walton v rbos

[paulwlton]

Also he creditor is allowed to operate the judgment debt account alongside the consumer credit account (completely indepenant of each other) with the latter acruing contactual interest and the creditor is not obiged to notify the debtor.

 

This is worrying.

 

Paul

[canobeans]

Also if signing a current finance agreement read the small print & if it's there don't sign or request it's removal which should be initialed by both parties

 

 

Hi JonCris

 

I'm probably showing my ignorance but what does the "it" refer to??

I've read through the posts and must have missed something.

 

Thanks

 

canobeans

[JonCris]

It refers to the clause in the T's&C's that allows the creditor to continue adding contractual interest even after judgment.

 

The creditor can after getting judgment set up a second account into which they can add interest without you knowing until they demand payment.

 

This further demand can be made at anytime during or after you have completed repaying any court judgment.

 

They don't notify you that this exists, as they don't have too if it's already in the T's&C's & they let it run as long as possible because not only is CI added but that interest is compounded. By the time you discover it's owed it can & does often amount to many thousands of pounds

[progenic7]

Hi Paul

 

just wanted to say hi as i havnt been around for a while, but im watching with some interest the developements as they unfold ;-)

 

Johnny

[alanalana]

Noted with interest (not compound).

 

If creditors can do this ie claim interest after a court judgement could claims for bank charges against banks be put into the same category.

If a case goes to court and the claimant wins could he/she then continue to claim interest on the amount that was owed in unfair charges after judgement?

 

al

[JonCris]

Not if they settle the judgment as there is nothing to add interest to.

 

If they don't settle in full for some time & provided you don't settle 'Full & Final' in part you could argue reciprocity of contract & hit them again:grin:

[paulwlton]

Quick update, awaiting a hearing date. After contacting the court yesterday the judge has stayed proceedings untill 30th September on a Cobbetts application. Will find out early next week on what basis.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

I attended an application hearing on Wednesday in Manchester, both parties have agreed that proceedings be transfered to my local court.

The judge after viewing all my documents has made an order for a draft defence to be filed and served with an hearing time set for two hours.

 

 

Paul

[andrew1]

Good luck Paul

[paulwlton]

Draft defence.

 

Witness Statement

 

In the Rotherham County Court

 

Between

 

Claimant: Royal Bank of Scotland plc

 

Defendant:

 

 

BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION

 

1. I Mr. Paul Walton held a Royalties current account no (“the account”) with the Royal Bank of Scotland (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). Various charges for unpaid transactions and unauthorised overdraft positions were applied to the account.

 

2, In March 1998 a £9711 fixed rate personal loan and account overdraft balance of £284,42 was defaulted after a default notice was sent by the claimant. In October 1998 a CCJ was obtained by the bank with the court setting payments at £38.00 per month, which I believe was intended to repay this debt.

 

 

3, The judgment was undefended at the time as it was my belief that the court case was in respect of the personal loan and overdraft mentioned in paragraph 2 and that it was therefore issued legitimately, and so no appeal was raised.

 

4, I note that approximately £1490 in charges was applied to the account between 1995 and account default.

 

5, The situation remained that I was paying £38.00 per month until 2006, when I became aware that there was a controversy as to whether charges

made in respect of contractual breaches were lawful. In 2006 I challenged the charges by use of sec32 Limitation Act 1980 with the claim being struck out at the second hearing. However, subsequent to this action, I became aware of substantive issues that I believe casts considerable doubt on the original CCJ.

 

THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE

 

6, At the end of December 2006 I made a sec 77 CCA request which requires the creditor to supply a statement of account and a copy of the executed loan agreement.

Sec 77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

© the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)©, he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

 

 

 

7, The bank complied with my request albeit out of time and I received a response on the 30th of April 2007. I discovered facts in relation to the original case that I was entirely unaware of at the time. To my utter amazement, the original court judgment actually relates to 2 Consumer Credit Act Agreements allegedly dated 20th August 1998, the first is a variable rate loan of £8849 repayable over 12 months at £787.70 per month the second is also a variable rate loan of £369.00 repayable over 12 months at £32.76 with a statement of account showing £3299, 49 CR and £18485, 77 OD respectively as of 1st of May 2007.

