inclusion of them in Defence documents was also a breach of the Second Principle of the Data Protection Act in that;

 

“Personal data shall be obtained for one or more specified lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or purposes, and that;

 

“data subjects must not be deceived or misled as to the purposes for which their personal data are to be processed”

 

 

17 The Claimant submits that he was not only misled and deceived into believing that the documents the Defendant had supplied him with in May 2006 was all the data the Defendant held about him, but submits that they were deliberately withheld from him by this deception only to be produced when it appeared to be of advantage to the Defendant in the defence of the previous claim.

 

 

18 With regard to the copying of his credit file and the withholding of that document, the Claimant submits that this was a further breach of the Sixth Principle, it was also “secretly” and unlawfully obtained without the knowledge or consent of the Claimant, and submits that he was misled and deceived again as to the purpose of its use and that was as part of the Defendants defence papers in the previous litigation.

 

19 The Claimant submits that under section 13 of the DPA damages are available to him and he claims damages under that section;

 

Section 13 states

 

1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention.

 

The Legal Guidance given by the Information Commissioners Office further states;

 

An individual who suffers damage, or damage and distress, as the result of any contravention of the requirements of the Act by a data controller, is entitled to compensation where the data controller is unable to prove that he had taken such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the relevant requirement.

“Damage” includes financial loss or physical injury.20

 

In support of his entitlement to compensation The Claimant relies on the following case law;

The case of King v British Linen & Co 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.

 

21 The case of Wilson 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”.

 

22 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.

 

23 The Claimant submits that in the case, Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4 All ER 119 states "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."

 

24 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.

 

25 The Claimant submits that his credit rating was severely impaired by the unlawfully supplied default and wrongly entered, which has been admitted to be wrongful by the Defendant

 

 

 

 

 

I'll be adding two counts of breach of contract later today....would like peoples view on the presentation of this POC please!!

 

sparkie

Edited September 7, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[photoman]

Sparkie,

 

Have you seen this recent post by Bankfodder ?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-consumer-issues/158738-ombudsman-focus-compensation-distress.html

 

PM

[Sparkie1723]

Finished I think ....Will folks "attack it from the opposition point of view

 

sparkie

 

Breach of Contract; First Count.

 

1 The Claimant submits that on or around 18th February an agreement was made with the Defendants branch in Ellesmere Port that his business account should be closed and transferred to a current personal account.

 

2 The fact that this was said to have been done has been confirmed in statements of truth made by a witness for the Bank, Mr John Kennedy in January 2006;

 

“On 18 February 1998, Mr Grace’s business current account was transferred to a personal current account 10023759”.

 

3 This is further confirmed in Bank's skeleton argument drafted by the Bank's counsel and submitted to the Warrington County Court on 29th March 2007.

Quote from that Skeleton Argument:

 

“ He held an interest paying current account known as the Royalties Gold account with D’s Ellesmere Port Branch (“the Branch”) of which the number was 10023759 and the sort code was 16-19-23( “ the Personal Account”). This account was opened on or around 18th February 1998, to coincide with the closure of a business account in the name of Mr William B. Grace t/a Port Auto Electrics of which the number was 11448648 ( the Business Account” ).

 

4 The Claimant submits that he believed and has been led or misled to believe by the Defendant that this had been done.

 

5 After having received all his personal account bank statements in March 2007 and checking those statements he found that sums of money had been transferred from this account to his allegedly and agreed closed business account, having no recollection of having authorised these transactions, asked the Defendant via their solicitors for an explanation as to how monies could be taken from his personal account and moved to an account that was stated to have been closed, and believed to have been closed.

 

6 In May and June 2007 the Defendant produced copies of statements of the Claimnts believed closed business account, dating back to 1997 to the date of actual closure 3rd June 1999along with an accompanying letter which then stated that it had not been closed as he had always been led to believe. This letter also shows that the Defendant attempts to blame the Claimant for this non closure. Submitted as document numbered ( ). Once again showing that the Defendant after having stated that all records on this account had been destroyed, in line with the banks policy of destroying documents after 6 years, only to be able to produce them when it appears to be to their advantage.

