walton v rbos

[Vulture_Bank]

time to view a case when RBS cobbetts came runner up me thinks

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/rbs-bos-successes/49470-contractual-interest-details-case.html

[paulwlton]

I'm sure I don't need to remind you Paul to think very carefully about whether to proceed. No doubt you feel you have a water tight case, but you know that something might be thrown up in court that you've missed. Even if you withdraw now, you may still have to pay costs, although you may be able to negotiate that you'll withdraw the case if they don't claim costs from you. It may or may not work.

 

You are absolutely right not to be intimidated by the costs threat, but by the same token just sit back and think about if you and your family can afford the risks. Principles, rights and justice are wonderful things, but a roof over your head is more important, and it's easy for others to encourage you on, but at the end of the day it's you who would pay.

 

In all honesty I'm not just posting this for you, but for others thinking of fighting on the basis of theories of how the law should or could be interpreted.

 

Just out of interest, have you worked out how much the costs are in total so far including VAT?

 

I am fully aware of the financial consequences caro, and no i can't afford the risks, but i have no other option the bank will not close the accounts and they remain accruing compound contractual interest.

 

Paul

[caro]

That case appears to have been won by default VB, unless I'm missing something. It was also for under £5k, so may well have been in the small claims court. Can you clarify the significance of that to Paul's case please, or are you assuming that the bank won't fight this case?

 

If I'm missing something could you please point me to specific posts so that I don't have to read the whole thread. I must admit, I haven't followed Paul's thread in it's entirety (he knows all this legal technicality stuff goes over my head. ), but I'm pretty good at picking up danger signs.

[Vulture_Bank]

That case appears to have been won by default VB, unless I'm missing something. It was also for under £5k, so may well have been in the small claims court. Can you clarify the significance of that to Paul's case please, or are you assuming that the bank won't fight this case?

 

If I'm missing something could you please point me to specific posts so that I don't have to read the whole thread. I must admit, I haven't followed Paul's thread in it's entirety (he knows all this legal technicality stuff goes over my head. ), but I'm pretty good at picking up danger signs.

 

as usual you are right sorry ! ( just made an assumption [ a wrong one !!!]

[caro]

Don't worry VB. It's very easy to take things at face value, but on closer inspection you can find things aren't as straight forward as they seem.

 

And I'm not always right.

[car2403]

I'm sure I don't need to remind you Paul to think very carefully about whether to proceed. No doubt you feel you have a water tight case, but you know that something might be thrown up in court that you've missed. Even if you withdraw now, you may still have to pay costs, although you may be able to negotiate that you'll withdraw the case if they don't claim costs from you. It may or may not work.

 

You are absolutely right not to be intimidated by the costs threat, but by the same token just sit back and think about if you and your family can afford the risks. Principles, rights and justice are wonderful things, but a roof over your head is more important, and it's easy for others to encourage you on, but at the end of the day it's you who would pay.

 

In all honesty I'm not just posting this for you, but for others thinking of fighting on the basis of theories of how the law should or could be interpreted.

 

Just out of interest, have you worked out how much the costs are in total so far including VAT?

 

Sound, considered advice, Caro...

 

Paul has had 22,000 views of this thread - surely those reading this are getting some benefit, so why not start a "donation to read my thread" appeal? 10p per view would cover these fees so far...

[caro]

You'd probably be surprised how few would pay Car, although it's a nice idea. CAG wouldn't allow it though.

[paulwlton]

Caro, i've emailed you.

 

Paul

[caro]

I'll get back to you Paul.

[paulwlton]

In any case, result or no result. I have a meeting in the new year with my Lord i know personally, who chairs a committee in the house.

 

Paul

[shane5408]

I would be more than happy to donate, gauging how a court and more importantly a district judge acts in situations like this invaluable, though I've been in court for similar cases on many occassions we still have to few 'real experiences' to go on. Maybe a post outling the facts of the case, donation etc and a link to a paypal account would be allowed?

 

kind regards,

shane

[caro]

No it wouldn't Shane.

[paulwlton]

I would be more than happy to donate, gaging how a court and more importantly a district judge acts in situations like this invaluable, though I've been in court for similar cases on many occassions we still have to few 'real experiences' to go on. Maybe a post outling the facts of the case, donation etc and a link to a paypal account would be allowed?