 

8, A clause in each agreement relates to breaches (if there is any breach of this agreement) and charges on default. Interest is calculated at the rate of interest on the daily balance outstanding (both before and after any court decree or judgment) and applied in arrears quarterly.

 

9, I was never aware of these agreements; neither do I think it probable or even likely that the bank would loan me this money a month after I had defaulted on a previous agreement.

 

10, Further, there are technical failures on the part of the bank, if indeed these loans replaced the original defaulted agreements. I am willing to swear on oath that no default notice in relation to s87 (1) was ever received in respect of either account, neither has the Claimant ever provided evidence that such a default notice was ever served.

 

11, I am further willing to swear on oath that I never signed any credit agreement for any loan under the terms that the bank are suggesting. Further, I do not understand how or why any responsible financial institution would under any circumstances whatsoever loan this amount of money to me a month after I had officially defaulted on payments. Neither has the bank proposed any reason why I would have been prepared to agree to terms significantly detrimental to my personal welfare, when it was clear at the time I would be unable to make such payments.

 

12, Nevertheless, it appears that since the original judgment was granted in respect of two loans which I deny ever entering into, and a signed copy of which has never been filed with the court I would respectfully ask the court to consider the following legal arguments.

 

The Larger Loan (Account no 00726774)

13, It also seems clear to me that the Claimant has been behaving in a way that appears entirely extortionate, in opening an account for a sum of £8849.00 and apportioning none of the repayments made under a CCJ to that account, in order to obtain over £21425.72 in benefits from such an account. It has never shown a signed copy of said agreement. The Claimant continues to operate the accounts by applying further interest and the figure stated above is the amount at 9th October 2007.

 

14, Below has been taken from the Insolvency UK website concerning the appliance of contractual interest after judgment. However, for this to be legally binding it must be stipulated that interest will be charged after judgment in the original agreement.

 

However, some credit agreements allow a creditor to add contractual interest on to the amount of the county court judgment.

This has been confirmed as legally binding following a Court of Appeal case taken by the Office of Fair Trading against First National Bank. This means that, while you are paying the county court judgment, contractual interest may be charged on the amount that you still owe on the judgment. This may not be made clear to you by the creditor. If this is the case, when you have paid the original balance owed on the judgment, you will find that you have an extra amount that you may still owe the creditor.

· If a county court judgment has been made, without a time order, it is important to check both the amount owing on the county court judgment and any separate contractual interest that is being added.

· Creditors may keep these two sets of figures in two separate accounts or add them together in one account, "to make it easier for customers". If all the information is held in one account, you need to get a separate breakdown of both how much is owing on the county court judgment and the amount of contractual interest that has been added.

 

15, Further, it is noted that the figure claimed on this account is entirely in contravention of the Statute Of Limitations s5, 24(2). I am further aware that I have the right to appropriate payments under the consumer credit act 1974

 

s 81 of the consumer credit act 1974

 

Appropriation of payments.

— (1) Where a debtor or hirer is liable to make to the same person payments in respect of two or more regulated agreements, he shall be entitled, on making any payment in respect of the agreements which is not sufficient to discharge the total amount then due under all the agreements, to appropriate the sum so paid by him—

(a) in or towards the satisfaction of the sum due under any one of the agreements, or

(b)in or towards the satisfaction of the sums due under any two or more of the agreements in such proportions as he thinks fit.

16, The act does not place a time limitation on the exertion of this right. In the event that the court should adjudge that this agreement enforceable (and that therefore, payments were due) I exert my statutory right in respect of appropriation to the extent that a sufficient repayment were made to fulfill my repayment responsibilities under this agreement.

 

Please note, that it is my belief that all respective times, this agreement was unexecuted and therefore unenforceable.

 

 

 

 

ENFORCEABILITY OF THESE AGREEMENTS AND TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENTS

 

 

17, On the 9th of October 2006 I requested a copy of the executed agreement including a statement of account under sec77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Respondent forwarded a statement of account but failed its obligation to supply a true copy of the original agreement.