 

7 The Claimant refutes this attempt to blame him, the Defendant has failed to produce any record or document that he was part of any decision not to close it or indeed had any knowledge that it had not in fact been closed until June 1999. He only discovered that it had not been closed in June 2007 on receipt of the letter doccument ( ) in above paragraph 6

 

8 The Claimant has had prepared an analysis and amalgamation of the two accounts which are submitted as document bundle numbered ( 1 to )

The claimant submits this bundle to show the loss suffered by the breach of the agreement made, and the somewhat questionable conduct of a Bank of such alleged stature, and submits that the failure to abide by the agreement made was of considerable loss to the Claimant and to considerable gain of the Defendant. This sum is in excess of £18000:00 alone

 

Breach of Contract; Second Count

 

1 In November 1999 an agreement was made between the Claimant and the bank manager of the Defendants Ellesmere Port branch, that the Claimant could alter the account details on three cheques of consecutive cheque numbers from an old business account cheque book, the numbers of which The Defendant has been aware of since January 2004. It as also agreed that these cheques would be passed and cleared through his personal account, this was quite understandable as it was the only account the Claimant held with the Defendant. Of the cheques one was honoured as per the agreement but for reasons unknown it has been found it did not pass through the Claimants personal account, nor were the charges applied to the other two cheques.

 

2 The Defendant has stated it was debited to the Claimants business account, which is strange to say the least, as that account had been closed some 5 months or so previously with a nil balance. (copy of closing statement has been supplied by the RBS) and submitted as document numbered ( ) The other two cheques were dishonoured by the RBS and stated by the RBS to have incurred charges for the subsequent return and representation and final dishonour.

 

3 The Defendant has stated that these charges also were debited to the business account, and it is these cheques that formed the basis of the alleged default entered by RBS on my credit file, as submitted early in this full claim

The Claimants submissions and claims regarding these transactions are:

 

 

a) Had the Bank done as agreed and carried out the transactions on my personal account they would not have been dishonoured as the personal account balance at the time of presentation was £195:45 Credit Balance, the personal account also had been allowed to have an unagreed overdraft of some £500 at times.

 

b) Had the Defendant have conducted its affairs in a diligent, responsible, professional efficient manner, it would have seen these facts to be true at that time.

 

c) The combined total value of the three cheques were £ 170:00 and it is clear that even without the overdraft facility funds were available at that time to cover these cheques.

 

The Claimant submits that the two cheques that were dishonoured, were wrongfully dishonoured and claims damages for the wrongful dishonour as per All England Law Reports/1996/Volume 4 / Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

Relevant sections are copied at this point.

 

“It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that history has changed the social factors which moulded the rule in the nineteenth century. It is not only a tradesman of whom it can be said that the refusal to meet his cheque is 'so obviously injurious to [his] credit' that he should 'recover, without allegation of special damage, reasonable compensation for the injury done to his credit”

The dishonour of a personal cheque could be no less harmful to the trader's credit than of one drawn on a trading account, perhaps even more so--and an additional reason why in my judgment, the exception or rule should not be confined as the defendants say that it should.

 

“Other loss depending upon the matters known to the parties at the time of the contract', which might include damages for loss of reputation or credit and for trading losses, in appropriate circumstances. The master held that the bank's knowledge of whether the customer was 'a trader' or whether the account was to be used for trading purposes was irrelevant as a matter of law to the loss of credit claim. I would prefer to hold that the starting point for any application of Hadley v Baxendale

[1996] 4 All ER 119 at 128”

 

4 The Defendant was well aware that the Claimant was a self employed Auto Electrical Engineer and the damaging actions affected both his business and personal credit rating and status and character.

 

5 The Claimant refers to paragraph 6 in First Count statement above and states that the Defendant shouldnot be allowed relief from these claims under statute barr even if it is submitted as a defence, as the Claimant relies on the fact that the discovery of these facts, was only made abundandantly clear in June 2007 on receipt of his bank statements and relies on the letter confirming this from the Defendant numbered ( ) and submits that he can avail himself of section 32 of the Statute of Limitations Act.

 

 

I'll be claiming loss general damages, exemplary damages , damages for distress etc. Just got to fine tune it now.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[photoman]

Sparkie,

 

Looks good, but I'm no expert, and I'm sure others will comment if need be.

 

You may though just wish to remove any personally identifiable details from your post ?

 

Never know who's snooping.

 

Pm

[Sparkie1723]

Sparkie,

 

Looks good, but I'm no expert, and I'm sure others will comment if need be.

 

You may though just wish to remove any personally identifiable details from your post ?

 

Never know who's snooping.

 

Pm

 

Thanks Pm but both Cobbetts and the RBS know full well who I am, I am not bothered really.. I only post the truth.

 

sparkie

[photoman]

Sparkie, I can see your point.

 

Your case is probably so unique that it's probably pretty easy for any of the opposition who may be watching this thread to figure out who the real "Sparkie" is.

