NAtwest RBS Help/ Advice please

[Penfold92]

You know how helpful I have found your threads and posts and you know I am only kidding with ya!

 

Well their 7 day offer runs out on Friday from me so we'll see if they see sense or not by then I guess...

[42man]

good luck Penfold....watching with interest....

[Penfold92]

Thanks mate, so am I!

[debbbbsy]

watching too....go for it .

[Penfold92]

I am desperately looking through their bundle, but the two witness statements say very little and the errors aside (and there are a few...funny that for RBOS or Nasty West) there is nothing there, I just do not understand how they hope to impress the judge they had legitamate debts...Account numbers are incorrect, they have not answered any of the questions I have put to them over the last 9 months...10 offers by me...only one by them and that was an "in terrorem" offer to not apply for costs, when they can;t anyway...I just cannot fathom why they have not jumped at the £2k I have let them off and paid up...weird...

[Penfold92]

Oh well, Cobblers have not sent me any letters of settlement, so I guess Friday will be a Court day for me...I still can't believe they are going to subject some poor counsel to a barrage from me and the DJ for the way their clients have behaved...

 

Oh well they know best I guess, mind you this is the company that sent me a schedule of charges over £3000 with their bundle on a small claims track case with no evidence in defence, just a load of errors in their witness statements.

 

Hay hum, like I said I guess they know what they are doing, but I will not settle for less than the full amount being claimed now, I'd rather get nothing in Court than let them off for the way they have behaved...

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Oh well, Cobblers have not sent me any letters of settlement, so I guess Friday will be a Court day for me...I still can't believe they are going to subject some poor counsel to a barrage from me and the DJ for the way their clients have behaved...

 

Don't count your chickens just yet... There's plenty of post to come between now and then

[Penfold92]

Well an update of sorts....

 

I just rang Cobbetts to see if they want to settle, but they are adamant they will attend Court and the "Bank has made its position clear"...

 

Even after they sent their witness statement to me and I kindly informed them of one of the blantant errors, they are still going to defend...

 

Am I misguided here....have I missed something or what? I asked them to provide proof of the debts, they have not done that, they sent sellected statements through, but not for all accounts involved. They sent no agreements, no default notices, no application forms, no ID nothing...

 

I have explained to them the various breaches of the CCA, Companies Acts, Money Laundering Regulations with regards maintaining records and they are still going to defend....

 

Also they are going to send me a skeleton arguement a few days before the hearing, is this allowed given the Court Order all documents needed to be in 14 days before the hearing?

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Well, it's not Friday yet, so there is still time for them to either comply or settle beforehand...

 

To answer your question, they probably can supply the skeleton a few days before the hearing. (most orders want the skeleton 3 days prior?) If they do supply it late, the Judge will ask you if you need more time to prepare a respone - if you say yes, he will probably adjourn and you'll be waiting 8 weeks for a new hearing. As it's a small claim, he'll probably decide that you have been prejudiced by late submission, but he will probably also continue with the hearing, if you agree to go on at that point.

[Penfold92]

I won't ask for an adjournment, my case is strong enough I believe no matter what they try to con the Judge with....

 

I will post up the skeleton Arguments when I get them for views, but given they have not relied on any statutes or legislation apart from "no debt due therfore no obligation to supply the agreements" they have breached at least 3 or 4 others within the CCA regarding supplying and informing the debtor of things...

 

I am sure they are just trying to make me doubt my case....there is enough arguement there to get a judge to agree something is not quite right about their actions...

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Well a further update for those who do not know this already...

 

I received their skeleton argument yesterday at 4pm... It did not say much that I did not suspect they would, but it did include two paragraphs that they might regret saying now...

 

"...is one of the two credit card numbers for the dual Visa/ Mastercard credit card account held with the Defendant under the name of xxxxx x xxxxx, the other number being xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (see paragraph 4 of witness statement and paragraph 3 of ammended defence). This is clearly an alias or abbreviation of the Claimant's name, as the Defendant's address is given on a statement for that account..."

 

So firstly he means because my address is accurately quoted on their system it means that a different first name is mine that was used 10 odd years ago!!! I take serious offence to this paragraph and consider it libelous... Views anyone? We are talking about two names here like Mike and Micheal let's say...does that mean it is the same person? Surely to make that comment they require proof, which is impossible as I have never used the name mentioned...

 

Then they are now quoting the Rankine case as a presedence! 1 and 1/2 days before the full hearing they are throwing a case I have not read at me...litigant in person...

