walton v rbos

[mkb]

"Paul, whose case has featured in Financial Mail, has been offered money by RBS on condition he keeps quiet, but he has refused."

 

Love it! Keep up the good work

[paulwlton]

Just emailed my mate Richard Hemsley.

Edited January 10, 2010 by paulwlton

[lilly white]

I Salute You Paul

 

the very best regards lilly

[gaz2006]

Great story thats why the Waltons ran so long always interesting and never gave up by the way hows John Boy and Mary Ellen ? (For those of you young and dont know what Im talking about look up on Google ha ha ) Regards Gaz

[MAGDA]

Oh I remember the waltons very well... the good old days:)

 

Well done Paul, I admire your determination and integrity in all of this.

 

 

Magda

[stripper]

Paul,You stuck to your guns,well done.In fact extremely well done.You got guts .

Stripper:D

[Sparkie1723]

Paul,You stuck to your guns,well done.In fact extremely well done.You got guts .

Stripper:D

 

Not only guts .........but a backbone made of Sheffield/Rotherham/Yorkshire steel something the RBS will not bend or break:cool:.

 

He won't go away until he gets the justice he is entitled to and deserves.

Its about time the RBS realised that, but then the Goodwin arrogance is still embedded deep into the RBS and willtake a while to elimininate

 

sparkie

[mashmallow]

Paul,

 

So proud of you - well done, I will keep the cutting for future reference.

 

Great man.

 

Mashmallow

[jansus]

There would be an easy way to stop all this if only someone had the guts and power to implement it.

 

If any FI can not produce the Original signed document - then the whole loan/debt should be re-worked at 2% interest on what ever has been loaned .You can bet your bottom dollar that they keep records of transactions ( funny that) so they should be made to re-work the debt as long as the borrower agrees the transactions of monies they have borrowed. This would save clogging up the courts and I bet you some of the original documents would miraculously appear.

 

Simples-

[itsamomentintime]

whats next PW?

[Peterbard]

Hi Paul

Not sure if younhave a copy of this it was a reply from the OFT to a series of letters i sent a few years ago.

They as you ca

Dear Mr Bardsley

 

I refer to your email to Ms Edwards dated 19 September 2007 concerning requests made under Section 77 of the Act. Your email contains a letter regarding which you are seeking the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) opinion as to the content of the letter and advice on where to direct it.

 

Unfortunately, the OFT cannot express an opinion on the matters set out in your letter since it has not had sight of the information upon which your views are based. I should add that the OFT cannot in any event express such an opinon. Equally, as it appears that you have already contacted Local Authority Trading Standard Services and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the Department of Trade and Industry) in addition to the previous correspondence with the OFT, I am unable to suggest other avenues of approach.

 

I note your comments in respect of the intention of Section 77 of the Act. Our understanding is that Parliament intended that the debtor should, on request, be able to access sufficient information in order that he might know the full extent of his financial obligations under an agreement at any time during the currency of that agreement. It was not intended primarily as a method of challenging agreements or, as appears to be occuring more frequently, as a mechanism for avoiding legitimate obligations.

 

You assert that the OFT appears to have advised businesses on this matter. The OFT does not provide advice to consumers or to businesses but rather may express a view which ultimately a court may or may not agree with since only a court can render a definitive view of the law. I am unable to comment on views expressed by Local Authority Trading Standards Services since they are separate bodies and under no obligation to agree with the OFT's view.

 

I further note that you refer to conflicting advice given by the OFT and Trading Standards Services. As already indicated the OFT does not give specific advice to consumers or businesses. As a general point the OFT does suggest to consumers that they may wish to seek professional assistance relevant to their own particular circumstances, such as that available from Citizens Advice Bureaux amongst other organisations.

 

You also refer to a particular letter from the OFT to a consumer stating that it was sufficient for the creditor to 'reconstruct' an agreement where the original was not available. The OFT's view is that rather than supplying a carbon copy of the original agreement a creditor may supply a 'reconstruction' only in the sense that it is providing exactly the same information as appeared on the original agreement. By definition this requires that the creditor has the original in order to be certain that the details are accurate. If it cannot be certain then it will have considerable difficulty in complying with a request made under Section 77. Further the creditor would still have to have the original in order to enforce the agreement. We are not aware of any letter making the assertion you suggest, however if you have details we would welcome sight of it.

