walton v rbos

[andrew1]

Thanks banker and Rest on Sunday ( I like that!) Don't wish to hijack Pauls thread, but it does go to show and these remedies demonstrated above actually give us the tools to do exactly what is necessary to make sure things which we have seen banks and DCA's get up to are in fact actually true. We have to be sure that when they are presenting 'their' cases to swing the balance of probabilities their way and relying upon their 'professional standing much the same as when we used the word 'fiduciary' with the banks is all above board. That trust in their 'f' lasted about 18 months until we began to see through them.

 

Back to you Paul, thanks.

Edited October 14, 2008 by andrew1

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

Thanks banker and Rest on Sunday ( I like that!) Don't wish to hijack Pauls thread, but it does go to show and these remedies demonstrated above actually give us the tools to do exactly what is necessary to make sure things which we have seen banks and DCA's get up to are in fact actually true. We have to be sure that when they are presenting 'their' cases to swing the balance of probabilities their way and relying upon their 'professional standing much the same as when we used the word 'fiduciary' with the banks is all above board. That trust in their 'f' lasted about 18 months until we began to see through them.

 

Back to you Paul, thanks.

 

 

link to a new thread on N268 etc here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/164097-form-number-n268-form.html

[paulwlton]

Letter today - RBS are willing to withdraw their application for a civil reatraint order if i give an undertaking that no further claims will be made against them.

 

PW

[volvodriver]

RBS are willing to withdraw their application for a civil reatraint order if i give an undertaking that no further claims will be made against them.

 

 

PW

Is that a win/win for them or am I so stupid that I've missed something?

[bathgatebuyer]

Perhaps they have other thigns to keep them busy at the moment?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

paul

 

hope you don't mind a link being put here to an important thread

 

"TREASURY COMMITTEE INVITES QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PUT TO THE CHANCELLOR ON THE BANKING CRISIS"

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/165996-ask-chancellor-question-banking.html#post1786440

[paulwlton]

paul

 

hope you don't mind a link being put here to an important thread

 

"TREASURY COMMITTEE INVITES QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PUT TO THE CHANCELLOR ON THE BANKING CRISIS"

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/165996-ask-chancellor-question-banking.html#post1786440

 

 

Nice one. Just been reading up on practice directions for CRO the hearing tomorrow.

Below is what i'm intending to rely on tomorrow, a skelly went off on Friday.

 

 

The Claimant refers to the Defendant’s application dated 17th July 2008 wherein it is stated that: The Defendant requests that a Civil Restraint Order be made against the Claimant pursuant to CPR 23.12 (b).

 

It is respectfully submitted that according to the practice directions which apply in these proceedings any application made pursuant to part 23 must specify which type of civil restraint order is sought, clearly the Defendant’s application does not. Accordingly, on this matter alone the application should be dismissed.

 

Furthermore, the Claimant can only assume that the Defendant seeks a limited civil restraint order. However, the practice directions explicitly state that: A limited civil restraint order may be made by a judge of any court where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit and where a statement of case or application is struck out or dismissed and is totally without merit, the court order must specify that fact.

 

The Claimant respectfully asks the court to dismiss the Defendant’s application on the basis that the requisite 2 or more has not been satisfied.

 

Paul

Edited October 29, 2008 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

[pt2537]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

Great News paul:D

[car2403]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

 

Did you get your costs for a wasted application?

 

Maybe you should seek a Civil Restraint Order Restraint Order?

[JonCris]

Excellent Paul & I take Car's point

[paulwlton]

The judge asked the bank's solicitor "why are you here" i nearly p***** myself, lol.

[paulwlton]

Excellent Paul & I take Car's point

 

I see where your coming from. Since i lifted the lid on their creative accounting i've had to fight off a charging order and a civil restraint order.

 

I think it potentialy telling that they refused to submit all my accounts (including the router) into court at the previous hearing....imo the judge should have adjourned and ordered the bank to comply with my CPR request, then it would have been game on.

[The GodMother]

Well that would be an idea.

[Jeff2000]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

 

 

Very good news Paul!!

[underdog13]

I thought I was too cynical to be shocked any more, but this is simply jaw dropping. Best of luck Paul - I will follow this with interest.

[itsamomentintime]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

 

 

so what happens now?

[mcuth]

Re: todays hearing.

 

RBS were desperate to obtain the Civil Restraint Order against me and to seek their costs. However, bad news for RBS...the circuit judge dissmised the application.

 

Regards.

 

Brilliant Paul - well done mate

 

Cheers

Michael

[car2403]

The judge asked the bank's solicitor "why are you here" i nearly p***** myself, lol.

 

The bloody solicitor was there because he was getting paid. Unless he entered the wrong postcode in to his Sat Nav and just turned up at the Court hearing time out of coincidence.

 

The question that should have been asked was "what are we (Paul and the Judge) doing here?" - the answer to that is still unknown.

 

Until these Judges grow some balls and deal with these organisations in an effective and proper way, we'll continue to see these injustices going on. For example, what would have happened if you had made the application and wasted the Courts time? (Rhetorical question that doesn't need an answer...)

 

:mad:

[2Grumpy]

The problem is that creditors are claiming they have complied with the requests and are continuing their collection activity when they are still obviously in default. ...

 

The OFT claim it is acceptable to recreate an agreement from internal records in order to comply with a request for a true copy. I wonder if Francis Bennion had this in mind when drafting the Act.

 

 

Although the OFT say that it is ok in some circumstances to recreate the CCA, surely the bank actually needs a copy of the original to ensure that it is correct!

 

If the bank then goes on to request payment based on the reconstruction matching the original agreement and it is materially different, wouldn't the police / cps have a different name for that (beginning with f)

[car2403]

Although the OFT say that it is ok in some circumstances to recreate the CCA, surely the bank actually needs a copy of the original to ensure that it is correct!

 

If the bank then goes on to request payment based on the reconstruction matching the original agreement and it is materially different, wouldn't the police / cps have a different name for that (beginning with f)

 

Not really.

 

They can reconstruct for the purposes of a s.77/s.78 request in the opinion of the OFT, but they need the original to enforce in Court.

 

They may fall foul of the CPUTR 2008 if they continue to pursue a debtor for the debt where an original agreement doesn't exist, IMHO.

[pt2537]

Not really.

 

They can reconstruct for the purposes of a s.77/s.78 request in the opinion of the OFT, but they need the original to enforce in Court.

 

They may fall foul of the CPUTR 2008 if they continue to pursue a debtor for the debt where an original agreement doesn't exist, IMHO.

 

I think that they are in danger of falling foul of the Fraud Act 2006 by recreating documents,

 

don't forget it is now an offence to lie on your CV now under the Fraud Act , the Fraud Act creates hundreds of new offences and according to Halsburys this may fall within the remit of the act

 

so it is conceivable that by reconstructing the agreement where they do not have the original they may fall foul of this act

[paulwlton]

I think that they are in danger of falling foul of the Fraud Act 2006 by recreating documents,

 

don't forget it is now an offence to lie on your CV now under the Fraud Act , the Fraud Act creates hundreds of new offences and according to Halsburys this may fall within the remit of the act

 

so it is conceivable that by reconstructing the agreement where they do not have the original they may fall foul of this act

 

Not according to South Yorkshire Police.

 

 

[pt2537]

Well hes talking out his arse im afraid

 

Refer him to R v Ghosh 1992 which established the test for dishonesty

 

It is a job for the jury to establish if the act was dishonest

[debbbbsy]

Paul,

fantastic news , nobodies gagging you.

Well done

Debs:D:D