walton v rbos

[paulwlton]

In any event who would check with the RBS that they had destroyed your " Router Account" Paul.......The RBS ???....if they destroyed yours it would mean that they would have destroy all the others......I do not think they would do that.

 

sparkie

 

The court will order RBS to amend or destroy.

 

PW

[Sparkie1723]

The court will order RBS to amend or destroy.

 

PW

 

BUt who is going to check they have obeyed the order if it is made to destroy the data ....Banks have been known to defy Court Orders as has been found out;)

 

sparkie

[paulwlton]

BUt who is going to check they have obeyed the order if it is made to destroy the data ....Banks have been known to defy Court Orders as has been found out;)

 

sparkie

 

The court order will suffice.

[paulwlton]

Another (one of several) RBS customer's account where money was/is being created at CMS telford..............but it's only administrative Interest......honest gov.

 

Note the CCA sec 77 request.

 

Edited February 14, 2010 by paulwlton

[humbleman]

In 6 years the amount is almost quadrupled, who needs loan sharks when you can deal with a reputable bank.

[paulwlton]

In 6 years the amount is almost quadrupled, who needs loan sharks when you can deal with a reputable bank.

 

So you don't think I'm a fantasist?

[Alphageek]

So you don't think I'm a fantasist?

 

Oh, I fantasise about the end of this thread all the time.

 

It usually involves bankers in jail and PW living happily ever after

[paulwlton]

Oh, I fantasise about the end of this thread all the time.

 

It usually involves bankers in jail and PW living happily ever after

 

Sparkie will post a few emails that have recently been sent to Hester, Hemsley (and others)

 

We aint going away.

[Sparkie1723]

Fanatasists believe in the stories they have created in their heads....RBS believe in the money they have created in the false accounts ...so I know who I think are the fanatsists.

sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

This is an e-mail I sent to John Mcfall MP.

 

To

The Rt Hon Mr John McFall M.P.

Chairman Treasury Select Commitee.

 

From

Mr W.B Grace

 

Dear Mr Mcfall,

 

I hear that Chief Executive of the RBS will be attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee in the near future.

 

Is it possible that you could ask questions to him direct regarding the content of the two letters attached, which have been sent to the FSA and the FOS respectively.

 

One letter has been sent by me to the FOS the other is a joint one with Mr Paul Walton to the FSA

 

The content of these two letters will be explanatory enough for you to formulate some questions to put to Mr Hester, we have been attempting to obtain answers from the RBS top management and Mr Hester to no avail.

It may be possible for you to obtain them ...BUT I doubt it very much.

 

It is possible Mr Hester will have personally heard of both of us.

 

Thank you

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

This is one I sent to Mr Hester

 

 

Dear Mr Hester,

 

Without Prejudice or Malice

 

In order for complete transparency, after speaking with the FOS yesterday who have asked me to send them a copy of my DVD as the initial starting point for their investigations into my complaint about the RBS.

I attach a copy of that letter to them to this e-mail

 

I also sent the FOS a copy of a joint letter from Mr Walton and myself to the FSA on the same subjects, which will be forwarded to you when agreement is given by Mr Walton

 

As you must be aware we will take steps to ensure that our cases and issues contained therein will also be well publicised.

 

I have also made you aware and stated before, Mr Hemsley was given the opportunity to resolve all issues between myself and Mr Walton, he failed to do so, and it is he who has protracted the issues even further.

 

Yours sincerley

Edited February 14, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[Sparkie1723]

This e-mail was sent friday evening ...it has been opened 3 times already;)

 

sparkie

 

 

 

To Mr Stephen Hester

Chief Executive

Royal Bank of Scotland

 

Without Prejudice or Malice

 

Dear Mr Hester,

 

It is more than likely that you do not read personal e-mails to you from such "lowly regarded" members of the public as myself, I imagine they would be intercepted on most occasions, how ever that will not deter me from attempting to bring your personal attention to my dispute, so again for transparencies sake, I make you aware of the following, (or who-ever reads you mail) I have previously advised the RBS that I am in close contact with a Dutch National who also has disputes with RBS & Santander.