 

18, On the 13th December 2006 I made a second legally binding request. I was informed by a letter dated 13th April 2007 some four months after the my request that enforcement had ceased until the agreement had been located.

 

19, A recent Subject Access Request has revealed the claimant was not in possession of any agreements bearing the defendant’s signature therefore in order to comply with sec 77 and continue to enforce the agreements the claimant requested an internal reconstruction of the agreements. I am only aware of one instance where this is allowed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Co1983 No. 1557

CONSUMER CREDIT

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost etc.

9. Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof.

 

 

20, The defendant has evidence from a leaked internal document dated 8th June 2007 that the claimant is recreating lost Consumer Credit Act Agreements has part of its normal business practice. However, the claimant's practice is contrary to The OFT's view dated 4th of October 2007:

 

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 itcannot 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.

21, On the 30th April 2007 the Claimant forwarded two conjectured loan agreements (dated 20th August 1998 purporting to be assigned to the two accounts which were subjected to the judgment, the agreements include the defendants name and branch where the loans were taken out, further, an express term of the agreement allows the Claimant to charge contractual interest after decree or judgment and applied quarterly to the account.

Furthermore the agreements the bank forwarded did not include my address, this is contrary to the (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. I am only aware of sec 62 of the Act which would allow the creditor to omit ones address.

 

1983 No. 1557

CONSUMER CREDIT

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

General requirements as to form and content of copy documents

3.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru*ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

© in the case of any copy of an unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of the Act, the name and address of the debtor or hirer; and

(d) in the case of any copy given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the .

Act of an executed agreement for fixed-sum credit under which a person takes any article in pawn, any description of the article taken in pawn.

 

 

 

22, These allegedly true agreements were strenuously and repeatedly disputed by myself as not being true copies and never witnessed by me. Furthermore the Claimant after stating they had complied fully with the Consumer Credit Act changed their explanation of the agreements by claiming them to be internal documents or has a vehicle to collect the my monthly payment and not as previously claimed true copies as originally provided to me.

 

23, Therefore I contend that the agreements the Claimant has forwarded in compliance with the defendants original CCA request are not true copies and are intended to mislead the defendant and the Court as to their validity. I dispute the Claimants authority to apply any and all charges, including additional interest, to the accounts. Therefore in view of this change of position by the Respondent I ask that the Court treat the evidence of the Claimant with caution.

 

 

24, It is also my contention that the Claimants agreement does not comply with sec 65(1) of the CCA in so far as it is not signed by myself in the prescribed manor and if my assertion is correct then the Court was precluded from lawfully issuing an enforcement order at the time it did so.

 

25, In this matter I wish to draw the courts attention to section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which governs these agreements and states as follows

 

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner.

The attention of the court is drawn to Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch) thus:

 

‘what the 1974 Act does is put in place a bright line over which the parties, and in particular the lender, must not step…’

 

26, It is possible that the court may consider that the judgment itself constitutes a covenant to pay, independent of the original agreement.

 

27, To the best of my knowledge, this issue has only been brought before the court in Northern Bank Ltd v McKinstry & Anor [2001] NICh 6 (22 March 2001), in which this issue was considered, as follows:

“16. “In this case the judgment related to a debt which had fallen due under a regulated agreement and clause 10 in my view is clear in providing that the security does not cover that sum. While the money is now due as a judgment the debt "arose" out of the regulated agreement. A judgment debt cannot be looked at in total isolation from the underlying legal basis giving rise to the judgment.

 

The wider ground for holding that the mortgage does not cover the judgment debt lies in the proposition also established in London Borough Council v El Isaac namely that the doctrine of merger cannot be allowed to contradict a statute.

28. It is admitted that thisjudgment was handed down in a Northern Ireland court; however, the relevant parts of the regulatory framework of the consumer credit act 1974 are identical in all regions of the United Kingdom.

