Big Claim aginst RBOS

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

She'll probably go sick;)

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

Nice one Sparkie and yet again quality input joncris.

 

Paul

Edited December 8, 2008 by paulwlton

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[paulwlton]

Hey Paul,

 

I see you've been on the radio again....you get more air time than the six o'clock news!!!!:D

 

sparkie

 

Hope you don't mind.... your name was mentioned.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

Any lawyer who foolishly signs a statement of truth WITHOUT ensuring it's accuracy & it's found to be misleading deserves everything they get. If in doubt simply get the client to sign whilst warning them of the risks involved in offering false evidence to the court so there's no excuse

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

I know its complicated but if folks study these little bits from her statement ...it shows why I am going after her BIG style.

 

Paragraph 6 refers to three cheques, The Bank refers to paragraph 5 of John Kennedy's Witness Statement It is clear that, given the passage of time, the Bank has been unable to locate copies of any records relating to these cheques The Claimant has been informed of this on numerous occasions The Bank refers to a letter dated 16 October 2007 from Cobbetts LLP to the Claimant confirming the same (annexed at tab 1 of LCR1) The Court will note that Mr Kennedy could only put forward his suggested comments as to what happened in October 1999, as he has no personal knowledge of these cheques In any event, the Bank avers that these cheques were never cashed, as there is no reference to them within Mr Sparkie's Personal Account statements, nor is there any reference to a cheque return fee being debited Accordingly, the Bank does not understand Mr Sparkie's requirement for the Bank to produce documents.

 

 

1. Section from letter from Information Commissioners Office to me, were included inmy Application Bundle list as Doc marked 1 Dated 18th May 2006.

 

“ RBS state that its cheque clearance system does not recognise manual alterations and the cheques were therefore debited to your business account. As there were insufficient funds in the account, it appears that the resultant charge formed the basis of the subsequent default recorded by RBS.

 

3…..From Barristers skeleton argument.

 

 

 

Cheque number 000967 was presented twice but returned on both occasions incurring default charges with D.

 

Cheque number 000968 was presented once and honoured on presentation

 

Cheque number 000969 was presented once and returned dishonoured incurring default charges with D.

 

 

Mr Thomas Brennan to whom the three cheques were made out to confirms he received and presented the cheques above and states that one only was passed.

 

Copies of the two cheques that were returned were in my application bundle document marked 6.

 

So how can she have said the cheques were not passed/presented for payment/cashed.

 

 

 

 

With reference to paragraph 7. the Bank will rely upon my paragraph 22 above Mr Kennedy confirms that he only became involved with Mr sparkies's Personal Account in January 2006, Any assertions or beliefs he makes about what may have happened earlier than January 2006 are to be taken at face value Mr Kennedy did not know at the time of signing his Statement that Mr Sparkie's Business Account was closed on 3June 1999 and was proceeding on the basis of Mr Sparkie's assertion that the Account was closed on 18 February 1998.

 

This bit in red makes me laugh she says here the bank “took my word” even though I have got a letter from the RBS via Cobbets that they said it was closed on the 11th February and not the 18th……so they must have a record of this to state that different date.

 

He should not have stated it was closed in Feb 1998 in is statement of truth he should have checked and made sure, and I would have known much earlier than June 2007.

She says here that he stated it was closed because I said so… what a divvy.

 

 

26 As to paragraph 10. the Bank has on numerous occasions confirmed to the Claimant that it has a generally policy of destroying documents after 6 years The Claimant contends that this is not true as the Bank has produced statements for both Mr sparkie'sBusiness's Business and Personal Accounts going back as far as 1997.

 

The Bank confirms that it is able to retrieve statements and (possibly) any other data stored on its systems prior to this 6-year period, as such data may not always be deleted from the Bank's systems (by the process of de-fragging) However, any paper documents held by the Bank will have been destroyed.

 

The Court will note that the Bank has been able to reproduce some systems data such as the statements and diary entries Any other documents have, as previously confirmed, been destroyed.

 

What a contradictory statement!!!!! This will help others when RBS say to them they don’t keep records.

 

I will submit that this applies to the witness statement of Mrs Lynsey Robinson and of the Banks witness statement by Mr John Kennedy.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Full name: Lynsey Clare Robinson

 

 

 

 

 

Found this about statements of truth

 

False statements of truth

Proceedings for contempt of court may be broughtagainst a person if he makes, or causes to be made, afalse statement in a document verified by a statement oftruth without an honest belief in its truth.

The provisions relating to statements of truth areintended to make litigantsand their lawyers think verycarefully before advancing cases or evidence that they donot honestly believe in.

The senior person in the organisation signing thestatement must be sufficiently appraised of the facts to positively advance an honest belief; it will not be adefence to say that that senior person had no reason tobelieve that the statement was false.

Although in some instances the party's solicitor may signthe statement of truth, it is done so on the basis that it isthe party's belief that the facts stated in the documentare true. If it should subsequently appear that the partydid not have an honest belief in the truth of those factsthe party may face contempt of court proceedings. Consequences of signing a false statement of truthContempt of Court may be punishable by a fineand/or imprisonment and and/or the sequestration of Assetts

[Enron]

Working in computers, i'd be keen to find out what there definition of defragging is?????