 

I would direct you to these links which you will find informative.

http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=904027

http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=901313

 

These two links will be posted on other consumer websites for more of the public to aware of what has gone in the dark corridors of the RBS in the past.

 

It is quite possible, no, more than likely I would guess, that by combining my ( and other ex-customer ) allegations with this Dutch person, these issues could end up at some time or other in The European Courts of Justice, may I suggest that it may be in the RBS interests to re-open dialogue with me and to reach a mutual agreeable settlement, which, I believe I thoroughly and justly deserve.

 

This is not a demand in any way Mr Hester , merely a suggestion, you have the right as we both well know know to disregard it, just as the Bank has done in the past i.e. Mr Hemsley who has personally disregarded all other communications about my dispute, I thought it may be helpful if I suggested this.

 

Yours sincerely

[lookinforinfo]

What on earth have the RBS auditors being doing? They should have systems in place to pick up this level of financial creation.

 

Is it something of interest to The Inland Revenue or do they not care so much when they are getting more tax than they should have been entitled. Perhaps the question the IR should be asking is if the bank is capable of such tactics, what else are they doing?

[elsinore]

What on earth have the RBS auditors being doing? They should have systems in place to pick up this level of financial creation.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if RBS' auditors knew exactly what was going on and condoned it.

 

I first heard the phrase 'creative accounting' about 30 years ago when accountants began to persuade auditors that novel ways of compiling accounts, previously thought to be unlawful, were OK. Accounting methods and techniques have been growing ever more grotesque ever since.

 

Els

[JonCris]

This is an e-mail I sent to John Mcfall MP.

 

To

The Rt Hon Mr John McFall M.P.

Chairman Treasury Select Commitee.

 

From

Mr W.B Grace

 

Dear Mr Mcfall,

 

I hear that Chief Executive of the RBS will be attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee in the near future.

 

Is it possible that you could ask questions to him direct regarding the content of the two letters attached, which have been sent to the FSA and the FOS respectively.

 

One letter has been sent by me to the FOS the other is a joint one with Mr Paul Walton to the FSA

 

The content of these two letters will be explanatory enough for you to formulate some questions to put to Mr Hester, we have been attempting to obtain answers from the RBS top management and Mr Hester to no avail.

It may be possible for you to obtain them ...BUT I doubt it very much.

 

It is possible Mr Hester will have personally heard of both of us.

 

Thank you

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

This is one I sent to Mr Hester

 

 

Dear Mr Hester,

 

Without Prejudice or Malice

 

In order for complete transparency, after speaking with the FOS yesterday who have asked me to send them a copy of my DVD as the initial starting point for their investigations into my complaint about the RBS.

I attach a copy of that letter to them to this e-mail

 

I also sent the FOS a copy of a joint letter from Mr Walton and myself to the FSA on the same subjects, which will be forwarded to you when agreement is given by Mr Walton

 

As you must be aware we will take steps to ensure that our cases and issues contained therein will also be well publicised.

 

I have also made you aware and stated before, Mr Hemsley was given the opportunity to resolve all issues between myself and Mr Walton, he failed to do so, and it is he who has protracted the issues even further.

 

Yours sincerley

 

Why are you writing 'without prejudice' & what does malice mean? Don't you want your letters to be shown to the court:confused:

[Sparkie1723]

Not all letters I write to RBS are written without prejudice only certain ones....mostly to Mr Hester as he was not present when all these "irregular accounting practices" took place..."without malice also" means that I cannot be seen to be "attacking" any one person .......for reasons of unlawful intentions of pure revenge and carrying out a personal vendetta and harrassment.

Example............ in telling Mr Hester of the letters to the OFT FSA FOS could be interpreted as an attempt at using them for blackmail/extortion ..........trying to obtain compensation that has not Yet been legally deemed I am entitled to ..............I believe both Paul and myslf are entitled to that.........but it has been known for such letters to be used against the writer.

 

Also to publish some of my letters on CAG I have to show those words anyway as I have been warned too many times for alledging on the CAG what I personally know is true.