 

Where it has evidence, the OFT can and does take action against businesses which act unfairly or improperly or fail to comply with the requirements of the Act. Your email indicates that you are aware of instances where, in your opinion, creditors have not complied with the Act. If you have evidence of such non-compliance we would be happy to receive it.

 

I hope the above clarifies matters.

n see where getting a bit sickof my i think but it does make some relevant pointw whichni havw highlighted

 

THe bit about not having the remit to issue advice3 is ablolute bolo which i adreesed in my response to them but that is not relavant here

#Cheers

Peter

[The GodMother]

There would be an easy way to stop all this if only someone had the guts and power to implement it.

 

If any FI can not produce the Original signed document - then the whole loan/debt should be re-worked at 2% interest on what ever has been loaned .You can bet your bottom dollar that they keep records of transactions ( funny that) so they should be made to re-work the debt as long as the borrower agrees the transactions of monies they have borrowed. This would save clogging up the courts and I bet you some of the original documents would miraculously appear.

 

Simples-

 

Seems simple enough but l can see companys arguing.

 

Nice articale paul make sure the public are aware of them bribing you.

[paulwlton]

Just received the following. Note this is now reducing the balance by £8.5k.

 

PW

 

 

[GuidoT]

As I am sure you aware, kind of blown it on the confidentiality front.

[gaz2006]

OOPS YOUVE BROKEN CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT ALREADY sure you didnt mean too Paul lol

Whats your view then accept or not accept the money rather than confidentiality etc regards gaz

[gaz2006]

ps why is reducing by £8500 its only for £3000 ?

[Sparkie1723]

They have already admitted your allegations that your account was set up wrong......................they have already admitted your allegations that " Router Accounts" are assetts that do not exist........they have also admitted that there could be many more 1000's of these incorrectly set up accounts to which the people these refer to have no knowledge of ..............and they try to say that your allegations have no merit

Who do they think they are ...............Do they think you came in on the "FIRST Banana boat".

 

Come on RBoS .......You are even a worse "Right Bunch of Shysters" than even I thought you were.

 

Do you honestly believe that anyone would sign this!!???

 

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Paul,

 

Should I send a link to your thread to Mr Hester & Mr Hemsley????:D:D:D

 

 

sparkie

[paulwlton]

Paul,

 

Should I send a link to your thread to Mr Hester & Mr Hemsley????:D:D:D

 

 

sparkie

 

Not yet mate.

 

I'm speaking with people as you are aware.... got to tread carefully.

 

Matters may start to get Interesting shortly.

 

PW

[Sparkie1723]

Not yet mate.

I'm speaking with people as you are aware.... got to tread carefully.

 

Matters may start to get Interesting shortly.

 

PW

 

 

Only JOKING Paul!!?? If you don't laugh.they'll make you cry:D

 

You've got the ball ...the kit.... the goal posts ....and the ref in your pocket!

 

Anyway ..notice the 2 guests??

 

 

sparkie

[paulwlton]

Only JOKING Paul!!?? If you don't laugh.they'll make you cry:D

 

You've got the ball ...the kit.... the goal posts ....and the ref in your pocket!

 

Anyway ..notice the 2 guests??

 

 

sparkie

 

I wonder if it's our mates... Hemsley and Waddle.

[Sparkie1723]

I wonder if it's our mates... Hemsley and Waddle.

 

Could be "Twiddle & Twaddle"..........or "Tom Pepper & Pinochio":D:D

[Sparkie1723]

AS you know Paul, RBS have tried to shut me up with a very similar confidentiality agreement, and you know what I did with that!!

 

They most likely have our pictures up in the Boardroom at which they throw darts, each morning:D

 

sparkie

[johnerog]

AS you know Paul, RBS have tried to shut me up with a very similar confidentiality agreement, and you know what I did with that!!

 

They most likely have our pictures up in the Boardroom at which they throw darts, each morning:D

 

sparkie

I have the distinct impression that you and paul have not had to buy bathroom tissue for some time.

[rickyd]

Help me out here guys as I'm a wee bit confused now. I had thought PW had RBS on the ropes and that they were offering him money to go away.

 

This letter suggests they want money from him, and confidentiality, for them to leave him alone. Did I miss something or simply misunderstand what's happening here?