 

kind regards,

shane

 

Thanks guys, but like i've said if i incur costs i'll take it on the chin.

 

Fingers crossed i get the right judge.

 

Paul.

[humbleman]

Paul

 

Worry not, you are a winner. My gut feeling.

 

All the best

[alanfromderby]

I have not been on this thread for some considerable time, and have just spent some time going through the events. Whilst I appreciate that it is late in the day, I would make the following observations that I think may be helpful:

 

1) I am concerned that the concealment argument you used in relation to the charges may have been ambiguous. It is essential that the argument concentrates strongly that the bank concealed the true nature of the charges, in that they did not reveal that the charges exceeded the costs.

 

2) You said that you questioned the charges in 2002 - what was their reply. If they gave an indication that the charges were lawful and that they related to their costs then that is a fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

3) I am still not convinced that section 77/78 apply where CCJ is in place. My understanding is that the enforcement of a judgement debt, is not reliant on the CCA.

 

4) Your claim is based in civil law, because of this I would say that the fictitious agreement arguments need to be under common law fraud and the Misrepresentation Act, not the Fraud Act. Without being able to establish fraud I would agree with the judge's view that revisiting the original paperwork would be statute barred.

 

5) I am concerned with the argument they have used about the destruction of documents - especially as you raised the issue about charges in 2002. To destroy documents relating to an account in dispute would breach the FSA Principles. I would also suggest that they have breached:

 

a) The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007 which state that key documents (such as agreements) must be kept until 5 years "after the business relationship" ends.

 

b) Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21), which states that "all supporting documents" must be kept for six years after the end of the tax year - I would interpret that to mean that on the case of a loan, the whole file would need to be kept for six years after it is repaid.

 

c) Sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, say that a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b). As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

 

6) The banks admission of a mistake on the default notice should be clear evidence supporting your contention that you have a defence that has a good prospect of success.

 

7) The PPI misselling will also be based on misrepresentations during the selling process. Have a read through the stickies in the PPI Forum - this might also help you show that fraudulent misrepresentation occurred.

 

8) The question about the consolidation and changes to the structure of the accounts and loans may also be worth looking at - was this in your interest or theirs?

 

 

Hope all that helps.

[caro]

OOh Alan what a star you are.

[paulwlton]

Thank's Alan, your comments are appreciated.

 

Paul

 

 

I have not been on this thread for some considerable time, and have just spent some time going through the events. Whilst I appreciate that it is late in the day, I would make the following observations that I think may be helpful:

 

 

1) I am concerned that the concealment argument you used in relation to the charges may have been ambiguous. It is essential that the argument concentrates strongly that the bank concealed the true nature of the charges, in that they did not reveal that the charges exceeded the costs.

 

Agree, and whilst the debt is live and ongoing it would be unjust for the court to allow the bank to profit from their misrepresentation.

 

2) You said that you questioned the charges in 2002 - what was their reply. If they gave an indication that the charges were lawful and that they related to their costs then that is a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Don't remember that one.

 

3) I am still not convinced that section 77/78 apply where CCJ is in place. My understanding is that the enforcement of a judgement debt, is not reliant on the CCA.

 

Only a court can make a definitive ruling but my advice from a consumer lawyer is sec 77 applies.

 

4) Your claim is based in civil law, because of this I would say that the fictitious agreement arguments need to be under common law fraud and the Misrepresentation Act, not the Fraud Act. Without being able to establish fraud I would agree with the judge's view that revisiting the original paperwork would be statute barred.

 

Yes my claim is based in civil law, but my understanding is that if an offence has been committed the DJ has the power to refer it to the CPS.

 

5) I am concerned with the argument they have used about the destruction of documents - especially as you raised the issue about charges in 2002. To destroy documents relating to an account in dispute would breach the FSA Principles. I would also suggest that they have breached:

 

Why would they destroy documents whilst a debt remains?. I note they haven't destroyed the fictitious statements that have been ongoing since 1998.

 

a) The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007 which state that key documents (such as agreements) must be kept until 5 years "after the business relationship" ends.