 

So what do we recon....are they really throwing anything (rather than everything!) at me? Why? I know because the Law is a double edged Sword and to quote another, live by the sword, die by the sword!

 

They quoted the CCA to me first, I never wrote and said give me my money back because of blah blah like the Rankine's did so these cases are not similar IMHO. But because they are trying to wriggle out of producing documents they KNOW they should still have they are trying their best. The problem is on here the CAGers help each other and come up with nice little gems of our own...

 

Penfold

Edited June 12, 2008 by Penfold92

[Penfold92]

LOST IN COURT TODAY...

 

My case had no basis in Law and that was the end of it. The Judge and the barrister listened as I tried to wade through the arguements I had, but this is the nuts and bolts...

 

A Claim should only be made if you can PROVE you have a case. I thought I had a case and could show this in Court, but the Barrister present and the Judge cannot answer my questions that really were for a witness...The Law I was using was not relelvant to my claim and even though the Judge (and the Barrister did to a certain extent I think) said I might have a case under the Data Protection Act that was not a matter for this claim or Court...

 

I was truely splattered all over the Court room and to be quite honest felt like crying as I could see I was getting nowhere! Still big boys don't cry...

 

Be warned - Barristers, Solcitors and the Comapnies are reading this site...I suggest not ever posting exact letters, nor documents and never names. Ask questions that are specific without giving away too much...

 

£1000 costs to pay that I can't...LOL I finished an IVA last year, am debt free and now this comes and hits me bang in the face. I think the only reason it was not much more was the Judge clearly realised that I was not unreasable myself and I did have issues and a case, but not for what I was claiming and so unreasonable in that sense...

 

Oh well anyone got a good letter for making instalments to a Court Order for Costs? Stupid question time...Have I just got a CCJ? I haven't have I, it is merely a court order to pay costs...not the same thing is it....

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Blimey! I really wasn't expecting to read posts like that from you.

 

TBH, I can only agree with you - as you know, I've had a similar experience with O2, in that I've used CAG to get so far, but then it's backfired and kicked me in the ass. (Link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/111666-car2403-o2-wescot-dca.html)

 

All I can say, mate, is that you gave it your best shot. Let this, my, and threads of "others" (anyone read Paul Walton's thread!) that have this result go to show something, so we get some value from it as a group - that "something" has to be that, no matter how much you think you will win, you just might just lose and you could suffer the consequences along the way.

 

It's such a shame that this Country's legal system is such a sham, isn't it? You should be entitled to bring a decent claim, even as a litigant in person, and expect it to be handled correctly. "Litigants in person" we are, civil procedure rules we will misinterpret, mistakes we will make and law we will misunderstand. A slap in the fact and a kick in the balls (for those with balls) we don't need for any of those things happening. These flaming companies expect it - heck, I'd even go so far as to say I believe they rely on it.

[Penfold92]

All I will say on my case is in hindsight, I did have genuine issues and Judge made a point several times of saying that he understood that, but I was there for him to give me my money beck, on what basis was that...

 

Unfortunately I had not entered breach of DPA in my claim as he agreed that was an issue, but not for today nor that court...

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Unfortunately I had not entered breach of Data Protection Act in my claim as he agreed that was an issue, but not for today nor that court...

 

 

Why not that Court?

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_a_case_to_court.pdf

 

Read page 8;

 

WHERE DO I ISSUE THE

PROCEEDINGS?

Most claims will be dealt with in the County

Court or in the Sheriff’s Court in Scotland

 

If the case is a simple one, with a value of

£5000 or less, the court will usually decide

that the small claims procedure should be

used

 

They are keen on relying on the ICO's opinion elsewhere, so I can't see where they get off ignoring this part of it? (The Judge in my case against Barclays said I shouldn't be brining a claim for defamation in the County Court... It's not a claim for defamation, it's a claim for damages under the DPA, refer to s.13!)

 

13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements

(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.

(3) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.

[davefirewalker]

Sorry to hear of your paticulary bad luck. It was friday 13th though....maybe you should have asked for a different date

 

It seems that just recently all judges have joined the "lets get them debtors" club.

 

Barclays tried the rankine case with me.......fortunately for me it is not relevant at all. They sent me a copy and I posted it on my thread.

 

rgds

 

Dave

[Penfold92]

I saw Dave, it was not really relelevant to me either and it was added as a final nail in the coffin in the skeleton arguement, but the barrister did not even bring it up, he merely quoted a couple of things I have said on here and the fact I have taken action against other banks.

