Big Claim aginst RBOS

[canobeans]

Well done Sparkie.....great job there.....keep it up!!

Looks like the "money" is taking a backseat to the "Principle".

I can almost hear the adrenelin pumping through your veins

You're a crusader.....a real star.....

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[canobeans]

Yeah Sparkie...already following Paul's saga.

It's getting really heavy now......good for him!!

 

Can you give me any guidence on my dilemma?? I'm really unsure which way to go now!!

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[HydraUK]

Will some more knowledgable person on Bank Charge claims run their beady eyes over my POC please.

I'm going to give the RBOS & Cobbetts some more work

 

sparkie1723

 

IN The XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX

 

X. X.XXXXX V The ROYAL BANK OF SOTLAND

 

Particulars Of Claim

 

 

 

1..The Claimant has an account xxxxxxxx ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened in or around [DATE]. Between the dates of dates of [During the period from] 01/09/98 and 20/05/01 the [Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant] Defendant applied numerous default charges and various other charges [if these are all the typical 'charges' we normally see I wouldn't bother with that bit] to the Claimant's bank account.

 

2..Even it had been so that there had indeed been a contract in place between the Claimant and the Defendant these charges constituted unfair penalties under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which state: "A term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." The amount charged would not have reflected the cost of any purported breach.

 

3..Furthermore in any respect these charges had not been agreed to by way of any contract, between the Claimant and Defendant. Should the Defendant disagree, then the Defendant is put to proof and produce a [true] signed copy of this contract agreeing to these charges.

 

4..Other charges claimed are various charges applied to the Claimants bank account which also had not been agreed to by the Claimant, as there was no Banking agreement/contract between the Claimant and the Defendant in place at the time or any other time.

 

5..Included also in this claim are 2 specific cheque to which transaction charges and penalties were applied, transactions that the Defendant has previously admitted did in fact take place in a statement of truth written and signed by an employee of the Defendant, Mr J Kennedy, in a previous claim made by the Claimant against the Defendant and those charges were applied to an account of which all records have been destroyed.

 

 

 

6..The Defendant cannot provide the evidence of these transactions and penalty charges applied and must repay these fees and charges as claimed.

7..These particular charges are inserted in red on claim schedule.The Claimant submits that as the Defendant has failed to produce any record what so ever of this account and transactions and charges , the Defendant has contravened the section of the Banking Act that states.

“ An institution shall not be regarded as conducting its business in a prudent manner unless it maintains or, as the case may be, will maintain adequate accounting and other records of its business and adequate systems of control of its business and records.”

 

8..The Claimant requests that should the Defendant dispute this claim, that the Defendant be put to the strict proof of these particular admitted transactions, and that the Defendant do explain the reason for the destruction of these records of those transactions, as they took place in the same time period that the Defendant has produced the Bank statements of another of the Claimants accounts even to the fact of some 21 months previous dated from 1998

 

 

9..Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful “extravagant” penalty. Referring to the cases ofWilson v Love [1896]; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; Ford Motor Co v Armstrong [1915]; Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [1962]; Murray v Leisureplay [2004

 

A charge is a penalty if it does penalty not reflect an item's true cost and must provide the proof to show that these charges were in fact the actual cost of the charges and were not for or profit at the expense of the Claimant and his loss.

 

THIS WHOLE BIT SHOULD GO AT THE END - I CANT SEE ANY MORE GLARING ERRORS BUT THE FORMAT FROM HERE IS WRONG - 8..Under [section 69 of ] the County Courts Act 1984, the Claimant is entitled to interest at a rate of eight per cent per annum from the date he was first deprived of the money to the date of this claim.

This amounts to a total sum of, £ 4119.74 continuing to accrue interest at 0.0219% [this should be a figure in ££'s per day] interest per day until judgement of earlier payment.

 

9.. The Claimant therefore asks the court to enter judgment in his favour for the sum of £ 4119.74 as per schedule of claim

 

10..The Defendant has paid the sum of £ 214:48 in regard to this claim, with accompanying letter a copy of which is presented as Document 1 attached to this claim, wherein the Defendant claims that the remainder of the Claimants claim is statute barred.

 

11..The Claimant claims that the Defendant failed to comply with his Subject Data Access Request made on the 12th December 2005 and deliberately with held copies of bank statements that would have enabled the Claimant to claim the charges within the statutory time limit and the Claimant requests that the Court implement Section 32 of the Statute of Limitations, and judge in favour of the Claimant the full amount of this claim.

 

12..Some of the Claimants Bank statements were with held until 24th February 2007 and further statements with held until the 28th March 2007.

 

13.. The Claimant has accepted the sum of £214:48 paid to him by the Defendant as part payment of the amount claimed but will not be bound by the conditions referred to in the letter Document 1.