P.S

A copy of my DVD is now in the hands of the Cheshire Police they are studying the allegations I make on it and the documents I show on that DVD with a view to see what action they could possible take, to build up a case against RBS .....no conclusion has been made to date...they have had it since before Xmas and have written to me that they will provide an update when they are able to.

 

 

sparkie

Edited February 14, 2010 by Sparkie1723

[JonCris]

If what you say is true (& we know it is) just put it into plain language, leave the legalese out of it. The term without malice is meaningless other than to imply you ARE acting with malice.

 

Your complaining about their unconscionable conduct & are entitled to be peed off. No one will think your acting with malice unless you give them the idea. IMHO Keep your justifiable anger OUT of your correspondence. Explain simply what has happened & let THEM come the conclusion that a crime has been committed ...... ask them straight out for THEIR views ......... put them on the spot

[PriorityOne]

For the record, I can't see any benefit of putting "without prejudice" on anything that helps push a creditor into a corner. I've never used it and have not experienced any adverse problems..... although I've never reached court stage either..... which may make a difference to why you've used it here.

[paulwlton]

post deleted

Edited February 14, 2010 by paulwlton

[JonCris]

'without prejudice' means the court will never see it. This term should only be used if your offering to settle all or part of your claim or making a counter offer with a mind as to costs (Part 36)

[gezwee]

For the record, I can't see any benefit of putting "without prejudice" on anything that helps push a creditor into a corner. I've never used it and have not experienced any adverse problems..... although I've never reached court stage either..... which may make a difference to why you've used it here.

 

Can be issued as a part 36 offer by the 'winner' on the day, other than that I'm pretty sure they're never evidenced in chambers.

 

Beaten to it by JC

 

Gez

[paulwlton]

Yet another CMS "transitioning" account accruing Interest (although RBS issued proceedings for a tracker loan) - Note again the section 77 request fee.

 

If senior RBS knew that their recovery system was defective prior to 2000, then the following question requires an answer - Why has this been concealed from the customers effected?

 

Section 17 the theft act 1968 comes into play imo.

 

I've deleted the six digit number after ref.....I presume this is the number of the customers "router" account.

Edited February 14, 2010 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

'without prejudice' means the court will never see it. This term should only be used if your offering to settle all or part of your claim or making a counter offer with a mind as to costs (Part 36)

 

RBSs latest offers to settle are not headed without prejudice so I guess these may be shown to the Judge.

[gezwee]

RBSs latest offers to settle are not headed without prejudice so I guess these may be shown to the Judge.

 

Any documentation can be entered as evidence and could be called by either party under CPR. The only provision I'm aware of outside of this is for part 36 offers but I'm pretty sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I can only guess that any offers already made are intended to put you and your counsel on the backfoot, if they make an offer to settle which cannot be beaten (financially) at litigation you could possibly leave yourself open to their costs.

 

ie, settle now for a clean slate + 5k or win in court at clean slate only and meet costs

 

I have a sneaking suspicion they'll try every game in the book to avoid disclosure.

Edited February 15, 2010 by gezwee
Spelling.........again!!

[paulwlton]

Any documentation can be entered as evidence and could be called by either party under CPR. The only provision I'm aware of outside of this is for part 36 offers but I'm pretty sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I can only guess that any offers already made are intended to put you and your counsel on the backfoot, if they make an offer to settle which cannot be beaten (financially) at litigation you could possibly leave yourself open to their costs.

 

ie, settle now for a clean slate + 5k or win in court at clean slate only and meet costs

 

I have a sneaking suspicion they'll try every game in the book to avoid disclosure.

 

Disclosure?

[gezwee]

Sorry Paul, may be missing where you are up to with RBS at the mo...... assumed you were still seeking full disclosure at hearing for router account usage and policy in order to redress the balance and gain full apology and compensation?

 

Thought you had gone beyond the overriding objectives bit in settling outside of court - are your counsel still seeking redress beyond the remit of chambers or will you be back in court as claimant in the future?

 

Gez