 

I didn't bother saying much then as there was little point as I knew the result half way through my hearing. The problem in my case was not understanding the legislation correctly and my main gripe was the SAR being ignored, but as DPA breach was not in my claim, judge basically sympathised, but that would never get my money back on that claim...

 

Like I have said on another thread today I learned a very valueable lesson although it has cost me...for now anyway...

 

I don't think any of that had any influence on my Judge, he basically said that since I never stood any chance with the claim I brought I was unreasonable not to accept the "drop hands" offer they made me.

 

In hindsight I should have done as there was so much attention on my thread, I should have realised they would never pay me off and had to defend to prove a point, not just to me but others on here...

 

Prabs

[car2403]

This is a true disgrace, IMHO.

 

The Judge, knowing that you have a case, could have easily adjourned, ordered an amended POC/defence and set new directions for exchange of documents/witness statements.

[Penfold92]

Well many many months on I have finally had my reply from the ICO and they state in their email to me that:

 

"As I understand it, you are concerned that you made a subject access request on 29 March 2007 to NatWest but without a fee. They responded on 3 April and informed you they decided to waiver the fee on this occasion. However, you did not receive any information within 40 days. You then made another request with the fee on 19 July 2007. You received some information in July 2007 and then again in January 2008. After taking NatWest to court you learned they had more information about you which was not earlier disclosed. You believe that if NatWest had fully disclosed your personal information you would not had taken your case to court and suffered financial loss. (Exactly my point in Court it cost me in Court costs then also the £1000 costs against me)

 

Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the issues surrounding your court case. As I have explained, although we cannot award compensation for a breach of the DPA, it may be helpful to explain that section 13 of the DPA states:-

 

‘(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of the Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

 

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—

 

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.

 

(3) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.’

 

I have included copies of our publications on seeking compensation. Should you choose to claim compensation, you should ensure that you seek your own independent legal advice.

 

The sixth principle says that ‘Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under the Act’. This includes the right to access personal data. Furthermore, there is a requirement under the DPA for NatWest to respond to your subject access request within 40 days of receiving that request.

 

From the information you have provided it appears likely that NatWest has failed to comply with the sixth principle in this case. This is because it appears you did not receive a response to your request for your personal information within the statutory limit. It also appears that you did not receive all the personal information you are entitled to under the DPA.

 

In light of this it is my assessment that it is unlikely that NatWest has complied with the DPA in this case. This assessment is based solely on the information you provided.

 

I will now write to NatWest to tell them about this assessment and to recommend the steps they should take to bring their processing into compliance with the DPA in this caseand to prevent similar likely breaches in the future. In particular I will recommend that they now ensure you receive all the personal information you are entitled to. I will also recommend that they respond to subject access requests within the statutory limit.

 

I have made this assessment based only on the information you provided. NatWest may well want to give their point of view. If NatWest has any information to suggest that this assessment should be changed, I will ask them to provide it within 28 days and will write to let you know. Otherwise this matter is considered as closed.

 

Yours sincerely,"

 

I have now written to NatWest with a copy of this assessment and asked them to refund the payments I have made towards the Courts £1,000 charges (£600 so far) and a refund of £640 odd for my Court costs for the last case. I have not asked for what I was claiming for before, nor damages for distress at this stage and I hope that they will see common sense and just pay up rather than forcing my hand to another Court case with regards this breach. The damages I am claiming are all quantified and so there is no arguement to be had in my opinion. Anyone agree or disagree as all opinions are appreciated (especially the Counsel who read this thread before turning up last time to use it against me)

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Got your email, mate, but just remembered about replying when I saw this.

 

Time for a LBA to NW, me thinks, for breach of s.7 SAR - you may only get nominal damages, but it's the principle that matters, IMHO. They can't be "advised" about future compliance with requests - they need to be brought to account of past failures.

 

ICO - equivilent of having air conditioning on a motorbike, IMHO...

[Penfold92]

I agree, although the DPA compensation does allow for "proveable damages" and I'd say being ordered to pay court costs is pretty provable wouldn't you? We'll see, but I do agree that they need to be held accountable, however, petty they feel the case may be.

 

A SAR is a Legal request and they chose to ignore it and then supply extra personal info in witness docs that I never saw before...Would love to hear the Judge's view on that! Can I request the same judge that I had before? He saw my point and realised that NW got away with it all by my missing out the breach of DPA on my claim form.