 

29, If the court should decide that, despite this evidence, the agreements were enforceable at the time that the actions were brought, nevertheless in such an action there are certain legal requirements:

 

Arguments against the correctness of the claimed figure in the original judgment

 

There are six main arguments against the correctness of the figures claimed in the original judgment. These are:

 

(a) That the agreements contained an amount in respect of miss-sold Payment Protection Insurance

(b) That the agreements reflect a modifying agreement of the original credit agreement, and that these agreements charged greater interest rates and default charges than the original debts would have, and are in breach of s93 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

© That the default notice (s) (if any) contained unlawful charges in respect of contractual breaches and that (therefore) the default notice (s) was invalid and any subsequent judgment void by virtue of s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

(d) That the sec 76 termination notice (s) contained an amount in respect of miss-stated interest and therefore invalid.

(e) That the s87 default notice incorrectly states the amount of arrears and that (therefore) the default notice was invalid and any subsequent judgment void by virtue of s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

(f) That the judgment contained an unlawful element of default charges in respect of contractual breaches.

 

MISS-SOLD Payment protection insurance

 

30, I further contend that the claimant miss-sold payment protection insurance included in the original loan agreement as this was made a prerequisite to approval; and that this was not included as a charge in the total charge for credit as required by the consumer credit (agreement regulations) 1984.

 

31, I rely on a leaked internal document which shows the selling of PPI to be heavily bonus related therefore I think it fair to conclude the claimant failed its fiduciary duty or duty of care by neglecting the defendants own interests in favour of its own.

 

32, After attempts to cancel the insurance and reduce the judgment debt the claimant has made it clear in a letter dated 17th Jan 2007 that my complaint would have to be referred back to court. The claimant maintains that after default the defendant is precluded from a refund, this position is contrary to the OFT below.

 

Refunds on single premium policies

5.58 If the underlying loan is settled during the term of the policy or the PPI

Policy is cancelled, a refund of a proportion of the premium will usually

be given. The basis of the calculation will vary but it reflects the fact

that the insurer's liability reduces as the term of the loan progresses.

The FSA has indicated, and trade associations have agreed, that firms

should not include nil refund terms in their PPI policies when a consumer

cancels a policy for any reason, except where a claim has already been

paid under the insurance policy or the consumer has instead chosen to

take continuing PPI cover for another loan.

Lawfulness of charges

 

33, According to the Claimant’s skeleton argument dated 03/10/2007 it is claimed that the bank charges contained in the judgment has already been determined by Deputy District Judge Monroe in the Rotherham County Court and that there is no real prospect of any defence succeeding .

 

34, However, this is a set aside application in respect of judgment which included these charges. Further, at the time the judgment was issued it was reasonable to assume that these charges reflected a fair estimate of the liquidated damages of a default, since at that time the respondent represented this to be the case. It was only as a result of the leak of information from several banks that the true circumstances became known (that is, the actual cost of late payments and returned item charges were placed into the public domain)

 

35, This is requesting the set aside of a judgment, where all the facts were not known until 2006. Deputy District Judge Monroe was correct that this did not, due to the Limitations Act 1980, constitute a separate cause of action.

However under the Limitations Act 1980 s35

 

3) Except as provided by section 33 of this Act or by rules of court, neither the High Court nor any county court shall allow a new claim within subsection (1)(b) above, other than an original set-off or counterclaim, to be made in the course of any action after the expiry of any time limit under this Act which would affect a new action to enforce that claim.

 

For the purposes of this subsection, a claim is an original set-off or an original counterclaim if it is a claim made by way of set-off or (as the case may be) by way of counterclaim by a party who has not previously made any claim in the action.

 

(4) Rules of court may provide for allowing a new claim to which subsection (3) above applies to be made as there mentioned, but only if the conditions specified in subsection (5) below are satisfied, and subject to any further restrictions the rules may impose.

(5) The conditions referred to in subsection (4) above are the following—

(a)

in the case of a claim involving a new cause of action, if the new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as are already in issue on any claim previously made in the original action; and

36, I would therefore respectfully submit that the court has the authority to hear my application for set aside on the basis of a claim arising out of substantially the same facts.

 

37, I would respectfully submit to the court that, if these charges were unlawful I would be entitled to rely on both mistake of law AND mistake of fact, in line with the recent decisions of the high court.

 

38, In any case, this is an application for set aside, and I respectfully submit that the court should consider the facts as they stood on the day that the enforcement order was granted. At that time, the sec 76 Termination notice (s) contained a figure in respect of these charges and would have been invalid in line with Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) - Re: default notices.