 

b) Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21), which states that "all supporting documents" must be kept for six years after the end of the tax year - I would interpret that to mean that on the case of a loan, the whole file would need to be kept for six years after it is repaid.

 

c) Sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, say that a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b). As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

 

Thank's Alan, i'll have a read up.

6) The banks admission of a mistake on the default notice should be clear evidence supporting your contention that you have a defence that has a

good prospect of success.

 

Agree, this proves the bank had no legal right to obtain judgment.

 

7) The PPI misselling will also be based on misrepresentations during the selling process. Have a read through the stickies in the PPI Forum - this might also help you show that fraudulent misrepresentation occurred.

 

Agree, but hard to prove. My word against theirs.

 

8) The question about the consolidation and changes to the structure of the accounts and loans may also be worth looking at - was this in your interest or theirs?

 

Alan, i have submitted evidence that will prove the bank set me up.

 

 

Hope all that helps.

[alanfromderby]

Paragraph 7 - the Misrepresentation Act switches the burden of proof onto the seller. There is a lot of new stuff in the Library on misrep caselaw.

 

Paragraph 4 - certainly the judge can report it to the CPS, but really that does not help your case.

 

Paragraph 3 - I had an application to overturn a charging order turned down in court. One of my arguments was that they were in breach of a CCA at the time, but the judge was not interested as he considered that the matter had been judged upon, and the action was to enforce the judgement debt.

[paulwlton]

Will check out the Misrep Act. I think my case is strong, the ring binder containing the documents i have submitted reads like a book.

 

I think it was BF who said i wouldn't stand a chance challenging a seven year old judgment which contained a hefty £95.00 in default charges. Well i won.

 

What i'm saying is all judges have different interpretations of the law, that's why we have appeal courts.

 

Paul

[alanfromderby]

I too think you have a strong case - but I always prefer to have more ammunition than I may necessarily need.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I think it was BF who said i wouldn't stand a chance challenging a seven year old judgment which contained a hefty £95.00 in default charges. Well i won.

 

Paul can you give me more info on the above. Same boat as me with charges on a CCJ

[Vulture_Bank]

paul know you are section 77

 

this post relates to credit cards section 78

posted on this website november 15th 2007

 

Open Letter to the Royal Bank Of Scotland

Dear Mr Graeme Hill (Home Authority contact for RBS)

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1237151.html

 

Dear Mr Graeme Hill (Home Authority contact for RBS)

 

Do you or do you not deny that your collections department has in the last twelve months issued letter(s) containing the following paragraph?

 

"Although we have been able to provide you with a copy of the credit card application and the latest Terms and Conditions we have been unable to obtain a copy of the original Terms of the account > In view of this the remaining balance of the card account has been written off and your obligations to us under the agreement are discharged."

 

 

 

 

meaning they realise they have to supply as well as th the original agreement the original terms and conditions and consequently do a write off

 

section 77(1) HAS THE SAME CONTENT AS 78(1)

 

THE IMPLICATION IS should you turn up on the day with the agreement bring the original terms and conditions !!

[Having_A_Knightmare]

paul know you are section 77

 

this post relates to credit cards section 78

posted on this website november 15th 2007

 

Open Letter to the Royal Bank Of Scotland

Dear Mr Graeme Hill (Home Authority contact for RBS)

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1237151.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaning they realise they have to supply as well as th the original agreement the original terms and conditions and consequently do a write off

 

section 77(1) HAS THE SAME CONTENT AS 78(1)

 

THE IMPLICATION IS should you turn up on the day with the agreement bring the original terms and conditions !!

 

VB

 

I am getting confused with the above.

i thought Graeme Hill was a Trading standards Officer for Edinburgh so why would you write to him at the collections department

[Vulture_Bank]

VB

 

I am getting confused with the above.

i thought Graeme Hill was a Trading standards Officer for Edinburgh so why would you write to him at the collections department

 

apologies if got the name wrong but am trying to educate Royal BAnk of Scotland regarding their realisation that the original terms and conditions are required.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

VB

 

Ive been at the RBS for ages about theses Original T&C and no matter what I say they will not give in. Any help with names would be great.

 

HAK