 

14..Attached is the Claimants Schedule of Claim for the total sum of £4119:74.

 

15.. This claim is for all and any charges made on his account for reason no Banking agreement was in force as to the agreement of any charges, if any, being applied to the Claimants account.

 

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are to the best of his knowledge true.

 

 

 

Signed……………………

Claimant.

 

Dated ………………

 

Might have helped a bit...blue is my suggestions and red is typo/error

 

Phil

[Sparkie1723]

THanks Phil,

 

Just a couple of questions , as you may have noted from my posts

a) this account was closed in Feb 2004.

b) I have never had any kind of signed contract/agreement with the RBOS, they could not /cannot provide any document what so ever with my signature on (except on letters I have witten to them) even to the court in my previous case .......so.......I'm claiming every single charge back they made on this account.

 

I believe that they will not let this claim get to court because they will have to explain these two cheque transactions that they can't/could not afford to have been heard in that court case and why they "pulled" that trick to prevent it, (which are in my claim to the police of false accounting) they can't produce the records of these two cheqes transaction "bouncing" Hope you can follow what I'm getting at here

 

sparkie1723

[HydraUK]

Sparks,

 

a) Just state in first para, 'opened in [DATE] and closed in Feb2004'.

b) I think the onus is on them to produce these, its got to be the same as CCA. Can't comment on 'every single charge' but best of luck with it all.

 

Phil

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[photoman]

Will some more knowledgable person on Bank Charge claims run their beady eyes over my POC please.

I'm going to give the RBOS & Cobbetts some more work

 

sparkie1723

 

IN The XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX

 

X. X.XXXXX V The ROYAL BANK OF SOTLAND

 

Particulars Of Claim

 

 

 

1..Between the dates of dates of xx/xx/xxx and xx/xx/xxxx the Claimant held an account ( no xxxxxxxx and sort code xx/xx/xx ) with the Defendants company which was purportedly governed by a contract between the two parties and subject to Defendants Terms and conditions as contained in said contract.

 

 

2/ Between the periods of 01/09/98 and 20/05/01 the Defendant applied numerous default charges and various other charges to the Claimant's bank account as it claimed the right to do so under the terms and conditions of said contract .

 

2/ The Claimant has (through his rights under the Data protection Act and on numerous other occasions) requested that the Defendant provide him with a true copy of any contracts that exist between the Claimant and Defendant. The Defendant to date has failed to provide any such contracts. The Claimant thus contests that no actual contract relating to the above account(s) actually exists, and indeed never did.

3/ The Claimant contests that the Defendant had no Contractual rights to apply these charges as indeed no contract actually existed.

 

4.Even had there been a contract in place between the Claimant and the Defendant it was not in any manner a consideration of the Claimants that when agreeing to such a contract he would be allowing the Defendant to apply unlawfully high charges and interest thereon so these charges constituted unfair penalties under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which state: "A term is unfair if it requires any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." The amount charged would not have reflected the cost of any purported breach.

 

(no need for previous paragraphs 3 or 4)

 

5. The Claimant would specifically like to bring to the Courts attention 2 cheques to which transaction charges and penalties were applied. These transactions and the charges thereon have been confirmed as actually having taken place in a statement of truth written and signed by an employee of the Defendant, Mr J Kennedy, yet the Defendant now claims that all records have been destroyed.

 

7..These particular charges are inserted in red on the attached schedule.The Claimant submits that as the Defendant has failed to produce any record what so ever of this account and transactions and charges , the Defendant has contravened the section of the Banking Act that states.

“ An institution shall not be regarded as conducting its business in a prudent manner unless it maintains or, as the case may be, will maintain adequate accounting and other records of its business and adequate systems of control of its business and records.”

 

8..The Claimant requests that should the Defendant dispute this claim, that the Defendant be put to the strict proof of these particular admitted transactions, and that the Defendant do explain the reason for the destruction of these records of those transactions, as they took place in the same time period that the Defendant has produced the Bank statements of another of the Claimants accounts even to the fact of some 21 months previous dated from 1998

 

 

9..Under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful “extravagant” penalty. Referring to the cases ofWilson v Love [1896]; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; Ford Motor Co v Armstrong [1915]; Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [1962]; Murray v Leisureplay [2004

If you are going to quote case references make sure that you have indeed actually read them, hunt around and download them. Also as well as the dates, you should quote the actual court reference number (ie; there may have been several cases between Murray and Leisureplay in 2004 inc appeals etc, so do use the actual court ref prefix)

 

A charge is a penalty if it does penalty not reflect an item's true cost and must provide the proof to show that these charges were in fact the actual cost of the charges and were not for or profit at the expense of the Claimant and his loss.