 

Trying to confuse you with gobaldigook.

[Enron]

Excellent report sparkie, for goodness sakes, why dont RBS just admit the wrong doing. Pay back what they have taken from you, compensate you for the unbelievable nightmare they have put you through and let you, Paul and D&D move on with your lives. Or is this a far wider problem that would bring RBS crashing quicker than the Credit Crunch ?

 

That would involve a degree of humility and admitting that they were wrong, which as we all know is very hard for a bank to do.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[rdm2006]

go get em sparkie:D

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

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

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[sweetchicklady]

Sparkie,

I haven't had much chance to follow your thread as much over the last few weeks but after catching up just now, I have to tell you I am seriously impressed with your grit and determination to follow through with this case. I admit I would have given up by now!

I hope your meeting goes well with the mp's and merry christmas.

SCL X

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[tinkerbell20]

Give her hell Sparkie.............................she'd do the same if positions were reversed

[paulwlton]

Give her hell Sparkie.............................she'd do the same if positions were reversed

 

When Mrs Robbinson returns to work on the 16th she'll be in need of diazapam.

[banker_rhymes_with]

When Mrs Robbinson returns to work on the 16th she'll be in need of diazapam.

 

...not to mention double Nappies!

 

Two pairs of Nappies in case one pair comes off!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

Had a reply from Cobbetts huffing and puffing and posturing, and of course their usual threats of applying for costs everyone take note of the paragraph they refer to that is not the most damming one.

 

I'll post all of that paragraph ...note that Cobbetts have omitted the rest of the paragraph ...the part that really screws her up.

 

 

Strictly Private and Confidential to be Opened by Addressee Only

Mr Sparkie

 

 

OurRef: LCB/RR1362-330www.cobbetts.com

Birmingham I Leeds I

London I Manchester

 

 

15 December 2008

Dear Sir

Our Client: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Pic

( This has nothing to do with the RBS this is Mrs Robinsons problem)

 

We refer to your letter of 7 December 2008, received on 11 December 2008.

We note the content of that letter and in particular your indication that you intend to "issue a subpoena to have [Mrs Lynsey Robinson] brought before the Court to explain [her] conduct".

We refer to the section of Mrs Robinson's Witness Statement that you have highlighted in blue print. You will be aware that this extract followed the wording below:

"The Bank refers to paragraph 5 of John Kennedy's Witness Statement. It is clear that, given the passage of time, the Bank has been unable to locate copies of any records relating to these cheques. The Claimant has been informed of this on numerous occasions.

The Bank refers to a letter dated 16 October 2007 from Cobbetts LLP to the Claimant confirming the same (annexed at tab 1 of LCR1). The Court will note that Mr Kennedy could only put forward his suggested comments as to what happened in October 1999, as he has no personal knowledge of these cheques".

 

Any pleadings, skeleton arguments or Witness Statements provided by the legal representatives of the Bank are drafted on the basis of the information available to the Bank and those legal representatives at the time. It is clear from the remainder of the paragraph as stated above that the BanK's belief at the time was that the cheques had been debited from your business account. Having been able to then obtain copies of your business account statements, it became clear that the cheques were not debited from either your business or your personal account. The Witness Statement of Mrs Robinson was made on the basis of the honest belief of the Bank as at the date it was signed.

 

We do not wish to reiterate the Bank's position again, as this will simply incur unnecessary costs, save to say that your application for disclosure was dismissed and that the Bank was awarded its costs of attendance at the application hearing.

 

With respect to your indication that you willseek to subpoena Mrs Robinson, we know of no basis in law or of action to support. If you proceed in that manner we will seek costs against you on an indemnity basis.

 

Cobbetts LLP

Yours faithfully

 

 

This is the paragraph22 Paragraph 6 refers to three cheques, The Bank refers to paragraph 5 of John Kennedy's Witness Statement It is clear that, given the passage of time, the Bank has been unable to locate copies of any records relating to these cheques The Claimant has been informed of this on numerous occasions The Bank refers to a letter dated 16 October 2007 from Cobbetts LLP to the Claimant confirming the same (annexed at tab 1 of LCR1) The Court will note that Mr Kennedy could only put forward his suggested comments as to what happened in October 1999, as he has no personal knowledge of these cheques In any event, the Bank avers that these cheques were never cashed, as there is no reference to them within Mr Sparkie's Personal Account statements, nor is there any reference to a cheque return fee being debited Accordingly, the Bank does not understand Mr Sparkie's requirement for the Bank to produce documents.

 

I'm sending a quick letter by e-mail to obbetts and in the New Year it's "off to Court I go" to issue the subpoena

 

 

Cobbetts at the time Mrs Robinson signed this statement had copies of the cheques, a copy of the letter to CMS dated 6th January 2004 about the cheques and the charges applied to them and to which copies of the cheques were attached.

Copies of the cheques were in my claim bundle and so was the letter to CMS.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723
wording not accepted now