 

However, although your mainly just posting up stuff that they will inevitably see anyway, it may be an idea to just keep some of the rest of your game plan close to your chest and not publicly post it up ?

ie; Rather than post and discuss on your thread how you are going to further reason and back up your currently posted arguments, perhaps try and get some one to one help.

I'm sure the site team are already taking quite an interest in your case, as it breaks some new ground.

 

PM

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[midge61]

Hi

 

Well done Sparkie that's great news.

 

Keep up the good fight.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

As RBS have always claimed these accounts are only for internal consumption it's important to show that this is untrue as these greatly inflated 'router' accounts have been used to obtain CCJ's against consumers.

 

This has of course meant that these debtors have been saddled with amounts they never owed

[paulwlton]

Just come back from my meeting with my MP Andrew Miller, He has told me that he will be making an applicatin for a select committee to be arranged as soon as he gets back to Westminster ....he's leaving today ....for him to bring my case before Parliament and his speech will be recorded in Hansard, he said the RBS will have about 10 days to contact him to prevent it by a negotiation deal with me, he has also asked me to obtain the names of other MP's who have been contacted by their constituents with disputes with RBS, so if anyone would like to give me their names he can contact them in order for them to attend theselect committee meeting to add their support and comments. He is really concerned at the treatment I have been subject to and he intends to make it public. He said once it is recorded in Hansard it will be available to ALL the media to publish.

 

sparkie

 

I think if they refuse to settle the **** will certainly hit the fan.

 

I'll pm you two more MPs on RBSs case later.

 

Regards

[tinkerbell20]

Regulatory Risk at RBS/NatWest Group are now saying they don't have to provide a copy of the consumer credit agreement under the data protection Act because it doesn't form part of a relevant filing system...............gues s it beats having to either

a) produce an unenforceable one

b) admit they don't have it or

c) admit they destroyed it!

 

Guess now the Government effectively owns them the Information Commissioners Office will roll over too...............

[Sparkie1723]

Maybe you are right about the Govt bit tinkerbell, but with regard the other point....if RBS enter a default with the CRA's regarding a CCA agreement the Information Commissioners Office state that inorder to support the default they must have an agreement in force to support it.

 

Post that fact in a minute.

 

sparkie

 

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

39 Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed. A record that a notice of an intention to file a default was sent, if not a copy of the notice itself, will help lenders to comply with this requirement

If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[sweetchicklady]

any updates sparkie?

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

HI sweetchicklady

I attended the costs application on 3rd Sept and then applied to ask the judge of my previous hearing what he meant by the 50% costs order anyway result was I was ordered to pay the Banks costs of £8000.

I haven't offered to pay any yet....I have not heard a peep out of Cobbetts or the RBS on this issue as of yet.....what I can say is that myself and another Cag menmber ( if you have read his thread) have been invited to Westminster and attend a meeting with both our MP's all together Andrew Miller MP (mine) and John Healey MP....we are all then going to have a meeting with the newly goverment appointed Chief Exec of the RBS before he takes up his position in January....just waiting for the date to go.

 

Watch this space i am sure it is gong to get interesting for folks to read from now on

 

 

 

sparkie

 

Do we know who the new Chief Exec is?

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Sparkie1723!

 

We did become over-extended at the wrong time and in the wrong markets ... RBS does have a group of world class businesses [which have been] obscured by the excess leverage that has got us to where we are today

 

Let me translate that with a quote from the Sunday Times when they interviewed the Author and Business Guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

 

The banking system is the worst of all. "Complex systems don't allow for slack and everybody protects that system. The banking system doesn't have that slack. In a normal ecology, banks go bankrupt every day. But in a complex system there is a tendency to cluster around powerful units. Every bank becomes the same bank so they can all go bust together."

 

He points out, chillingly, that banks make money from two sources. They take interest on our current accounts and charge us for services. This is easy, safe money. But they also take risks, big risks, with the whole panoply of loans, mortgages, derivatives and any other weird [problem] they can dream up. "Banks have never made a penny out of this, not a penny. They do well for a while and then lose it all in a big crash."

 

...Banks fail but bankers still get millions in bonuses for applying their useless models.

 

Sounds like Stephen Hester is all set to start the same rotten cycle all over again.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Rhia]

Sparkie - just catching up with your thread. Sorry to hear about the costs:mad:. Don't know much about them but would a time order be of use (I think they give you time to pay). I am just so impressed with the way you have fought this case. Engaging the M.P.s is the very best thing you could have done - they must know it's all true or they would not get involved with your case. Great big hugs to you.