 

In my judgment, Mr Hodgkinson is right for the reasons which he has given. This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals. When contracting with a large financial organisation they are at a disadvantage. The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If the hirer is said to have broken its terms, the hirer needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as "the next step".

 

 

 

The argument which commended itself to the assistant recorder in the present case was that the approach to Section 88 (1) (b) of the 1974 Act should be the same as that adopted in relation, for example, to Section 24 (2) (b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. I do not agree. Here we are dealing with a statute which, for good and obvious reasons, requires a lender or owner to set out precisely what needs to be done to put right the alleged breach of contract. If a sum of money has to be paid it needs to be "specified". And if the figure given is more than the sum which the giver of the notice is entitled to demand, the notice, in my judgment, must be invalid. A similarly strict approach was taken in this court in relation to a preliminary notice under Case D of the Agricultural Holdings (Notice to Quit) Act 1977 in Dickinson v Boucher [1983] 269 EGLR 1159. But, as Mr Gruffyd points out, the words of the statute were very different. I do not, therefore, look to that authority for support in arriving at the conclusion to which I have already referred.

 

39, Further, any inaccuracy in the default notices would place the respondent to a position in which it was not entitled to terminate the accounts in line with s87 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and consequently the enforcement order granted by the court was granted without knowledge of all the facts of the case, and should be set aside so all arguments can be brought.

 

40,It is admitted by the Claimant in a letter dated 23 0ctober 2007 that the figure given to remedy the breach contained in the sec 87 default notice was more than the Claimant was entitled to demand therefore the notice was void at the time it was issued therefore, the Claimant must have rescinded the contract without legal entitlement, in which case the defendant would have a claim for damages in line with. /Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

 

It is abundantly clear, in my judgment, that history has changed the social factors which moulded the rule in the nineteenth

Century. It is not only a tradesman of whom it can be said that the refusal to meet his cheque is 'so obviously injurious to [his]

credit' that he should 'recover, without allegation of special damage, reasonable compensation for the injury done to his

credit' (see [1920] AC 102 at 112, [1918-19] All ER Rep 1035 at 1037 per Lord Birkenhead LC). The credit rating of

individuals is as important for their personal transactions, including mortgages and hire-purchase as well as banking facilities,

as it is for those who are engaged in trade, and it is notorious that central registers are now kept. I would have no hesitation in

holding that what is in effect a presumption of some damage arises in every case, in so far as this is a presumption of fact

41, On the 23/March/2007 District Judge Hill sitting at Rotherham Count Court (Walton v Lloyds claim number RT001437) acknowledged that charges levied on the account prior to judgment in 2000 would effect the original amount if deemed unlawful, accordingly judgment was set aside allowing a full defence to be submitted. Rather than defend their charges at a full hearing Lloyds settled out of court.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

42, It is my interpretation that a judgment debt can not be enforceable to a greater extent than the original debt under the regulatory framework applicable (the consumer credit act 1974 and 2006). It is clear that since no enforceable regulated agreement exists at the current time, and where the respondent is unable to produce a copy of the original credit agreement under s77-79 of the consumer credit act 1974, the court is precluded from issuing any further enforcement orders in relation to the debt, and should assert its powers to declare the right of the parties under s142 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

43, If the court decides that there exists an enforceable credit agreement I respectfully ask that the court (for the purpose of expediting the case) orders the claimant to disclose the information requested by myself, that is an original signed credit agreement upon which it seeks to enforce the agreement, and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of judgment..

 

44, In addition to the forgoing I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that the Claimant has acted improperly in supplying documents they must have known to be misleading and ask the Court to award punitive damages by way of indemnity costs or as the Court sees fit.

 

I would further rely on Wilson v Robertson’s judgment in the Court of Appeal 2006 in which their Lordships found the following

 

20. The moral for a pawnbroker such as Mr. Howard is that if he wants the rewards of his trade he must operate strictly by the book, and that the result of failing to do so may be not merely to unravel agreements, but to reverse the indebtedness that they have purportedly created

 

45, Accordingly the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to consider this application and allow a full defence to be submitted.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this document are true.