 

8..Under the County Courts Act 1984, the Claimant is entitled to interest at a rate of eight per cent per annum from the date he was first deprived of the money to the date of this claim. State what the actual charges only and interest only figures are then the total.

This amounts to a total sum of, £ 4119.74 continuing to accrue interest at 0.0219% interest per day until judgement of earlier payment.

 

9.. The Claimant therefore asks the court to enter judgment in his favour for the sum of £ 4119.74 as per schedule of claim

 

10..The Defendant has paid the sum of £ 214:48 in regard to this claim, with accompanying letter a copy of which is presented as Document 1 attached to this claim, wherein the Defendant claims that the remainder of the Claimants claim is statute barred.

 

11..The Claimant claims that the Defendant failed to comply with his Subject Data Access Request made on the 12th December 2005 and deliberately with held copies of bank statements that would have enabled the Claimant to claim the charges within the statutory time limit and the Claimant requests that the Court implement Section 32 of the Statute of Limitations, and judge in favour of the Claimant the full amount of this claim. Quote the actual sections and sub sections of Statute of Limitations, and eg sec 32 (1) a . Read the actual act.

I actualy think this section could be phrased better.

 

12..Some of the Claimants Bank statements were with held until 24th February 2007 and further statements with held until the 28th March 2007.

 

13.. The Claimant has accepted the sum of £214:48 paid to him by the Defendant as part payment of the amount claimed but will not be bound by the conditions referred to in the letter Document 1.

 

14..Attached is the Claimants Schedule of Claim for the total sum of £4119:74.

 

15.. This claim is for all and any charges made on his account for reason no Banking agreement was in force as to the agreement of any charges, if any, being applied to the Claimants account.

 

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are to the best of his knowledge true.

 

 

 

Signed……………………

Claimant.

 

Dated ………………

 

 

Sparkie

 

I've made some comments.

Take them on board, but do ask for advice and help from the Mods and site helpers also.

 

If you want to take a look at some others examples of POC's you could include the one I posted recently on the Business Claimants thread The thread address is in my signature. This includes some good paragraphs regards sec 32 etc. It also includes the actual case rferences to look up.

 

Do actually read any cases and statutes you quote and rely upon to ensure they are actualy relevant befoer citing them.

 

Best of luck and regards

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[passivenomore]

Just subscribing!!

 

Good luck sparkie!!

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[humbleman]

T

This just proves what I have said these banks etc do not need your consent whatsoever to access your credit file ,they just do it by the secret search method and then tell you at point blank they have no info about you OR only give you what they want to give you.......fact, and I ve got the proof.

 

 

sparkie1723

 

Anyone registered with the CRA's can do a search on you without leaving a FOOTPRINT as they call it.

[Sparkie1723]

Sorry humbleman to disagree with you there

 

No one can search anyones credit file without the data subjects consent or without a legitimate reason,

Any institution that is registered with the CRA's, sign an agreement with the CRA's that before they access the CRA data bases they MUST have the signed consent of that individual ....This is in the signed Contract that they have with the CRA's and that is fact, and I do know what I am talking about , no disrespect to you, but I really do.

 

I also have in writing from the CRA's that particular fact.

 

You must also consider that if to access anyones credit file all that a bank or institution had to do was register with the CRA's and that is all they had to do ...The whole Data Protection Act would be a worse waste of space than it is already.

sparkie1723

[canobeans]

Sparkie.....I think what humble is saying is that they can access the info NOT that they are allowed to!!!

[humbleman]

sparkie.

 

I agree that they need the consent of the data subject, thats why I choose my words carefully, can do a search on you, by law they are not allowed to, but they have the ability to do so. However if they did a search without leaving a footprint, you or I wouldn't know about it anyway. Its just like they are not supposed to default you whilst they are in default themselves, but they still do. If you get the jist.

 

canobeans exactly(you got your post in, whilst I was busy doing mine)

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[canobeans]

It's the human way unfortunately.....there are crooks!!

Someone will always try and find a way to get something they aren't allowed to have....eg. computer hackers, bank robbers, bank staff, car thieves, etc.

 

The plus for you is that someone has left a "footprint" and this can't be denied....."short 'n' curlys them by got the you've";) :D

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[canobeans]

It's great to be able just to air your views....sometimes you don't want or need an answer you just want to get it off your chest......that's what I love about this site!!

I don't think I'd have carried on with my claim if I hadn't had the CAG support......you don't feel you are alone:D (violins???.....quick get me a hanky!!!:o )

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[photoman]

.......this is like the group therapy scenes in the film "Fight Club" ....... I wonder if Meat Loaf is a CAG member !!!