Big Claim aginst RBOS

[photoman]

Sparkie,

 

This is all a fascinating read, and I along with many others have been keen to follow what is going on.....

 

... However, just wondering, given the seriousness of your case, and the sensitivity of it all, whether you should maybe play your cards a little closer to your chest at this given moment ?

 

Remember, this is a public forum, and we do get guests here, including possibly perhaps those in opposition to you, who may then glean some advantage from reading what you've posted up?

 

Just my own feeling, and the way I would maybe play things if it were me.

 

Regards

 

PM

[car2403]

I can't see what advantage can be had from reading the thread - everything posted here seems to have been sent to Cobbetts by letter anyway.

 

The only thing they may get is advance notice of the process Sparkie is following, but if the level of guts shown here is anything to go by, they would be well advised to settle this now, amicably, before the big guns are pulled out...

 

Hello Cobbetts!

 

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[photoman]

Fair enough Sparkie,

 

If you have already sent all such stuff off, then they have the option of either; reading it here first, or waiting and choking over their morning latte when it arrives in the mail at work.

 

We're all certainly assured of your confidence here, sure your well in control of the matter, and waiting to see the outcome.

 

We all wish the best, and support you on this, and I hope my post was not taken as being in any way critical of your handling of this affair.

 

PM

 

(may still be advisable to remove your and other witnesses personally identifiable info from posts though ) ?

[patrickq1]

How can Mr Kennedy confirms that( a) The account number is the Account number held with William & Glynns Bank during the 1970’s and ( b) STATE all records have been destroyed, this IS NOT a statement of facts, UNLESS HE CAN SHOW any information to support HIS statement,

the account was transferred to Credit Management Services on 27 December 2000”.

 

This is aN ambiguous statement according to (Document 4) supplied to the Applicant by the Bank in May 2006 IT states quite clearly the account was not transferred until 4th June 2001, this is also confirmed by (Document 5) supplied to the Applicant in June 2007 a diary log entry which again shows that on 1st June 2001 the file was prepared to TRANSFER to CMS, and that it CONFIRMS THAT IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED to CMS on 4th June 2001.

Under the documented facts Mr Kennedy’s statement is incorrect and misleading, IT HAS BEEN MADE IN A RECKLESS AND CAVILEIR FASHION without checking the DOCUMENTED facts and what he HAS stated IN HIS STATEMENT OF TRUTH IS MIS LEADING

will go through the rest tomoz if i have time ,if i dont sparkie it is because my operation is on tuesday

good luck mate

patrickq1

[Sparkie1723]

Fair enough Sparkie,

 

If you have already sent all such stuff off, then they have the option of either; reading it here first, or waiting and choking over their morning latte when it arrives in the mail at work.

 

We're all certainly assured of your confidence here, sure your well in control of the matter, and waiting to see the outcome.

 

We all wish the best, and support you on this, and I hope my post was not taken as being in any way critical of your handling of this affair.

 

PM

 

(may still be advisable to remove your and other witnesses personally identifiable info from posts though ) ?

 

THanks photoman,

You certainly are not being taken as criticing me EVERY comment is useful and helpful even if it is not my initial view, and I do need as much help as I can get..it could get "big and dirty"

 

thanks mate

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[patrickq1]

MR KENNEDAY had failed to act with competence, capability, honesty, integrity and had demonstrated a serious lack of compliance with the regulatory standards.

you may want to add this into your statement Sparkie,

will be back on in a week mate in hospital at 3.00 this afternoon

so good luck

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

it could get "big and dirty"

my bank at the time actually rung my suppliers in spain italy and germany suggesting i was a bad news customer,,,

hows is that for being dirty could nt have gotten any worse it sunk my business

so watch your back sparkie it will get dirty

patrickq1

[Sparkie1723]

[deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[jansus]

I think the most telling items that leap out at me are that it is not an account but an identifying number for you as a customer and a type of diary system - therfore there should really be no "entries" at all that were relevant to the court case - so any reference to your router number would be irrelevant in any court submissions from them as all "entries" of debit/credit would only appear in your bank accounts.

 

So why did the router number appear at all?

[paulwlton]

I think the most telling items that leap out at me are that it is not an account but an identifying number for you as a customer and a type of diary system - therfore there should really be no "entries" at all that were relevant to the court case - so any reference to your router number would be irrelevant in any court submissions from them as all "entries" of debit/credit would only appear in your bank accounts.

 

So why did the router number appear at all?

