Big Claim aginst RBOS

[JonCris]

It would appear that the banks in collusion with the ICO have where before they ignored Durrant are now using it in a new attempt to stop debtors finding out there are no valid agreements

[paulwlton]

It would appear that the banks in collusion with the Information Commissioners Office have where before they ignored Durrant are now using it in a new attempt to stop debtors finding out there are no valid agreements

 

This appears to be the case with RBS.

 

So now according to Rankin and durrant, once an agreement is defaulted there is no way of getting hold of a "true copy"

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

This appears to be the case with RBS.

 

So now according to Rankin and Durrant, once an agreement is defaulted there is no way of getting hold of a "true copy"

 

Both Rankin & Durrant are considered bad law. The banks with the help pf both the ICO & the Judiciary are trying to close the stable door after the horses or should I say agreements have bolted & no longer exist in their true form

 

We really need to go after the arrogant ICO who continually fail to protect the consumer

 

Sparkie bring their responses to the attention of your MP he'll probably be appalled being that he had something to do with the formation of the DPA

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[citizenB]

Durrant is considered bad law & since immediately after the ruling (most) data controllers had been strongly advised not to rely on it when discharging their duties.

 

As most will note in disputes with varied & many other data controllers elsewhere Durrant is never used in an attempt to avoid supplying data

 

For any data controller to raise it in their defence smacks of desperation in that they have something to hide.

 

How can the Information Commissioners Office rule that the Abbey microfiche archives ARE a valid system & RBS claim theirs are not............ Please note the Abbey finding was AFTER Durrant

 

Jonathon Gray really needs to check what the left hand is stating BEFORE making such remarks

 

The ICO also ruled Barclaycard's Microfiche system (2006) was a "relevant filing" system as well.

[paulwlton]

The Information Commissioners Office also ruled Barclaycard's Microfiche system (2006) was a "relevant filing" system as

well.

 

Could you post links to Abbey and Barclaycard please.

[citizenB]

Could you post links to Abbey and Barclaycard please.

 

Paul, this is the link for the ICO response for Barclaycard, Im sorry I dont know anything about the Abbey decision.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/50148-barclaycard-microfiche-they-wrong.html

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[citizenB]

Ohhhhh Lordy, what a muddle.

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

 

According to RBS statement that they keep records for six years and the Acts stated timescale plus other regulatory body stated timescale of six years for record keeping, six years backwards from November 2005 is November 1999 and the fact that the “alleged” loan agreement was still running until June 2000.

RBS should have kept this document ( loan agreement) if there ever was one, until June 2006, and as I was finally supplied with “some” data in response to my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in May 2006, nearly 5 months over the time limit for supplying data under the Act, it did not contain a copy of this agreement nor copies of any bank statements.

 

I guess it's one of those RBS loans that "don't exist"

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[citizenB]

Well you are certainly providing your MP with sufficient information/ammunition to work with Sparkie and it would appear that he is prepared to fight your corner.

[fergal71]

I am absolutely fed up with all this s**t, can we not pool some money together from this site and get a decent barrister to win a case against the credit reference agencies and set a precedent. I am trying to fight too many battles and hitting the same wall.... I for one would be happy to donate for this case to be fought in the courts... come on martin lewis and cag lets do this like we did in HULL.....

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723
Deleted used the word lies no approved by site

[Sparkie1723]

This is my reply to Cobbetts.

sparkie

29th July 2008

To Cobbetts LLP

58 Mosley Street

Manchester

M2 3HZ

Without Prejudice or Malice

Reference your letter dated 28th July 2008

LCB/RR1362-330

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 28th July 2008, regarding your client’s bill of costs and the forthcoming detailed assessment hearing of the cost of claim Number CH03280.

I write to advise that I accept the 14 day “window offer” for acceptance or not. In any event I will not enter into any kind confidentiality (gagging) agreement should I accept it. I shall be seeking legal advice and the advice of my MP Mr Andrew Miller, who has now become deeper and more seriously involved in my case than he ever was before.

I do not know if you are aware that he has written a further letter to your client’s Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin, regarding the treatment of me by your clients over the years regarding my disputes and the content of some of the replies he has received from your client to his letters, to which he has demanded a personal reply.

Besides having taken copies of certain and various documents and letters which contain many false misleading statements made to me, and the various official bodies including those in witness statements of truth that I have so far been blocked from bringing to the courts and judges attentions, he is most incensed that he personally has been deceived and misled by your clients, and that he has had false statements made to him in various letters written to him by your clients. Here are some examples of the statements made to Mr Miller that he is so incensed about;

Taken from a letter to Mr Miller in August 2007

We recognise that Mr Grace remains aggrieved by the judge's decision, although he did not appeal it at the time. He had the option to challenge it through the court process by way of an appeal. Given that he chose not to appeal, we do not consider it appropriate for parliament to intervene”.

Cobbetts themselves were present in court when the judge refused permission for me to appeal.

“ To date, as a good will gesture, the Bank has not pursued Mr Grace for costs”.

A few days after the date Mr Miller received this letter I received the Banks submitted costs claim for over £7,000. This meant that even at the time of writing this letter, RBS had begun the process of pursuing their costs and had already submitted the request to the Robbins Partnership to prepare them, Mr Miller has made a special note of this statement also.

Taken from letter to Mr Miller dated 28th February 2008

“For the avoidance of doubt, we confirm that RBS has already made available to Mr Grace all relevant documentation that it holds. We regret that, given the stage that matters have now reached, RBS is not prepared to correspond further on these issues”.

In June 2008 just prior to my application hearing of 19th June 2008 RBS supply me with a further 25 pages or so of documentation.

Mr Miller is already in possession of the two witness statements made to the courts, along with the notes made by me pointing out the false misleading statements contained therein, and the documents appertaining to each false statement to back my submissions up.

Mr Miller has informed me that as soon as Parliament returns after the summer recess he will most certainly be putting forward a motion to the first full house session regarding my case, and will be backed by other MP’s who also have constituents in serious conflict with RBS, one colleague Mr John Healey MP who is an ex treasury minister will be seconding that motion.

Mr Miller has told me that he will use his Absolute Privilege in Parliament and will hold no punches back, he does not do this lightly, and has only done it once before in his considerably long political career.

The RBS will not have the protection of their lawyers in this motion, which I am sure will attract considerable amount of attention of all manner of the reporting media.

I now come to your letter itself a copy of which will also be given to Mr Miller, and refer you to the 5th paragraph, and I also refer you to the letter written to Mr Miller by Birch Cullimore, solicitors of my partner Mrs M. George, dated 26th March 2008.

This is listed as document 17 in my CPR31.16 application documents of 19th June 2008. You will note that contrary to this statement, no such offer was made directly to me in fact after I had put my disputes forward verbally and what I expected RBS to do, in fact after I stated my case I was totally ignored, and spent most of the rest of my time walking round Chester.

I will be drawing Mr Millers attention to these very facts in preparation for the Parliamentary motion and his submissions to the House.

I send this by E-mail and a hard copy will be sent by first class post, I do not require a response to this letter.

Yours faithfully

[tinkerbell20]

£5k:confused:

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[reallymadwoman]

You might want to remove some of the names from your posts.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723
If this cant be substantiated then at this stage best left off.

[citizenB]

Hmph, I think they should recall parliament so your MP can get on and ask his questions.. This waiting is so frustrating.

[paulwlton]

The RBS will not have the protection of their lawyers in this motion, which I am sure will attract considerable amount of attention of all manner of the reporting media.

 

Yours faithfully

 

I'm sure it will.

Edited July 29, 2008 by paulwlton