 

 

 

 

 

Dated October 25, 2007

[jowalshy]

Hi Paul. I am a bit new to the RBS forum, but I have had a little read of your post above. The only thing that is confusing me a little (and I may be wrong) is that it looks like you are saying you are the defendant and the bank is the claimant. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Or am I missing something?

Sorry if I am wrong..

[Rooster-UK]

Hi Paul.

As Jowalshy with reference to Jowalshy's post, I am at work at the moment so haven't time to read your whole thread.

Is it you that's bringing the action? If it is, then YOU are the claimant and the bank is the defendant.

Your letter, above reads that the bank is bringing the action against you.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[paulwlton]

Hi Paul.

As Jowalshy with reference to Jowalshy's post, I am at work at the moment so haven't time to read your whole thread.

Is it you that's bringing the action? If it is, then YOU are the claimant and the bank is the defendant.

Your letter, above reads that the bank is bringing the action against you.

 

Regards, Rooster.

 

When i contested the charges by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980 i was the Claimant. I am now challenging the judgment in which i am the Defendant.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

The Chairman has been mislead by the banks legal dept and as a result the response was totaly inadequate.

 

I am in regular contact with my MP. A follow up letter will be forwarded in due course.

 

[paulwlton]

[paulwlton]

Below: a leaked RBS internal document.

 

In correspondance dated 4th 0ctober 2007 the OFTs reading of sec 77 requires that the creditor be in possession of the original.

 

Should be interesting in court.

 

[GuidoT]

Good on Jane, for creating a 'true copy'.

 

'A classic example of thinking under pressure' what a load of corporate nonsense. I cannot say here openly what they are doing.

 

At the very least I suggest you delete the name of the individual the message has been sent from, I am not sure you should even post this 'message' given its sensitive nature.

[andrew1]

Looks to me as though Mr Lund might be in another position altogether after writing that! - High Jump springs to mind.

 

 

GuidoT, you are quite right to remove it, but isn't THAT (that has been removed) EXACTLY what this forum is about exposing? It wasn't on long enough for anyone to have done much, but you must admit, that was extremely foolish to have put in writing - something I'd expect the like of Cabot to do - but RBS?

[paulwlton]

Looks to me as though Mr Lund might be in another position altogether after writing that! - High Jump springs to mind.

 

 

GuidoT, you are quite right to remove it, but isn't THAT (that has been removed) EXACTLY what this forum is about exposing? It wasn't on long enough for anyone to have done much, but you must admit, that was extremely foolish to have put in writing - something I'd expect the like of Cabot to do - but RBS?

 

It will be posted again if i get the Green light from CAG, this time with names deleted.

 

Paul

[GuidoT]

Looks to me as though Mr Lund might be in another position altogether after writing that! - High Jump springs to mind.

 

 

GuidoT, you are quite right to remove it, but isn't THAT (that has been removed) EXACTLY what this forum is about exposing? It wasn't on long enough for anyone to have done much, but you must admit, that was extremely foolish to have put in writing - something I'd expect the like of Cabot to do - but RBS?

 

I agree that they are foolish, they even seem to be boasting about what they have done.

 

The post has been temporarily removed whilst it is being considered, it may well appear back.

 

To an extent this forum is about exposing banks for what they are, but we need to temper that with the need to protect individual users and CAG from any unintended consequences.

 

I have not responded to your PM.

[paulwlton]

I agree that they are foolish, they even seem to be boasting about what they have done.

 

The post has been temporarily removed whilst it is being considered, it may well appear back.

 

To an extent this forum is about exposing banks for what they are, but we need to temper that with the need to protect individual users and CAG from any unintended consequences.

 

I have not responded to your PM.

 

It is one of a number of documents that will be revealed to a court in the near future. I do hope it gets the Green light, as it shows the bank for what it is.

 

Paul

[WormHasTurned]

:o

[paulwlton]

This is also a reconstruted agreement i spotted on the forum.

 

 

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee228/bedding4all/natwestcca-1.jpg

[paulwlton]

Check out both agreements you will see they have been reconsructed by the same person.

[photoman]

....and judging by the handwriting..... looks like it was a 6 year old !!