Big Claim aginst RBOS

[car2403]

Sparkie, I'm in awe of your continued battle against the machine.

 

I do have a question here, though - what can you achieve by dragging their sorry asses back to Court to admit this untruth and how will it help you in the bigger picture?

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723
words deleted not accepted now

[car2403]

Cool... Nice one sparkie. Bonus for you at Christmas should this run it's course...

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[42man]

Just had a read through this Sparkie.....great work..!! quite fascinating !!

[Sol]

I've spent hours reading your post and I admire you for having the fight to continue this for such a long time. The only worry I have is that RBS/Cobbetts will not give up and continue to add costs to the bill. Is there no way your M.P. can takeover as I feel he will be able to make RBS pay out. No offence of course.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[car2403]

Isn't that a breach of the SRA Code of Conduct?;

 

Cobbetts LLP is a limited liability partnership and is regulated by the Solictors Regulation Authority

 

http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/code/solicitors-code-of-conduct-full.pdf

 

This plot also thickens, reading that document;

 

15. Where a client admits to having committed perjury or having misled the court in any material matter relating to ongoing proceedings, you must not act further in those proceedings unless the client agrees to disclose the truth to the court.

 

16. If, either before or during the course of proceedings, the client makes statements to you which are inconsistent, this is not of itself a ground for you to stop acting. Only where it is clear that the client is attempting to put forward false evidence to the court should you stop acting. In other

circumstances it would be for the court, and not for you, to assess the truth or otherwise of the client’s statement

 

All useful, relevant stuff that the Court will no doubt be interested in, IMHO.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[bgqs]

Sparkie,

 

I salute you in your battle for having the balls to pursue this one. I had one firm of Sol's terminate representation for their client on the basis of a conflict of interest simply by using the SRA's code of conduct.

 

Many firms of solicitors are too scared to be made to explain their actions to the BAR or SRA and normally, cease representation for their client.

 

Only where they are 100% will they continue representation.

 

With all those costs mounting, the most you have to lose is they receive judgement and you are made to pay the (probably 00's of 000's of pounds !) costs for the other party.

 

In this instance, I would cut my loses and either pay them £10 per week or simply file for bankruptcy...

 

I am subscribing to this one....very interesting...power to the people !

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Ihatedca's]

Ok i do not have a clue about any of this lol but i wish you good luck for the future and i hope you kick ass

[paulwlton]

Hi Brian, rule 11 is interesting.

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: contents

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Reporting a solicitor

Edited December 28, 2008 by paulwlton

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

I think the argument put forward by Cobbetts that she had reasonable grounds to believe her client also won't hold water as the evidence was there in the papers for her see & the rules don't allow for incompetence

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

Alternatively get them to admit (in writing) their 'mistake' & present it to the court for the court to decide what should be done

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

But they already have by admitting that the lawyer in question, who signed, relied on the client for THEIR S of T & not their own 1st hand knowledge

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[car2403]

But they already have by admitting that the lawyer in question, who signed, relied on the client for THEIR S of T & not their own 1st hand knowledge

 

Thank you JonCris,

That is a very relevant point that I totally missed. I will advise Mrs Robinson of that particular fact.

All the best for the New year to you and your family.

sparkie

 

It would be worth referring to CPR Part 22.1(4);

 

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), a statement of truth is a statement that –

(a) the party putting forward the document;

 

(b) in the case of a witness statement, the maker of the witness statement; or

 

© in the case of a certificate of service, the person who signs the certificate, believes the facts stated in the document are true

 

 

Also, CPR Part 22, Practice Direction 5;

 

Penalty

 

5

 

Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of verifying a statement of case containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth, and to the procedures set out in paragraph 28 of the practice direction supplementing Part 32

 

then;

 

False statements

 

32.14

 

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

 

(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –

(a) by the Attorney General; or

 

(b) with the permission of the court

 

and;

 

Penalty

 

28.1

 

(1) Where a party alleges that a statement of truth or a disclosure statement is false the party shall refer that allegation to the court dealing with the claim in which the statement of truth or disclosure statement has been made.

 

(2) the court may –

(a) excercise any of its powers under the rules;

 

(b) initiate steps to consider if there is a contempt of court and, where there is, to punish it;

(The practice direction to RSC Order 52 (Schedule 1) and CCR Order 29 (Schedule 2) makes provision where committal to prison is a possibility if contempt is proved)

 

© direct the party making the allegation to refer the matter to the Attorney General with a request to him to consider whether he wishes to bring proceedings for contempt of court.

 

 

 

28.2

 

(1) An application to the Attorney General should be made to his chambers at 9 Buckingham Gate London SW1E 6JP in writing. The Attorney General will initially require a copy of the order recording the direction of the judge referring the matter to him and information which –

(a) identifies the statement said to be false; and

 

(b) explains –

(i) why it is false, and

 

(ii) why the maker knew it to be false at the time he made it;

 

 

and

© explains why contempt proceedings would be appropriate in the light of the overriding objective in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

 

(2) The practice of the Attorney General is to prefer an application that comes from the court, and so has received preliminary consideration by a judge, to one made direct to him by a party to the claim in which the alleged contempt occurred without prior consideration by the court. An application to the Attorney General is not a way of appealing against, or reviewing, the decision of the judge.

 

 

28.3

 

Where a party makes an application to the court for permission for that party to commence proceedings for contempt of court, it must be supported by written evidence containing the information specified in paragraph 28.2(1) and the result of the application to the Attorney General made by the applicant.

 

28.4

 

The rules do not change the law of contempt or introduce new categories of contempt. A person applying to commence such proceedings should consider whether the incident complained of does amount to contempt of court and whether such proceedings would further the overriding objective in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

 

Surely Cobbetts understand the Civil Procedure Rules and the possible effect of what has happened?

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

Slight concern with "one final letter" otherwise keeps Cobbetts on their toes

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723