 

Well i have a router account which starts with the debit of a court fee.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

The created 'router' account is a device to by pass the original agreement (which they probably don't have) & which permits them to change (unlawfully) the T&C's

 

The main difference, in fact the only difference, is that the 'new' T&C's allows them to add contractual interest AFTER judgment whereas the original true copy does not.

 

They claim that the 'router' account is for internal purposes only & should never have seen the light of day yet when asked, even by a Times Reporter, why then had they litigated against debtors using these very accounts with these greatly inflated sums they have been unable or even refused point blank to answer other than to repeat their waffle about them being for internal accounting purposes

 

Unfortunately without understanding the banking system & because banks once had a reputation for probity the County Court Judges have accepted the banks position without question at the same time assuming, I suspect, that being national institutions they could not possibly be guilty of such a blatant deceit.

 

Now we know the banks are not as 1st thought namely places of honesty & probity but are in fact places where avarice rules & anything goes perhaps & the Courts will now tend to take a more jaundiced view of their arguments

[bedlington83]

my Router accont is stated by the RBS to be a mirror of my personal account it is not mirror that accont or any of its statements in any way.

It might be an idea of highlighting that statement to Andrew Miller. I'm sure he's already got the document but its yet another example of RBS duplicity.

 

It sounds like router accounts, or recovery accounts seeing as Mr Dickinson has confirmed they are synonymous, are intended as holding accounts during the recovery process.

 

This is speculation but I can imagine that in the dim and distant past, either deliberately or by accident, a recovery account was opened up in your name in respect of your business account (although I must admit this is unlikely if you were incorporated - were you sparkie trading as...?). This then had debts that weren't incurred by you applied to it, which were subsequently defaulted. Could thesedebts be charges that shouldn't have been applied because the account was supposed to be closed and everything that's happened subsequently is as a result of automated processes that no-one at the bank really understands?

 

Whatever's caused it keep going and good luck.

 

Your story is fascinating - did you ever put your blog up somewhere else and are there any other plans to publish the saga elsewhere?

[JonCris]

Paul can you let me know their name & also have you been in touch with the Times reporter or Rupert of the Guardian

[JonCris]

What we need is an expert forensic accountant who can't be disputed....... anyone no one who will give their time free to right these injustices

[jansus]

I do understand the background I have read the threads - I was just agreeing that they really have again shot themselves in the foot as far as I can see.

 

 

Also ref post 991 how can they apply t&C to something that is not an account but an identifying number ?

The use of the term "Router Account" is a misnomer as they are not accounts per se but unique reference numbers allocated to each customer when their accounts are passed to our Credit Management Services (CMS) to manage the recovery of the debt.

number?

 

Nice of them to put it in black and white.

Edited February 11, 2009 by jansus

[jansus]

Well i have a router account which starts with the debit of a court fee.

 

 

Did they show a balance of that "router " account anywhere?

 

As how can a "diary and monitoring system" have a balance?

 

 

Also I used to work for a large BS - I can not imagine any possible reason for ever having to change or amend a customers unique account number in any circumstances - in fact I would imagine it would cause more confusion as all court documents must refer to the original account details for obvious reasons.

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[debbbbsy]

Also I used to work for a large BS - I can not imagine any possible reason for ever having to change or amend a customers unique account number in any circumstances - in fact I would imagine it would cause more confusion as all court documents must refer to the original account details for obvious reaso

 

Hi,

 

In our case D&D, they were able to use the "New" account numbers to litigate. They did this by saying, we had new account numbers because the accounts had been moved from our branch to there head office in Edinburgh. Different account numbers & sort codes.To prevent suspicion they used the "New" account numbers with the "OLD" account types on the CCJ.

 

What they didn't tell us & the courts was that they had CLOSED our origonal CURRENT/OVERDRAFT accounts. The "NEW" accounts are LOAN accounts. They also used a gurantee from a disharged loan account & attached it to these new accounts, for internal accounting only.

 

Why would a bank do this ?

Why would the debt recovery dept go to so much trouble ?

 

MONEY. MONEY. GREED. & more MONEY

An overdraft is an unsecured debt. A SECURED LOAN is an asset & can be included on there balance sheet, & of course you can't add interest on an overdraft post judgement.

 

One of our router accounts (we have 3) states quite clearly as of April 2008, it has added £99,640 interest....... It looks like an account, it adds interest & charges like an account, it has an account number specific to it..........IT IS AN ACCOUNT......only hidden from the customer.

 

Can I also clarify, the "NEW" loan account numbers are different from the ROUTER account numbers.. But both were set up simultaneously.

 

 

Debs

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

deleted

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